This paper will review the article written by Fredrick Bauerschmidt entitled Incarnation, Redemption and the Character

of God. In the article the author makes clear St Thomas Aquinas and Blessed Pope John Paul IIs position on whether Christs Incarnation was necessary if sin hadnt entered into the world. He does this under the sub heading of Cur Deus Homo, Thomas on fittingness, Thomas on Incarnation and finally John Paul II and Human Redemption. The article starts with question Whether, if human beings had not sinned, God would have become Incarnate? Bauerschmidt reasons there are two positions held on the matter. One states that Christ would have still become Incarnate, since our humanity still needed to be perfected (even if sin had not entered the world). This idea was mainly promulgated by John Duns Scotus. Conversely, the other (held by St Thomas) establishes that the Incarnation was conditional, and was a remedy for sin. Bauerschmidt claims that the first position is becoming the dominant thought in modern theology, and is due to theology moving towards a closer integration between the order of nature and the order of grace. Further, like grace, the Incarnation perfects our human nature by elevating it to participate in the divine. Hence, Scotists view that humans would be imperfect if God did not become Incarnate. Furthermore, Bauerschmidt argues that the Churchs documents (most notable Guadium et Spes) and John Paul II (JP II) (in Redemptor Hominis) are from the Scotic school of thought. However the author stresses that things are not as they seem. He insists that the purpose of the article is to propose that both St Thomas and JP II place more emphasis on the redemptive aspect of the Incarnation. In addition, Bauerschmidt contends that JP II further enriches Thomass theology of the redemptive work of the Incarnation, by seeing it not only as a revelation of divine nature, but of human nature as well. Cur Deus Homo (Why God became Man)

Bauerschmidt (after going into the history of the theology behind this question) comes to the conclusion that there is no single clear point at issue in the question Cur Deus Homo. Bauerschmidt uses the hypothetical question What if humanity had not sinned? to put his point across. He argues that in trying to approach the question of the motive of the Incarnation, we may become preoccupied with exploring the relationships among Gods various decrees (i.e. the election of Christ, the election of human beings, etc) without paying any particular concern to see Christ as the crown vice versa. At the end of this section Bauerschmidt states that he cannot sort out this question in the article.

Thomas on Fittingness

Here Bauerschmidt makes the point that we should be led to wonder what St Thomas view really was. On the question proposed, St Thomas actually says very little. For Thomas (according to Bauerschmidt) the question is really about divine will, which he insists is beyond our comprehension to understand. St Thomas would argue that the question of Cur Deus Homo is a veiled attempt to grasp (with the human intellect) the ungraspable, i.e., the divine nature. Yet the author upholds that we can get a glimpse of Gods nature (through the use of our intellect) via Gods actions, since the latter are an expression of His nature. Bauerschmidt explains that St Thomas uses the concept of convenientia (the fitting) to help us understand this divine nature: firstly by allowing us to discern the nature of God from the revealed truth; secondly by permitting us to receive the revelation of Gods character in a way that allows our hope not to be irrational.

Thomas on the Incarnation

Bauerschmidt claims that St Thomas thought that the Incarnation was not a logical necessity, and that, nothing compels God to enter into a personal relationship with man. Thus, the Incarnation cannot be understood a priori, but must be revealed to us. Therefore we see (after the author looking at Thomass writings on the Incarnation) that Thomas was not interested in the hypothetical question proposed. Instead St Thomas draws us to the knowledge that Gods character has to be shown to us in the event of the Incarnation itself. Bauerschmidt however, makes it clear that our reason can show us that the character of God is not incompatible with the God who creates. So, revealed knowledge perfects the natural knowledge of God.

John Paul II and Human Redemption

JP II takes the same stance of St Thomas, i.e. the Incarnation was a redemptive act. Bauerschmidt asserts that JP II also uses the way of convenientia to come to the conclusion that the Incarnation is an expression mercy/love of God. Bauerschmidt states that JP II placed emphasis on His mercy/love because it again helps us understand Gods character. Since, it is through Gods mercy that allows us to participate in His own life. Therefore this hypothetical

question doesnt offer the same characterisation of God, as we can only fully understand His nature through His cross. JP II makes a further contribution to Thomass theology. He does this through what is termed the anthropological theology. The author terms this is the seeking of the mystery of the human person as the starting point of the theological inquiry. Through this process JP II offers the insight that our understanding of human experience should be clarified and purified by our discernment on the character of Christ. Therefore JP II states that when thinking about the human experience we need to look to Christ: For it is only Christ that gives us the realisation that knows the world [and is] instilled with that paschal grace which sustains and reveals it. In reading the article one is shown that even though there are two distinct thoughts on the question of Cur Deus Homo, the reader shouldnt be concerned with hypothetical questions. We need to as Christians, theologise on the question from the view point that the Incarnation was a redemptive act. Therefore one can come to the conclusion firstly, as St Thomas does, that we cannot know what God would have done if sin had not entered the world (as, we cannot know the divine mind fully); secondly we can come to the conclusion that the Incarnation was fitting in saving us from sin. As St Thomas, JP II argues that incarnation cannot be discerned with the created mind. He further adds the human dimension to our theologising on the Incarnation. As this brings the thought that in order to understand ourselves, we need to contemplate on Christ and on His taking on flesh. With these two points in mind one agrees with the premises proposed by both, i.e. that Christs Incarnation was for a redemptive act, as there would be no need for Christ to take on flesh if the world was already perfect. Also it is only through the introduction of original sin that we are fallen. If sin had not entered into the world then we would be perfect since we are created in the likeness and image of God who is perfection itself.