Would have the Incarnation have happened no matter what?

  • Thread starter Thread starter MarcoPG
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MarcoPG

Guest
Hello everyone,
A post by another user made me wonder:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Classicist
Friends,
…]

Following Franciscan theology, I personally believe the Incarnation was planned by God regardless of the Fall of Man …]

Why would the Incarnation have occured, if Man had remained sinless?

Thank you
 
Hello everyone,
A post by another user made me wonder:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Classicist
Friends,
…]

Following Franciscan theology, I personally believe the Incarnation was planned by God regardless of the Fall of Man …]

Why would the Incarnation have occured, if Man had remained sinless?

Thank you
I find theological “would… if” questions to be rather difficult to answer, because God, knowing all things that would happen before the creation of anything, predetermined all the actions He would make. There was no possibility that the Incarnation would not happen because God knew from the beginning that man would fall.
 
Hello everyone,
A post by another user made me wonder:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Classicist
Friends,
…]

Following Franciscan theology, I personally believe the Incarnation was planned by God regardless of the Fall of Man …]

Why would the Incarnation have occured, if Man had remained sinless?

Thank you
I think living in an Eternal Now, God would have known exactly what would happen for all of eternity so all provisions would naturally have been in place from the word GO. Or something like that.
 
If the incarnation of the second person of the trinity was planned even before Adam & Eve sinned, then the circumstances of his coming would necessarily have been very different. Without sin in the world, there would have been no enslavement of the Israelites, no need for Passover, no need for atonement and therefore no need for (and probably no concept of) a crucifixion. It would be a very different world.
 
Hello everyone,
A post by another user made me wonder:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Classicist
Friends,
…]

Following Franciscan theology, I personally believe the Incarnation was planned by God regardless of the Fall of Man …]

Why would the Incarnation have occured, if Man had remained sinless?

Thank you
In our profession of faith, the creed, which we recite every Sunday at Mass, we say “for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”

CCC#457 “The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins” (1 Jn 4:10; 4:14; 3:5.)”

So, according to our profession of faith, the Nicene Creed, God the Son became incarnate “for us men and for our salvation” to save us from our sins.

The CCC#458-460 lists also some other reasons why God the Son became flesh.
 
In our profession of faith, the creed, which we recite every Sunday at Mass, we say “for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”

CCC#457 “The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins” (1 Jn 4:10; 4:14; 3:5.)”

So, according to our profession of faith, the Nicene Creed, God the Son became incarnate “for us men and for our salvation” to save us from our sins.

The CCC#458-460 lists also some other reasons why God the Son became flesh.
This is precisely te reason why I don’t see the logic in thinking the Son would have taken a human nature, if there was no sinner to be sacrificed for.
I can accept that the Son could have incarnated to be nearer in a sort of New Jerusalem with new Heaven and new Earth, but this is very, very speculative. Incarnating in a glorified body…I don’t know. 🙂
 
In our profession of faith, the creed, which we recite every Sunday at Mass, we say “for us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven.”

CCC#457 “The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Savior of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins” (1 Jn 4:10; 4:14; 3:5.)”

So, according to our profession of faith, the Nicene Creed, God the Son became incarnate “for us men and for our salvation” to save us from our sins.

The CCC#458-460 lists also some other reasons why God the Son became flesh.
I don’t know what St. Francis said about it, but I think it’s an interesting question.

Note that our profession doesn’t simply say “for our salvation”, it says “for us men and for our salvation.” So one might ask, if salvation wasn’t required, would He still have been incarnated for us? Remember that the primary image we have for the Son’s relationship with us is that of Bridegroom and Bride. Would that have been negated if the Bride didn’t need to be redeemed? Would He have chosen not to wed Himself to us?

We know that His primary purpose in Incarnation was our Salvation. That was the Father’s purpose for sending Him. But that’s to a fallen humanity. This doesn’t mean He would not have sent Him for another purpose if Salvation wasn’t needed.

Our ultimate purpose is theotokos. We are meant to be united to God, to enter into His Divine Family, to share in His Life. This was always our purpose, even before sin. So the I think in order to answer this question, we should consider whether Incarnation was ever necessary for that end.
 
I don’t know what St. Francis said about it, but I think it’s an interesting question.

