Abstract
Contrary to David R. Law, M. Hassenfratz-Coffinet considers that Thomasius’ approach is more promising than Weston’s. The latter’s dualistic anthropology (body/soul), the question of the meaning of incarnation for God and the risk of docetism are problematic, and metaphysics seems to overrule theology in his system. With Thomasius, a perfectly « self-determined » vision of God is problematic, yet the humanity of Christ as well as Jesus’ human development are treated in the better way.
Published Version (
Free)
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
