English  |  正體中文  |  简体中文  |  Items with full text/Total items : 1309/3723 (35%)
Visitors : 2230765      Online Users : 23
RC Version 6.0 © Powered By DSPACE, MIT. Enhanced by NTU Library IR team.
Scope Tips:
  • please add "double quotation mark" for query phrases to get precise results
  • please goto advance search for comprehansive author search
  • Adv. Search
    HomeLoginUploadHelpAboutAdminister Goto mobile version

    Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://ir.taitheo.org.tw:8080/ir/handle/987654321/5795

    Title: 「自愛」抑或「自我否定」: 從修辭學角度比較奧古斯丁和加爾文的自我觀
    Authors: 高山
    Contributors: 12.研究部-神學碩士班(Th.M.)
    Keywords: 修辭學
    Date: 2013-10-20
    Issue Date: 2014-02-11T07:09:36Z (UTC)
    Abstract: 奧古斯丁認為基督徒應當「自愛」,而加爾文卻認為基督徒應當「自我否定」,儘管兩個詞字面意思相反,但從他們各自的論述看卻內涵相通,都是表述真信仰。為何兩位神學家用兩個字面意思截然相反的詞?原因十分複雜,其中他們對修辭學的運用是十分重要的一個方面。本文嘗試從修辭學角度解讀「自愛」與「自我否定」之分歧。奧古斯丁和加爾文都是修辭學大師,他們運用修辭學方法面對不同特質的群體,回應不同的時代問題,爭對不同的事件,選擇適合各自處境的表達方式,因而會在用詞上十分不同。




    Augustine said that Christians must have self-love, while Calvin insisted that self-denial was necessary to them. Though the literal meanings of the two words are opposite to each other, the connotations are interlinked because in the two theologians’ respective discourses each understanding expressed true faith. Why did they choose two words whose literal meanings are contrary? The causes are complex, with their use of rhetoric exerting a particularly important role. This paper attempts to interpret the divergence of Augustine's self-love and Calvin's self-denial from the perspective of rhetorical analysis.

    Both Augustine and Calvin are great rhetoricians, and they used rhetoric methods to communicate with different groups, to respond to different problems, and chose different expressions which fitted their own contexts. Therefore, they used different terms.

    In the era of Augustine, orthodox theology had not yet been formed, and the authority of the Catholic Church had not been established. There was a diversity of theological thought, and Pagan ideologies flourished. Facing this context, Augustine chose Neo-Platonism, which was receptive to Christian thought of the that period. Unlike pagan thought of that time, Neo-Platonism served as a conceptual tool to preach the Gospel. Neo-Platonists believe that self-love is the pursuit of the happiness of oneself, and that true happiness is to unite oneself with the supreme good, so self-love is the motivitating power which drives humans to seek the supreme good. Augustine put ivGospel messages into this theoretical framework, and said that true self-love is the love of God, because true happiness is gained only when humans love God. In fact, in Augustine’s writings and Neo-Platonic writings, the word “self-love” had different meanings: the self-love which Augustine had taught is a God-centered and self-sacrificial love, while Neo-Platonism only expressed a kind of self-centered love. However, Augustine overcame this difference in order to accommodate to the needs of his situation.

    The context of Calvin was totally reversed: after more than one thousand years of development, the orthodox theology project was complete, predominant in all cultures, and excluded secular cultures; at the same time, however, the system increasingly ossified and became dogmatic and lost its initial vitality; the Roman Catholic Church monopolized theological interpretations and excluded all individual understandings which were different from them; additionally, the Reformation and Humanism rose, and formed a force against the Catholic Church. In this context, Calvin chose the popular humanistic forms of expression, and at the same time firmly maintained the Reformation’s theological position. Compared with “self-love”, the word “self-denial” seems popular and easily understood, close to human daily life. Also, this word comes directly from the Bible, and using it to interpret Christian reflects the Reformation theological method of sola scriptura “scripture alone”. On the one hand, Calvin used self-denial to respond to the Catholic Church, which had dogmatized Augustine’s theory of self-love, and took it as the theoretical basis of Merit Theology; on the other hand, he also responded to a group of humanists at that time who had an excessively optimistic attitude towards human’s potential and creativity. This kind of response was not a sharp dispute, but a gentle dialogue, in which multiple metaphors, analogies, ironies, and rhetorical questions were used, and readers were instructed to rethink their original conceptions. This is the humanist expression which fitted the context of that time.

    Preaching the eternal truth and responding to the context are two fundamental tasks of theology, and rhetoric is the bridge between them. It shows us the successful cases where Augustine and Calvin preached the gospel successfully through the expressions which fitted their respective contexts. However, history is also full of cases of failure. How can we use rhetorical methods to respond to the changing contexts, on the premise of protecting the nature of the Gospel?It is a question that needs to be explored continuously.

    Appears in Collections:[14.研究部-神學碩士(Th.M.)] 學位論文
    [台灣神學院] 研究部-神學碩士班(Th.M.)

    Files in This Item:

    File Description SizeFormat
    ThM004004_高山.pdf高山3676KbAdobe PDF1802View/Open

    All items in TAITHEO are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.


    DSpace Software Copyright © 2002-2004  MIT &  Hewlett-Packard  /   Enhanced by   NTU Library IR team Copyright ©   - Feedback