Note that our profession doesn’t simply say “for our salvation”, it says “for us men and for our salvation.” So one might ask, if salvation wasn’t required, would He still have been incarnated for us? Remember that the primary image we have for the Son’s relationship with us is that of Bridegroom and Bride. Would that have been negated if the Bride didn’t need to be redeemed? Would He have chosen not to wed Himself to us?

We know that His primary purpose in Incarnation was our Salvation. That was the Father’s purpose for sending Him. But that’s to a fallen humanity. This doesn’t mean He would not have sent Him for another purpose if Salvation wasn’t needed.

Our ultimate purpose is theotokos. We are meant to be united to God, to enter into His Divine Family, to share in His Life. This was always our purpose, even before sin. So the I think in order to answer this question, we should consider whether Incarnation was ever necessary for that end.
I don’t think St Francis said anything about it. If I’m not mistaken, the idea that the Son of God would have become incarnate even if Adam and Eve had not sinned is the work of Blessed Duns Scotus who was a franciscan philosopher and theologian in the 13th century. I’m not sure what St Bonaventura’s opinion is on the matter; he was also a franciscan.

Thomas Aquinas addresses the question as well in the Summa Theologica, Part III, q. 1, art. 3. He says:
Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, “For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost”; “Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come.” And on 1 Timothy 1:15, “Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners,” a gloss says, “There was no cause of Christ’s coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine.”
I answer that, There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.
For such things as spring from God’s will, and beyond the creature’s due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate."

In the CCC “Why did the Word become Flesh” it says:
With the Nicene Creed, we answer by confessing: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” (#456)

In expounding on this article of the creed, the first thing the CCC says is:
The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins” (#457).

The quotes here are from 1 John 4:10, 4:14, 3:5. The CCC next lists some other reasons for the incarnation which are very fitting.

The first announcement of the Messiah or the Redeemer is in the protoevangelium (the first gospel); Genesis 3:9, 15; CCC#410. This announcement came after the sin and fall of Adam and Eve, not before it.

I agree with Aquinas then that everything in Holy Scripture which is really all we can go by on the question at hand, without speculating or guessing as it were, points to the incarnation as a remedy for sin even though as Aquinas says, even without sin, God could have become incarnate.

As far as the Bridegroom and Bride relationship, Adam and Eve were already the brides of the Son of God through sanctifying grace and original holiness and justice they were created in before their fall. Sanctifying grace puts us in this relationship with God and Adam and Eve possessed sanctifying grace before they sinned and before the Son of God became incarnate.

Theologians, following St Augustine, generally hold that the incarnation was not absolutely necessary even as a remedy for sin, but that it was most fitting. God who is omnipotent could have saved the human race by some other means.
 
Thomas Aquinas addresses the question as well in the Summa Theologica, Part III, q. 1, art. 3. He says:
Augustine says (De Verb. Apost. viii, 2), expounding what is set down in Luke 19:10, “For the Son of Man is come to seek and to save that which was lost”; “Therefore, if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come.” And on 1 Timothy 1:15, “Christ Jesus came into this world to save sinners,” a gloss says, “There was no cause of Christ’s coming into the world, except to save sinners. Take away diseases, take away wounds, and there is no need of medicine.”
I answer that, There are different opinions about this question. For some say that even if man had not sinned, the Son of Man would have become incarnate. Others assert the contrary, and seemingly our assent ought rather to be given to this opinion.
For such things as spring from God’s will, and beyond the creature’s due, can be made known to us only through being revealed in the Sacred Scripture, in which the Divine Will is made known to us. Hence, since everywhere in the Sacred Scripture the sin of the first man is assigned as the reason of Incarnation, it is more in accordance with this to say that the work of Incarnation was ordained by God as a remedy for sin; so that, had sin not existed, Incarnation would not have been. And yet the power of God is not limited to this; even had sin not existed, God could have become incarnate."

In the CCC “Why did the Word become Flesh” it says:
With the Nicene Creed, we answer by confessing: “For us men and for our salvation he came down from heaven; by the power of the Holy Spirit, he became incarnate of the Virgin Mary, and was made man.” (#456)

In expounding on this article of the creed, the first thing the CCC says is:
The Word became flesh for us in order to save us by reconciling us with God, who “loved us and sent his Son to be the expiation for our sins”: “the Father has sent his Son as the Saviour of the world”, and “he was revealed to take away sins” (#457).

