Incarnation Anyway - by Mark Jonesapril

Found here. Our comments in bold.
------------------------

The author is going to grapple with a needless rhetorical adversary. The fact of the matter is that in the manifold wisdom and mercy of God, the Father sent His Son as a sacrifice to redeem mankind from its sin. Would the Father have sent Jesus if Adam hadn't sinned is a question with an unedifying answer, because Adam did sin and Jesus did come and die.

It is true that we benefit by gaining unencumbered fellowship with the Father. But is that any different than Adam’s pre-sin state? We can't know this, and as such this all is a vain intellectual argument.

Lastly, the author manages to quote only five words of Scripture in 1200+ words. We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

---------------------

Would the Son of God have become incarnate had Adam not sinned?

Some argue the question is far too speculative and impossible to answer, especially since it is based on a counterfactual. In addition, some questionable teachers have affirmed a type of Incarnation Anyway, (Capitalized, which suggests an official title.)

which may prejudice some today against the position. (In what way? Please explain.)

However, in more recent times, some have spoken more favorably of the idea that the Son would have become incarnate if Adam had not sinned. And while it is true Jesus came to save sinners, we do not need to say that it is exhaustively true.

In fact, this question, far from being overly speculative, gets to the heart of God’s intention to create, namely, what was God’s desire for himself in relation to humanity? Clearly, we should be careful with counterfactuals, but there are some theological ideas that are worth teasing out based on teleology and what the fact of the incarnation (as it happened) teaches us.

If the Son became incarnate merely because of the entrance of sin, (This seems to be an important issue for the author, since he mentions it several times.

Since we are dealing with a hypothetical, is there some reason that Jesus’s incarnation was somehow wasted if He merely came to forgive sin? Why wouldn't that be enough?)

then Christ, as God-man, might be what is called an “accidental identity.” In other words, the glory of his person as the visible image of the invisible God occurs only because sin entered the world (felix culpa). (A fortunate failure. Except that it wasn't fortunate: 

1 Peter 1:19-20 but with the precious blood of Christ, like that of a lamb without blemish or spot. 20 He was foreknown before the foundation of the world but was made manifest in the last times for the sake of you...

Revelation 13:8 and all who dwell on earth will worship it, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who was slain.

Jesus’s purpose was planned from the beginning. There was no fortunate accident. The author is in serious error here.)

The creation of the world exists for the sake of the Son (Col. 1:16, “…all things were made for him…”), which has in view the Son as God-man (i.e., Christ). Hence, Adam and Eve were created not only by Christ, but for Christ. They would glorify him, regardless of the entrance of sin. But was it certain, regardless of whether they had sinned or not, that they would see the God-man? Indeed. God’s purpose for the creation of humanity is to commune with and reveal himself to us. (True, but this is a separate topic. The author's obligation is to demonstrate that Jesus would gave come even if Adam hadn't sinned.)

There is no better way for God to reveal himself than as he has done, namely, in the person of his Son as God-man.

Salvation from sin is not the highest end for humanity. That view conceives of the purposes of God too negatively. Rather, the highest end for humanity is uninterrupted (eternal) union and communion with God through Christ by the Spirit. However, to enjoy the fullest and highest blessings of communion with the triune God, we need to be glorified. (Where does the Bible say this?)

Because of the Creator-creature distinction, God must “condescend” before we can “ascend.” The incarnation provides the way God can have perpetual, unimpeded communion with man whereby man lacks nothing in terms of his ability to fully enjoy and know God because man is now Spirit-filled by the Spirit of Christ (Rom. 8:9). (But Spirit-filling is a necessary result of salvation!)

Adam was without sin, but that does not mean he was perfect; nor in the Garden did he reach glorification. Even Christ eventually reached “perfection” (“and once made perfect”) (No, not quite. The author does us a disservice by assuming perfection is the conventional meaning. The Greek word is teleióō – to consummate, reaching the end-stage, i.e. working through the entire process (stages) to reach the final phase (conclusion). This process is not to expunge errors, it is to bring to fullness and completion a necessary process.)

in his high priestly role and awaited glorification (Jn. 17:5; Heb. 2:10; 5:9). (Let's quote: 

Jn. 17:5 And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began.

He. 2:10 In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.

He. 5:8-9 Although he was a son, he learned obedience from what he suffered 9 and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him...

Jesus was already glorified, He did not await glorification.)

Adam was naked in Eden. He was not yet clothed as he needed to be. (The Bible testimony is in opposition to the author: 

Ge. 2:25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.

Adam was naked because he didn't need to be clothed. Shame had not yet entered the world.)

The Son is clothed in the flesh of humanity. This formerly “weak” flesh is now glorified flesh (Rom. 1:4). (Let's quote: 

Ro. 1:4 and who through the Spirit of holiness was declared with power to be the Son of God, by his resurrection from the dead: Jesus Christ our Lord.

This says nothing about Jesus' flesh being glorified.)

