"God could have remitted humanity's sins, forgiven and redeemed us, without the Incarnation and death of his Son."


A few random snippets loosely adapted from theologian Bruce D. Marshall's take on Gary Anderson's Sin: A History, in the magazine First Things, January 2010.

"To think about this, recall the medieval commonplace, in discussions of Christ's Passion and its saving power, that God could have remitted humanity's sins, forgiven and redeemed us, without the Incarnation and death of his Son.

"Like many commonplaces of medieval theology, this one stems from Augustine, in this case from his De Trinitate.

"God certainly had the ability to deliver us from evil in some other way than he has, although he chose, Augustine suggests, the most beautifully suitable way of all: God, to whose power all things are equally subject, did not lack another possible way of healing our misery, but there was no more appropriate way, nor did there need to be.

"Picking up this line of thought , Thomas Aquinas argues that God would not have acted against justice if he had simply remitted our sins by fiat, without any satisfaction -- any offering or payment -- on our part.

"In fact, though, God has decided to save us through the satisfaction offered in Christ's Passion.

"Why does God save by payment of a debt, when he doesn't need to act this way and doesn't get anything out of the exchange?

"Thomas Aquinas and others answer that God redeems us this way precisely for our benefit, for the good of those he generously treats as debtors owing him satisfaction.

"By treating us as debtors even though he has no need of our payment, the good God gives us a share in the salvation he brings about for us: a human, creaturely part in God's own victory over human sin..."

A good read! :)