Kierkegaard and the Theology of the Nineteenth Century: The Paradox and the 'Point of Contact'
This research exhibits how Kierkegaard's mature theological writings mirror his engagement with the wide variety of theological positions which he encountered as a scholar, together with German and Danish Romanticism, Hegelianism and the writings of Fichte and Schleiermacher. George Pattison attracts on either significant and lesser-known works to teach the complexity and nuances of Kierkegaard's theological place, which remained toward Schleiermacher's confirmation of faith as a 'feeling of absolute dependence' than to the Barthian denial of any 'point of contact', with which he's frequently linked. Pattison additionally explores ways that Kierkegaard's theological inspiration could be with regards to thinkers resembling Heidegger and John Henry Newman, and its carrying on with relevance to present-day debates approximately secular religion. His quantity should be of serious curiosity to students and scholars of philosophy and theology.
all through this dialogue is making sure that the doctrine is known with sole connection with the pursuits of Christian piety, i.e., the sensation of absolute dependence, and, as Schleiermacher places it, ‘with a view to the exclusion of each alien element’,39 that's, with no getting concerned within the form of discussions in regards to the origins of the realm and of humans which are right to normal technology. because the heading of paragraph §41 (also excerpted by means of Kierkegaard) places it, ‘the starting place of the.
Kierkegaard then turns to Erdmann’s dialogue of supernaturalism. He accepts that Kant’s ban on theoretical wisdom of the thing-in-itself implies that the thing-in-itself is closed off to human awareness, and he additionally accepts Go¨schel’s16 extra remark that ‘no understanding’ involves ‘no faith’, because there's then not anything that may specify what's to be believed in. yet, Kierkegaard turns out to suggest, this doesn't restrict post-Kantian supernaturalism to uncomplicated agnosticism, in view that, appropriately.
could bet that he's comprised in such normal formulations as ‘the complete more moderen improvement’ of From the Papers of 1 nonetheless residing (SKS1, 17/EPW, sixty one) or ‘the smooth legendary allegorizing development’ of the Concluding Unscientific Postscript,5 and should be assumed to join the improvement of Left Hegelianism that Kierkegaard many times castigates. yet Kierkegaard used to be now not unaware of Strauss. As has been famous, he made huge excerpts and summaries from Julius Schaller’s The historic.
Than an accumulation of unforced mistakes yet represent a salient and defining characteristic of the human situation as such – as in Christian instructing on unique sin. yet this may appear to suggest that we don't have the liberty to do as Kierkegaard urges us in those discourses, to solid all our care on God and stay with the loose dependence on God that we see within the lilies and the birds. If, as i've got recommended, the theology of production that involves expression within the discourses at the lilies and the.
His holy physique. Righteousness might be infuriated at it, yet what extra does it wish? It [i.e., his act of overlaying sin] makes satisfaction11 . . . As whilst an nervous rooster gathers her chicks below her wings within the second of threat and hides them, able to surrender her existence prior to denying them a hiding-place and making it very unlikely for the looking out eye of the enemy to discover them – that's how he covers your sin. similar to that: for he too is worried, infinitely worried in love, and he's able to supply.