quote:

---

"In the New Testament the Savior of the world, our Lord Jesus Christ, represents the situation thus: The way that leads to life is straight, the gate narrow--few be they who find it!--...now, on the contrary, to speak only of Denmark, we are all Christians, the way is as broad as it possibly can be, the broadest in Denmark, since it is the way in which we all are walking, besides being in all respects as convenient, as comfortable, as possible; and the gate is as wide as it possibly can be, wider surely a gate cannot be than that through which we all are going en masse... Ergo the New Testament is no longer truth."

---

quote:

---

The father of modern existentialism was not a twentieth-century French atheist but a Danish Christian named Soren Kierkegaard (1813-1855) who could have signed a statement subscribing to the historic fundamentals of the Faith. He wrote: “On the whole, the doctrine as it is taught [in the church] is entirely sound.” [28] Nonetheless, few have done more from within the evangelical fold to methodologically undermine historic orthodoxy than Kierkegaard. Indeed, it was his philosophical son, Karl Barth, who gave rise to Neo-Orthodoxy. Kierkegaard concluded that even if we assume that the defenders of Christianity “ . . . have succeeded in proving about the Bible everything that any learned theologian in his happiest moment has ever wished to prove about the Bible” namely, “that these books and no others belong in the canon; they are authentic; they are integral; their authors are trustworthy--one may well say, that it is as if every letter were inspired.” Kierkegaard asked: “Has anyone who previously did not have faith been brought a single step nearer to its acquisition? No, not a single step.” [29]

Then Kierkegaard posed the opposite, namely, “that the opponents have succeeded in proving what they desire about the Scriptures, with a certainty transcending the most ardent wish of the most passionate hostility--what then? Have the opponents thereby abolished Christianity? By no means. Has the believer been harmed? By no means, not in the least.” [30]

At the minimum, Kierkegaard's bifurcation of fact and value is axiologically misplaced. In fact, it has been biblically disastrous, as Barth, Brunner, and Bultmann demonstrate--or whatever other “B's” may be buzzing around unorthodox circles. We need only mention the Kierkegaardian inspired beliefs that: 1) Religious truth is located in personal encounter (subjectivity); 2) Propositional truth is not essential to the Faith; 3) Higher criticism is not harmful to real Christianity: 4) God is “wholly other” and essentially unknowable, even through biblical revelation.

---

quote:

---

Ross,

Thanks so much for expressing interest. I wonder if we should start another thread where I would be very happy to address your questions. Do you mind perhaps cutting and pasting what you asked to a new thread so I don't sabatogue this one? The quick response is: Evans reads SK sympathetically and, I think, largely accurately. Schaeffer and Geisler are unsympathetic doing their usual watchdogging. But it is silly to attack SK on theological grounds. He is completely orthodox. What they don't like is SK's way of shifting the focus from simply affirming certian things as true to actually expecting the individual and the church to imitate Christ. He won't let you have the theological debate without the self-examination that requires either action or confession. Acedemics don't appreciate this.

1. Yes. That is accurate of the Fragments and of SK's thought generally. VERY strong doctrine of revelation and our need of it.

2. Actually, I doubt Evans would say what you suppose here. SK clearly takes a "universal opportunity" position. All will encounter Christ and all will have to make a choice about it. SK puts this in the imperative: "You SHALL have an opinion."

3. Yes. And it is consistent with the response to #2 above. Christ's work is eternal in nature. The date of your birth in relation to it is of no importance.

As I mentioned, please consider picking this up by starting a new thread. I'd love to pursue any interest you or others have in SK.

Blessings,
Modes

I would stop short of saying that SK saw natural theology as useless... but lets take that to the new thread...

---

quote:

---

Modes, thanks for your basic response on the other thread. I'd be very interested in a more detailed explanation of how this emphasis on divine revelation and universal opportunity would be reconciled...

Ross

---

quote:

---

I would caution one from expecting someone like Climacus to get it right in terms of the higher stages, this is a common pattern I see, the "lower" authors don't express with clarity what the higher authors now know. For example, The postscript, which is all about the inwardness of subjectivity and questions the relavence of objective knowledge and even action, does not have the strength of call to imitate Christ we see in Practice (Anti-Climacus). And these two are both sorta trumped in Works of Love and For Self-Examination,

---

quote:

---

...
The teacher is only an "occasion", a Socratic mid-wife. Christianity asserts that since individuals are caught in sin, God himself must become the teacher, and that only if God entered human history as a human being could the truth be grasped by human beings. In this case the teacher must also be a savior, who not only brings the truth but transforms humans so they can receive that truth.

---