Cong dilectio dao caritas : Aogusiding ruhe zai diyi juan zhong lunzheng 'ai' (caritas) shi quanshi xue de zuizhong mudi 從dilectio到caritas：奧古斯丁如何在《論基督教教義》第一卷中論證“愛”（caritas）是《聖經》詮釋學的最終目的 = From dilectio to caritas: How Augustine Argues in Book I of De Doctrina Christiana that “Love” (Caritas) is the Ultimate End of Biblical Hermeneutics / by Li Hao 李浩

https://ccspub.cc/jrcc/article/view/450

Published in Zhongguo jidujiao yanjiu 中國基督教研究 = Journal of Research for Christianity in China, no.26 (2026) : 51-87.

Local access dig.pdf [Li_Hao_Cong_dilectio_dao_caritas.pdf]

Abstract:

本文聚焦於奧古斯丁在《論基督教教義》第一捲中“愛”的術語問題，從《聖經》詮釋學的視角出髮，論証奧古斯丁通過將“愛”從 dilectio 轉化成 caritas，爲《聖經》詮釋中的“愛”賦予了三個遞進層次的內涵：行動層麵的愛、關繫層麵的愛和實體層麵的愛。他以在“使用-享受”的二分法中處理《馬太福音》中“愛的誡命”爲起點，將行動層麵的 dilectio 引向關繫層麵的 caritas，進而説明了“增進愛”是《聖經》詮釋學的中心任務，dilectio 在行動方麵的內涵也被納入了 caritas。最後，奧古斯丁暗示了 caritas 在綜合了行動和關繫之後所具有的實體性，這種實體性在“聖靈是愛”這一命題中得以明確，caritas 也由此具有了堅固《聖經》權威的力量。故此，caritas 成爲了奧古斯丁的《聖經》詮釋學的最終目的。

This article addresses the terminology of “love” in Book I of Augustine’s De Doctrina Christiana. From the perspective of biblical hermeneutics, it aims to demonstrate how Augustine, by shifting the terminology from dilectio to caritas, endows “love” with three progressive layers of meaning within the interpretation of the Bible: love as action, love as relation, and love as substance. Beginning with his treatment of the “commandment of love” in the Gospel of Matthew within the dichotomy of usus-fruitio(use-enjoy), Augustine leads dilectio, as an action, toward caritas, as a relation. He thereby establishes that the central task of biblical hermeneutics is “enhancing love”, and the connotation of dilectio in terms of action is subsumed into caritas. Ultimately, Augustine alludes to the substantial nature of caritas which integrates both action and relation. This substantiality is explicitly manifested in the proposition that “the Holy Spirit is love,” through which caritas acquires the power to fortify the authority of Scripture. Therefore, caritas becomes the ultimate end of Augustine’s biblical hermeneutics.

'Qingnian Lude' sixiang zhong de 'zhexue' yu 'shensheng shenxue' : jiyu 《〈sibu yulu〉 bianzhu》de gean fenxi “青年路德”思想中的“哲學”與“神聖神學”——基于《〈四部語錄〉邊注》的個案分析 = The “Philosophy” and “Sacred Theology” in the Thought of “Young Luther”：A Case Study Based on the Randbemerkungen of Sentences / by Li Hao 李浩

Published in Guoxue yu xixue 國學與西學 = International journal of Sino-western studies, no.29 (2025) : 188-201.

Local access dig.pdf [Li_Hao_Qingnian_Lude.pdf]

Abstract:

路德對哲學的“敵意”在他的青年時期就已有明顯體現：在對《四部語錄》的“邊注”中就已經通過“神聖神學”這一術語來表達神學與哲學的區分。其思路不僅繼承自唯名論對自然與恩典之不連續性的探討，而且更加強烈地表現出他對於哲學化的神學命題的不滿。在最具代表性的、針對“習性是聖靈”的攻擊和駁斥中，路德不僅否認阿奎那的“習性的恩典”，還基於“聖靈是愛”這一具有《聖經》支持的純粹的神學命題，拒絶了司各脫的“愛的習性”。針對前者，路德將恩典置於與上帝共同先在的位置，從而否認恩典的受造性及其與自然的合作；針對後者，路德訴諸愛與三一上帝的關繫，確認了愛與習性的本體論差異，進而否認將習性與愛等同或直接關聯。總之，儘管青年路德對哲學和神學的理解仍具唯名論色彩，但開始更多地轉向尋求《聖經》的支持。不過，此時路德的思維仍囿於“自然與恩典”，尚未進入“律法與福音”。

Luther’s “hostility” toward philosophy was already evident in his early period: intheRandbemerkungen of Sentences, he used the term “sacred theology” to distinguish between theologyandphilosophy. His approach not only inherits the nominalist view of the discontinuity between nature and gracebut also demonstrates a stronger dissatisfaction with philosophically-framed theological propositions. In his most representative critique of the proposition “habit is the Holy Spirit,” Luther not only denies Aquinas’s concept of“habitual grace” (habituale gratiae) but also, drawing upon the purely theological and biblically-supportedproposition that “the Holy Spirit is love,” refutes Scotus’s notion of the “habit of love” (habitus caritatis). Against the former, Luther posits grace as uncreated and co-eternal with God, thereby denying its creatednatureand its cooperation with nature. Against the latter, Luther appeals to the relationship between love and the TriuneGod to establish the ontological difference between love and habit, thereby denying any equation of or direct connection between them. In short, while young Luther’s understanding of philosophy and theologywasinfluenced by nominalism, he began to turn more toward seeking support from the Bible. However, his thought at this stage was still confined to the framework of “nature and grace” and had not yet advanced to his maturedialectic of “law and gospel”.

Shengshen shi shui 聖神是誰? / Masaqi yuanzhu 馬薩琪原著 ; Su Yuehai yi 蘇粤海譯.
Translation of: Qui est l'esprit saint?
Title in English on verso of t.p.: Who is the Holy Spirit?
Added colophon and table of contents in English.
Errata sheet included.
Title: Who is the Holy Spirit?
民國77 [1988]

Zhenfu congshu zhi yi 真福叢書之一 ; 2