This is something to reflect upon…
This theological view gets almost zero notice usually;
let’s see if it generates any new interest today…
I have long been convinced that the Christocentric or supralapsarian school’s approach to explaining the primary motive for the Incarnation is theologically and logically correct. huh? oh, let me back up.
There are generally two reasons that Christian theologians over the years have offered for why God became human in the person of Jesus Christ (the Incarnation). The first, the most common or popular conception has to do with the fact that Adam (human beings, in general) sinned and, having done so, needed to repair the grievous offense committed against God. This is generally known as the theory of atonement, where the Word had to become incarnate in order to atone for the sins of humanity and restore son- and daughter-ship with God. This was championed by St. Anselm of Canterbury, for example, in his famous treatise Cur Deus Homo (“Why did God become Man?” or literally, “why the God-Man?”). …
View original post 366 more words