They said:

There are several answers to the claim, “This entails that He is made perfect by something other than Himself, and thus was deficient beforehand.”

First: this objection is countered by the very effects He produces. Whatever answer is given concerning those effects also answers this objection. In the observable world, we know of no agent who is not perfected through his action.

Second: they said that His perfection consists in His always being able to act with wisdom. Were He supposed to be incapable of that, He would be deficient.

Third: the claim that He is made perfect by something other than Himself is false. For that comes about only through His power and will, with no partner sharing in it; thus, He has no need of another in this regard. To say that He is perfect by virtue of His action, in which He needs no other, is like saying that He is perfect by virtue of His attributes or His very essence.

Fourth: regarding the claim that He was deficient beforehand, if this means the absence of what has newly come about, we do not concede that its absence before the time at which wisdom required its existence constitutes a deficiency. If His being deficient is intended to mean something else, that is denied. Rather, the absence of something at a time when wisdom does not require its existence is an aspect of perfection, just as its existence at the time when wisdom requires it is perfection. Not everything’s absence, then, is a deficiency; rather, the absence of what ought to exist