Would God have become man if man had not fallen?

[Pioro]

I heard from a reliable person (theologically sound and well-read priest of some 25 years; Ph.D. in the theology of St. Bonaventure) that God’s plan for mankind included some kind of revelation or appearance of Himself to man, and that God would have come to man even if man had not fallen.

This was just something said in a long and rich conversation about various theological ideas, so there wasn’t time to ask for more detail about that (we were, in fact, discussing something else, and this just came up).

Can anyone give me some information on this? If man had not fallen, would God have come to earth and revealed himself somehow (in human form?) to mankind?

I assume this must be some kind of theological speculation, since I can’t recall anything in the Bible that implies such an expectation (God walking in the cool of the evening and speaking to Adam and Eve is after the Fall…).

I’m looking for authoritative sources for this idea.

Thanks!

 

[Cat_Herder]

Answer: No. That is why the liturgy for the Easter Vigil Mass describes the original sin as a “happy fault that won for us so great a Redeemer.” (paraphrase)

 

[tonyrey]

I don’t regard myself as an authoritative source but it seems clear that if no one had sinned there would be no need for redemption and no need for Jesus to liberate us from evil. What reason would there be for Him to become a man?

 

[Theophorus]

My feeling is that had we not sinned the incarnation would have happened anyway, the cross would not have though. This concept(of the incarnation without the fall) features in the theology of Blessed John Duns Scotus, Pope Benedict comments on it in one of his Wednesday audiences:
BXVI:

First of all he meditated on the Mystery of the Incarnation and, unlike many Christian thinkers of the time, held that the Son of God would have been made man even if humanity had not sinned. He says in his “Reportatio Parisiensis”: “To think that God would have given up such a task had Adam not sinned would be quite unreasonable! I say, therefore, that the fall was not the cause of Christ’s predestination and that if no one had fallen, neither the angel nor man in this hypothesis Christ would still have been predestined in the same way” (in III Sent., d. 7, 4). This perhaps somewhat surprising thought crystallized because, in the opinion of Duns Scotus the Incarnation of the Son of God, planned from all eternity by God the Father at the level of love is the fulfilment of creation and enables every creature, in Christ and through Christ, to be filled with grace and to praise and glorify God in eternity. Although Duns Scotus was aware that in fact, because of original sin, Christ redeemed us with his Passion, Death and Resurrection, he reaffirmed that the Incarnation is the greatest and most beautiful work of the entire history of salvation, that it is not conditioned by any contingent fact but is God’s original idea of ultimately uniting with himself the whole of creation, in the Person and Flesh of the Son.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20100707_en.html

P.S Bl. John Duns Scotus was a Franciscan like St. Bonaventure and I wouldn’t be surprised if you could find morein Franciscan theology

 

[Snoopy333]

In the ancient Vedas, Krishna says that when evil threatens to overcome good, God descends in human form. God is looking out for His creation.

 

[Crusading_Canuk]

In the ancient Vedas, Krishna says that when evil threatens to overcome good, God descends in human form. God is looking out for His creation.

The Vidas is a Hindu scripture and Krishna a PAGAN Hindu “god” (or avatar). Pagan teachings should not be heeded by Christians so this point is irrevalent to the OP. Also why does your religion say “Protestant” if you promote a form of paganism?

 

[Pioro]

My feeling is that had we not sinned the incarnation would have happened anyway, the cross would not have though. This concept(of the incarnation without the fall) features in the theology of Blessed John Duns Scotus, Pope Benedict comments on it in one of his Wednesday audiences:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2010/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20100707_en.html

P.S Bl. John Duns Scotus was a Franciscan like St. Bonaventure and I wouldn’t be surprised if you could find morein Franciscan theology

Thank you! I think you’ve found the source.

Actually, the priest I was talking to is a Franciscan, and we were working on his thesis on Bonaventure when we had the conversation. (He’s not a native-speaker of English, so needed help correcting the English, and that led to a lot of theological discussions so I could be sure I was correctly stating what he intended to say.) Duns Scotus came up often in our conversations, so it must have been from him.

No surprise if Benedict XVI wrote about it - his Ph.D. was on Bonaventure, too, and is referenced in my priest-friend’s Ph.D. as well.

This just nails it for me. Now that I read your quote, it brings the comment back into context - maybe it was when we were working on the nature of the Second Person of the Trinity…?

These forums are so great. Ask any question and SOMEBODY out there probably has an authoritative answer!

Thanks a lot.

 

[Theophorus]

:tiphat:

 

[tonyrey]

The Vidas is a Hindu scripture and Krishna a PAGAN Hindu “god” (or avatar). Pagan teachings should not be heeded by Christians so this point is irrevalent to the OP. Also why does your religion say “Protestant” if you promote a form of paganism?

Fundamental spiritual truths are to be found in all religions…

 

[BlueShadow123]

That is impossible because before anyone was created, God knew he would create people who would eventually fall which would result in him needing to die for us. This is how he chose to do things, so it would not have been an other way since he knew it and chose it.