I’ve never really given much thought to the medieval debate between Franciscans and Dominicans about whether the Incarnation would’ve taken place if humankind hadn’t sinned. I guess it always struck me as a classically “scholastic” debate (in the pejorative sense).

But now I’m not so sure. It seems that which position one takes could have important implications about the meaning of salvation among other things. On the Franciscan view, as exemplified by Duns Scotus, the Incarnation was God’s plan from the beginning and would’ve taken place even without sin. It was God’s way of communicating the divine life and entering into fellowship with God’s creatures. The Incarnation, on this view, is the whole point of creation. By contrast, the Dominican view, as held by St. Thomas, was that the Incarnation was primarily a response to sin. Thus atonement becomes the chief reason for the Incarnation.

Laying aside the exegetical question of which view comports better with the biblical witness, the Franciscan view seems to incorporate some attractive elements which the typical western penal or satisfaction view of the Incarnation has at times overlooked. For one, it emphasizes God’s love rather than God’s wrath, as at least some popular versions of satisfaction theory tend to do. Secondly, it seems more congenial to the “cosmic” aspect of slavation that we see, e.g. in Ephesians and Colossians. In the Incarnation God “pitches his tent” in creation and gathers all things in Christ in order to unite them to himself.

Presumably, though, atonement, in the sense of restoring the broken relationship between God and human beings remains a central, if not the central, part of Christ’s work. Maybe we should say that, under the conditions of sin, communicating the divine presence requires the work of atonement, even if it’s something God would’ve done anyway.