| Abstract
|
:
|
This article aims to make a comparison between Herman Bavinck, a leading neo-Calvinist theologian, and Mou Zongsan, arguably the most innovative New Confucian philosopher, on human nature and its quality, and to build a dialogue between them. Bavinck sets forth a theocentric explication on human nature, that is the imago Dei, which was created, is fallen and can only be restored in Jesus Christ who is the true imago Dei. In contrast, Mou anthropocentrically expounds human nature, which immanentizes the heavenly decree and is innately good. Despite their fundamental differences, a dialogue can still be articulated by differing Bavinck’s God from Kant’s God, the latter of which is critiqued by Mou. This article aims to make a comparison between Herman Bavinck, a leading neo-Calvinist theologian, and Mou Zongsan, arguably the most innovative New Confucian philosopher, on human nature and its quality, and to build a dialogue between them. Bavinck sets forth a theocentric explication on human nature, that is the imago Dei, which was created, is fallen and can only be restored in Jesus Christ who is the true imago Dei. In contrast, Mou anthropocentrically expounds human nature, which immanentizes the heavenly decree and is innately good. Despite their fundamental differences, a dialogue can still be articulated by differing Bavinck’s God from Kant’s God, the latter of which is critiqued by Mou.
|