I agree with Aquinas then that everything in Holy Scripture which is really all we can go by on the question at hand, without speculating or guessing as it were, points to the incarnation as a remedy for sin even though as Aquinas says, even without sin, God could have become incarnate.

As far as the Bridegroom and Bride relationship, Adam and Eve were already the brides of the Son of God through sanctifying grace and original holiness and justice they were created in before their fall. Sanctifying grace puts us in this relationship with God and Adam and Eve possessed sanctifying grace before they sinned and before the Son of God became incarnate.
I will say this now, just so there’s no confusion. I’m not a proponent of the idea that the Son would have become incarnate even if we hadn’t sinned. I’m also not an opponent of it. I don’t think we can know, but I’m also not normally prone to idle speculation. I think, if anything, engaging in this kind of speculation is worthwhile in, at least, coming to a deeper understanding of the human relationship to the Divine.

So, with that said, I will continue.

I’m not sure citing the Catechism on this question is best. I don’t think anyone disagrees about why Jesus was incarnated. As a historical question, there is no doubt. And as to a speculation about what might have been, the Catechism simply doesn’t engage that.

Yes, Jesus came first to save us, to redeem us. But was that the only reason?

I once attended a Christian gathering on my old university campus, where they proposed that Jesus was always meant to be incarnated, and that He was always supposed to come to teach and guide humanity, and never leave us. I was put off of this because of the theology that was tied to it that diminished to reality of sin and the need for salvation from it.

That is certainly not a vision I would ascribe to.

Yet, I am not convinced that without a need for salvation, God would not have incarnated, for His own loving purposes.

There is a tradition that holds (and no, I’m not putting this forth as any kind of theological truth… just a tradition that is held by some as an explanation for the fall of angels… you know, part of the speculation) that Satan and his angels rebelled because God revealed to them that man, a creature lower than them, would be raised up and exalted above them. Some interpret this to point either to the incarnation or to Mary.

Supposing this tradition points to the Incarnation (since that seems to hold more water to my mind), I would suggest that this tradition could only really make sense if the Incarnation was to happen regardless of man’s sin. I say this because if the Incarnation were only a possible future, then this wouldn’t have been sufficient motivation to cause the angelic rebellion. It would have had to have been seen as the real future. But if that’s the case, and the Incarnation was only ever a response to sin, then we’re looking at a predestination scenario: the angels sin because they’re shown the consequence of their sin as an unavoidable future.

Nevertheless, St. Thomas isn’t someone to trifle with. He does argue this point well. Yet, even he admits that God might have become incarnate anyway.

I think the best reason we could have for thinking God might have Incarnated anyway is because He loves us. Sure, Sanctifying Grace is a state of union with God, but it’s a spiritual state. Angels enjoy this. But our spirituality is only half of the human nature. As personal beings, God desires union with us, out of His infinite love. And the most fitting form of that unity is a whole unity. That is, a unity with our whole being, not just our spiritual faculties. And to accomplish that, an Incarnation of some manner might always have been His plan.
 
I find theological “would… if” questions to be rather difficult to answer, because God, knowing all things that would happen before the creation of anything, predetermined all the actions He would make. There was no possibility that the Incarnation would not happen because God knew from the beginning that man would fall.
This means that we are tighten to our fates which is against divine justice.
 
This means that we are tighten to our fates which is against divine justice.
No, it isn’t. Fate and Divine Foreknowledge are not, in anyway, the same. Fate says I am a slave to my circumstances, I have no freewill, my fate is predetermined. Divine Foreknowledge, is God knowing what I, with my freewill, will do in any circumstance, before I do it. They are not the same thing.

Also, the last thing a Christian wants is Divine Justice, we plead for Divine Mercy, because Divine Justice would condemn us to hell.
 
Following Franciscan theology, I personally believe the Incarnation was planned by God regardless of the Fall of Man …]
What could it possibly mean to plan something that wasn’t going to happen? God knew the apple would be eaten. God knew Mary would say yes.

Adam and Eve had free will to not commit the original sin. Mary had free will to say no. Yet, none of those things did God have to plan for. God never needs a plan B because God’s plan A always works. He knows it from the end to the beginning, the Alpha to the Omega. That’s what it means to be “the Alpha and the Omega” and from the text of the Septuagint, egō eimi ho ōn, “I am the One who is”.

God does not need to wait upon the unfolding of history. This is all for our benefit. This is how giving and loving He is. This is what it means that he is a patient God.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top