Idle Speculation? Thomas vs. Calvin on the Necessity of the Incarnation

In his Summa Theologiae 3.1.3, Thomas takes up the question, “Whether, if humanity had not sinned, God would have become incarnate.”¹ His answer is carefully measured, and ultimately he leans toward the negative, appealing to Luke 19:10 (“For the Son of Man has come to seek and save that which was lost.”) and the teaching of Augustine (“If humanity had not sinned, the Son of Man would not have come.”).² Thomas acknowledges that the question has a variety of “opinions,” but reminds us that the secret will of God is only accessible to us through what has been revealed, and what has been revealed is that human sin is the reason for the incarnation, “so that if sin had not existed the incarnation would not have been” (172). Interestingly, he goes on to comment that it is still possible that God could have become incarnate, his power not being limited to only the need to remedy sin. On the surface, it seems like Thomas is speaking out of both sides of his mouth, but actually he is affirming the possibility of this scenario (beyond Augustine?), while denying its reality. Bauerschmidt notes that Thomas thinks that “to ponder what the story would have been if humans had never sinned is simply to indulge in idle speculation,”³ and he is quick to point out, also, that those who say God would not have become incarnate if humans had not sinned are also guilty of the same offense (e.g., Augustine; see above).

But is entertaining this question really “idle speculation”? The Easter Exsultet, long attributed to Ambrose, is so bold as to call the Fall a felix culpa (“O happy fault!”), which would seem appropriate if one takes human sin to be the cause of the incarnation. But certainly this would seem to give sin way too much credit in the story of redemption, for how can sin be the sole cause of such a good as the incarnation of the Son of God? Rather than being an idle preoccupation, speculation on the counterfactual of man’s sinlessness seems to be a fruitful enterprise, at least in order to fill out one’s understanding of the nature of redemption, and perhaps even the nature of God, himself. John Calvin’s view illustrates an alternative, more optimistic perspective on the question. He says that “Even if man had remained free from all stain, his condition would have been too lowly to reach God without a Mediator” (Inst. 2.12.1). Calvin understood that even before the Fall, Adam was created and expected to mature, and so there is a redemption-as-maturation dynamic to the theology of man’s spiritual condition that seems unaccounted for by Augustine and Thomas. Calvin understood that man is weak in his humanity, not just in his sin, and so even without the Fall, man is still in need of grace.⁴ Grace both restores and perfects nature.⁵ The goal of human life is not simply sinlessness (though this is a necessary component of the work of redemption), but also maturity, and the grace of the incarnation is necessary for both. What is more, the incarnation tells us something about the nature of God, himself, not just that we needed a savior—that he cares about the development of our character and created us to grow into the likeness of the glory of his Son, whose incarnation is necessary for this to obtain. Thus, the incarnation has significance apart from sin, and it is therefore, contrary to Thomas, not idle speculation, but a fruitful and insightful theological exercise.

Some contemporary theologians have taken fresh interest in the question and concur with this positive outlook. One such theologian, Oliver Crisp, attempts to demonstrate that this is “a vital theological question that merits scrutiny.”⁶ He readily grants that the question is speculative, but not idle, arguing that we have permission to speculate in such a way as long as it is “theologically productive.”⁷ What makes this exercise productive is how it allows us to account for the way in which God unites humanity to himself and makes it possible for us to participate in the divine life, which is a—if not the—fundamental purpose of human existence,⁸ even apart from the need to address the problem of sin.⁹ On this view, God’s gracious act of condescension in Christ is not dependent upon human sin. Furthermore, according to Crisp, this view also “throws light on other, related themes, such as God’s end(s) in creation, and the image of God in human beings,”¹⁰ providing the theological motivation for entering into speculation regarding the “incarnation anyway” question. In my estimation, this account dignifies the glorious grace and mystery of the incarnation as something more than a “rescue plan,”¹¹ but as the eternally conceived means by which humanity would be united to the Triune God.

Bibliography

Aquinas, Saint Thomas. Holy Teaching: Introducing the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas. Edited by Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt. Brazos Press, 2005.

Crisp, Oliver D. “Incarnation Without the Fall.” Journal of Reformed Theology 10 (2016): 215–33.

Footnotes

1. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Holy Teaching: Introducing the Summa Theologiae of St. Thomas Aquinas, ed. Frederick Christian Bauerschmidt (Brazos Press, 2005), 172. ↩

2. Aquinas, Holy Teaching, 172. ↩

3. Aquinas, Holy Teaching, 173, n31. ↩

4. A claim with which Thomas generally agrees. Cf. ST 1-2.109.2. ↩

5. Cf. Bavinck ↩

6. Oliver D. Crisp, “Incarnation Without the Fall,” Journal of Reformed Theology 10 (2016): 216. ↩

7. Crisp, “Incarnation Without the Fall,” 216. ↩

8. Contra Jonathan Edwards. See (Crisp, “Incarnation Without the Fall,” 231–32) ↩

9. This seems to have some scriptural warrant: cf. Eph. 5:31-32, coupled with Gen. 2:24, and related passages like Jn. 17:22. See (Crisp, “Incarnation Without the Fall,” 220, n7) This view is called the “christological union account.” ↩

10. Crisp, “Incarnation Without the Fall,” 233. ↩

11. Crisp, “Incarnation Without the Fall,” 233. ↩