De libero arbitrio

Would God have sent his Son to save the world from its sins, if humanity had not in fact needed saving?

Two great medieval theologians perform a kind of Pakistani Face-Off on the Indian Border on the subject of this Question from an RE Teacher from Essex, and so it behoves us to note the salient features of these two systems in our direct response to the Question, speaking directly and promptly as to the matter in hand:

STA                                                                                         DSA

Theol 1 says humanity was in crisis   - Theologian 2 says not necessary

Theologian 1 says God responded  - Theol 2 says he designed somat

Theol 1 says that man was in crisis - Theol 2 says it was always such

Theol 1 says that God responded in bible - Theol 2 says it matters not

Theol 1 says Incarnation was a rescue - Theol 2 says matter was vip

Theol 1 says G-d saved us from sin - Theol 2 says incarn was central

Theol 1 says that saving was vip  -  Theol 2 says a grander design

Theol 1 says Son came to save angels - Theol 2 that saving not central

As you can see from this little table of schemata the two theologians of the medieval era not only did face off on this thorny subject of the way in which the Redemption happened, but that their followers, all bona fide catholics officially in terms of the bishops and the synods and councils, still face off on this subject. So dogmatically ever since the condemnation of theologian 1 by the bishops of Paris, the force of the argument has lain with theologian 2 and his GB movement of second generation theologians, by no means second rate either. But as catholics we are free to choose which of these grande schemas for the Pro Ratione Incarnationis we would like to follow. While theologian 1 is still the preferred theologian for the history of dogma, and is favoured by the Codex and the code-writers of the modern era, favoured by canon lawyers - canon 252 ^3, still the issue is one of open debate and also free debate for the time being, until another council or synod of bishops tries to define the matter of the Plan of God behind the Incarnation. Schema 1 likes to present the Incarnation as God's free and loving response to a humanity in crisis, and with angelology thrown in too; whilst Schema 2 likes to present the Incarnation as God long term plan and design to unite himself with creation and visit the material universe as a fellow creature in the fullness of time. Just by way of selection, it might be good to set a question in the RE class as to which one is which from the following theologians:

St Bonaventure;

Richard Fishacre of Oxford;

Duns Scotus - 2;

Peter Lombard;

St Thomas Aquinatis - 1;

Richard of St Victor;

Robert Grosseteste;

St Francis of Assisi;

St Thomas of Celano;

Albert the Great;

Abelard of Heloise.

So, just to sum up - Schema 1 is a short term explanation, Schema 2 is a long term explanation. Either one, one is free to select in one's theology material and theology introduction to a class of Sixth Form RE. Feel free, it is a free Church, and a free religion - no coercion here.