A Purely Philosophical Argument for the Incarnation

The Incarnation is the central doctrine of Christianity. While every Christian assents to this doctrine, there has been a centuries-long debate over a question surrounding it: is the Incarnation a necessary or contingent event? This may seem like a very abstract and esoteric debate, but your answer to this question deeply impacts your theology and your view on the centrality of Christ. I think that the Incarnation is modally necessary, that is, in every possible world where there is a creation, there is an Incarnation. Here, I hope to provide a purely philosophical argument for the Incarnation:

1. The end of Creation is God.

This simply results from the metaphysics of Creation. Essentially, God is perfect and so is both the Good itself and has a perfect will. Given this, God wills Himself of absolute necessity and so the end of His act is Himself. However, God can also will things apart from Himself, not as an end, but as a non-necessary means by which He wills the end of His act: Himself. Now, the content of Creation can vary across possible worlds but whatever God wills as the non-necessary means by which He wills Himself is Creation. There are plenty of good resources on this for further study (see here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMHm2lKqIMc&t=4185s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ubnpIOtjKQA, https://www.amazon.com/Aquinas-Metaphysics-Creation-Gaven-Kerr/dp/0190941308/ref=sr_1_2?crid=VROQX6SJZ4X0&keywords=gaven+kerr&qid=1649186579&sprefix=gaven+kerr%2Caps%2C91&sr=8-2). 

2. Since God is the end of Creation, the end of Creation is to be in union with God.

This just follows from the metaphysics of teleology as if a thing has a certain end, the goal of that thing is to possess or be in union with that end.

3. However, Creation cannot achieve its end, God, fully on its own; that is, Creation cannot achieve its end by possessing union with God where Creation meets God.

The language needs to be fine-tuned a bit, but thought here is that since Creation is, necessarily, finite (see here: https://theaspiringjesuit.blogspot.com/2022/01/a-response-to-fales-on-aquinas-on.html, https://theaspiringjesuit.blogspot.com/2022/03/whatever-god-wills-apart-from-himself.html) Creation cannot possess its end in the way that finite things possess their ends since the finite is not, in any way, capable of the infinite.

4. But, since God is the end of Creation, a union between Creation and God must be possible.

This just follows from teleology as if a certain thing has an end, a union between the thing and its end must be, at least, possible.

5. Since a union between God and Creation must be possible (from 4) and Creation cannot achieve this union by meeting God (from 3), God must condescend and meet Creation in order for this union to be achieved.

6. Since possibilities are necessarily possible, and it is necessarily possible for entities to achieve union with their ends, it is necessarily possible that God condescend towards Creation as this is the only way for this union to be achieved.

7. Since God necessarily achieves His end, whatever means He chooses to archive His end will also necessarily achieve His end.

8. Since God’s condescension towards Creation is necessary for union between God and Creation, and, necessarily, God achieves His end and the means by which He achieves this end also, necessarily, achieves His end (from 7), God’s condescension towards Creation occurs in every world where there is a Creation.

9. Since God’s condescension towards Creation is the means by which union between God and Creation occurs and this union is one of possession, God’s condescension towards Creation must consist in a God taking on or entering into Creation.

When I say possession, I just mean that the union that must be possible is the kind of union that occurs between a thing and its final end. 

10. God’s entering into Creation must be one in which God takes on the whole of Creation in order for there to be a union between God and Creation.

This must be so because if God entered into Creation and did not become united to all of Creation, then there would not be a strict union between God and Creation. This, however, does not entail a panentheism as a key aspect of being created is being particular and so God must find a way to be united to the whole of Creation through a particular entity in Creation.

11. In our Creation, there is corporeality and incorporeality.

12. So, in our Creation, God’s union between Creation and God must be one in which God becomes united to the corporeal and incorporeal aspects of Creation.

13. In human beings, there is corporeality and incorporeality.

(see here: https://www3.nd.edu/~afreddos/courses/43151/ross-immateriality.pdf, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I4iE08RRPUw&t=4314s, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l0A6kXv0UHE&t=4048s).

14. So, in our Creation, we should expect that God would become united to Creation by being united to a human being.

We may be able to say that in our world, it is necessary for God to become man if we knew that there was no extraterrestrial life where these beings have both corporeality and incorporeality. Still, since the only beings we know of with corporeality and incorporeality are human beings, the likelihood that this is the way God would become united to Creation in our world is pretty high.