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
    Rhetoric
    自愛
    Self-love
    自我否定
    Self-denial
    奧古斯丁
    Augustine
    加爾文
    Calvin
    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。

    奧古斯丁所處的時代正統神學思想尚未成形,大公教會的權威尚未建立,神學思想多元,各種異教思想風靡。在這種處境中,奧古斯丁選擇當時流行的異教思想中相對接近基督教的新柏拉圖主義哲學,將其作為一個觀念性工具整合福音信息。新柏拉圖主義認為「自愛」即是尋求自己的幸福,而真正的幸福是與至善結合,所以「自愛」是推動人朝著至善方向發展的內在動力。奧古斯丁將福音信息注入其理論架構之中說,真正的「自愛」就是愛上帝,因為愛上帝人才可能得到真幸福。事實上,奧古斯丁所說的「自愛」與新柏拉圖主義所說的「自愛」十分不同:前者是以上帝為中心的愛,是捨己之愛,而後者是以自己為中心的愛。然而,奧古斯丁為了俯就處境的需要,迴避了這種不同。

    加爾文的處境完全相反:經過一千多年的發展,基督教神學思想體系已經十分完善,在各種文化中佔據了絕對的優勢,排斥世俗文化;然而,於此同時,神學思想日益僵化,變成教條,失去了起初的活力;羅馬天主教壟斷了所有的神學詮釋,否定一切與之不同的個人領受;加之宗教改革與人文主義的興起,形成一股與羅馬天主教相對抗的力量。這種處境中,加爾文選擇具有人文主義色彩的大眾化的表達方式,同時堅定地維護宗教改革神學立場。「自我否定」相對於「自愛」顯得通俗易懂,貼近人的日常生活,並且,這個詞源於《聖經》,從它入手詮釋信仰,符合宗教改革「唯獨聖經」的神學立場。加爾文論「自我否定」一方面回應天主教將奧古斯丁所說的「自愛」教條化,作為功德神學的理論基礎,另一方面回應一些人文主義者對人的潛能和創造力的過分樂觀態度。這回應不是尖銳的論爭,而是透過十分平易近人表達,大量地使用隱喻、類比、反諷、設問等修辭手法,引導讀者反思自己原有的觀念。這是十分人文主義式的表達方式,符合當時處境的需要。

    傳講永恆不變的真理和回應處境是神學的兩個根本任務,修辭學方法是兩者之間的橋樑。奧古斯丁和加爾文在各自的處境中用符合處境特徵的方式傳講福音信息,是修辭學方法運用成功的典型案例。然而,歷史上失敗的例子也很多。如何在不丟失福音本質的前提下,運用修辭學方法回應千變萬化的處境,是需要不斷探索的問題。

    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.

    指導教授:林鴻信教授
    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.


    請尊重著作權法

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