We reach this same destiny when we are given new “clothing” in Christ (resurrected bodies, 1 Jn. 3:2; cf. Rom. 5:15-17). (Let's quote: 

1Jn. 3:2 Dear friends, now we are children of God, and what we will be has not yet been made known. But we know that when he appears, we shall be like him, for we shall see him as he is. 

Ro. 5:17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

There is nothing here about gaining new clothing in Christ. Perhaps the author might try Ep. 4:24, Gal. 3:27 or Col. 3:10.)

Adam could not have gained for humanity what Christ was able to gain. (Was Adam supposed to gain something for which he was deemed inadequate? Where do we find this information in the Bible?)

He simply could not merit anything from God, much less could he merit the same blessings as Christ was able to merit as the God-man. (Again, where is this found in the Bible?)

Our union with the God-man brings us into a state far greater than what would have happened if Adam did not sin. (Speculation.)

The incarnation adds an incredible and immense dignity to our nature. (In what way?)

Moreover, our adoption is on a higher level, for we are united to the God-man, not just a man. In Eden, Adam was a son indeed, by the grace of creation, but not a son by the grace of adoption through Christ. (Sigh. There was no need for Adam to be anything other than a man created to commune with God. How adoption is any different than creation is a mystery the author will not tell us.)

Adam’s personal sonship required development, just as Christ’s own mediatorial sonship required development. (We call BS. Where in the Bible do we find Adam or Jesus in need of developing?)

Jesus, who was “for a little while” lower than the heavenly beings, is now superior to them in every way and for all eternity (Heb. 1-2). Adam desired from God what he was not yet ready for concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (No! We are reaching the end of our patience. There is no hint anywhere in Scripture that Adam needed to be prepared to eat from that tree. This is now bordering on heresy.)

Christ, however, remained patient, eagerly desiring the gift of the Father according to the timing and promise of the Father. Christ did not snatch his bride but waited for his reward.

What does this idea of the Son’s incarnation apart from sin mean for us? (Oh, finally he gets to the point...)

Very simply, God’s ultimate intention for humanity could only ever be fully realized through the incarnation. Why did God create humanity? To bring into being a bride for his Son, who would assume a human nature. (Waaiit. We were talking about the necessity of Christ's incarnation. The fact he redeemed a Bride for Himself is not separate from that which the Bride was redeemed: Sin.)

Christ is not only God’s reaction to sin. (A thing which no one has claimed.)

Sin did not necessitate the incarnation. (Where in the Bible does it tell us this?)

True, things were made more difficult for the Son and for us because of sin, but God’s basic goal has not been altered. The king of creation, to whom creation would bow, could not ultimately have been Adam. It had to be Christ. Christ, the heavenly man, makes possible what was ontologically impossible for the earthly man (1 Cor. 15:49). Full rights of eternal sonship (Undefined phrase.)

must come through the eternal Son, not the temporary son (Adam), who was of the dust.

So, however it would have happened, the Son would still have become incarnate, ruled over creation, and brought about the possibility of full communion with the Father through the Spirit. (So far the author has simply speculated without the benefit of Scripture.)

Perhaps most importantly, the incarnation gives us the highest blessing possible: the beatific vision. We know God and we see the face of God in the man, Christ Jesus (Col. 1:15; 2 Cor. 3:18, 4:6; 1 Jn. 3:2). We behold God’s glory in the God-man (Jn. 14:9). Apart from the incarnation, we would be without this great blessing. (Undocumented claim.)

But the incarnation gives us a sight of God that Adam could never have attained to. (Undocumented claim.)

We were always intended to bear the image of the heavenly man: the man “from heaven.” Incarnation Anyway means we are sons in the Son, far to be preferred than sons in Adam.

Thus the incarnation best displays God’s love for humanity, by gifting us with the greatest gift possible: knowledge, sight, and enjoyment of the God-man. To think that we would have missed out on this if Adam had not sinned makes little theological sense to me. (Irony alert...)

Indeed, it makes little sense that a loving God towards his creatures would withhold from them the greatest blessing he can give to them: an ocular, not just intellectual, sight of God in the flesh. (This sentence makes little sense.)

Satan’s Envy

If Adam had not sinned, we still must reckon with sin: the Fall of the Angels. Would Christ have offered himself up in a certain manner to deal with the destruction of all evil, thus showing us the greatest act of love even in a world where humanity had not sinned? (The hypothetical has now been extended beyond edification.)

To bring godly order back to the world, the devil and his angels needed to be defeated (through sacrifice). Hence not only incarnation but resurrection are integral to God’s purposes for humanity. Incarnation Anyway does not negate death and resurrection; in a sense, it demands it.

The fact of the Son’s incarnation may have also been the occasion for the rebellion of Satan. If Christ is incarnate, even apart from sin, he can, by grace, elevate his offspring above the angels. We were created lower than the angels but that was meant to be temporary.

Jesus became flesh for us and for our salvation. The “for us” was going to happen, regardless of Adam’s sin. (We actually would agree in some sense, but author failed to make his case in a coherent way.)