NOTEBOOK 1

Translated by George Pattison

Edited by Bruce H. Kirmmse and K. Brian Söderquist

Text source Notesbog 1 in Søren Kierkegaards Skrifter

Text established by Niels W. Bruun and Steen Tullberg

Lectures on Dogmatics.

by

H.N. Clausen.

Chapter 5. On the Relation of Holy Scripture to Reason.

§ 24.

The purpose of Christianity is to lead human beings to the true knowledge of God, faith, fear of God, and obedience. This purpose presupposes that hum. beings have the capacity to attain conviction concerning the true nature of things, it presupposes an original religious consciousness and certain moral dispositions.

Knowledge Jn 8:12; Eph 1:18,19; Col 1:9; Phil 1:9,10; 1 Thess 5:21.

Faith. Jn 3:16; Mk 16:16; Rom 10:13,14.

Fear of God and obedience Jn 4:24; Jn 14:21; Heb 5:9; Jas 1:27.

On the concept of religion? Definition: the immediate consciousness in which the hum. being feels conscious of being dependent on God, and of being taken up into and incorporated in the divine being.—Natural religion. Acts 14:16, 17:24–29; Rom 1:20.

§ 25.

Christianity sets itself against all other (ancient) forms of positive religion, and supports its authority with reasons and proofs. It challenges one to compare it with ancient religions, and to reach a conclusion based on this comparison, to base faith on one's own examination of it, and it censures the apathetic indifference that does not respond to this challenge. Christianity thus presupposes that its content and rationale can be apprehended by hum. reason, that its doctrine accords with the basic principles of hum. thought, and strengthens respect for and confidence in the spiritual powers in hum. beings.—

Christianity bases its authority on reasons: Jn 7:17, 8:32.—Mt 11:4–6—Jn 5:39,46,47.

[a] Inspiration. impulsio; directio; suggestio realis et verbalis. sufficientia; perspicuitas; efficacia. The properties of scripture.

[b] una, sancta, apostolica, catholica ecclesia infallibilis (in this regard the letter to the Eph. is especially important. Eph 4:5–6.).

[c]cf Bockshammer pp. 1 and 2.

Does Christnty turn to ideal or pure reason (in abstracto)?

§ 26.

In Holy Scrip. Christianity is not communicated to us as a system or doctrinal notion, but Christian faith is found portrayed in its individual characteristics in a manifold of forms. The doctrine is conceived from different sides, developed in different directions, set forth in differing form and garb, and supported by proofs that are more or less universally valid. The sacred history must be educed from many different stories whose compatibility is not rarely difficult to see. The sacred books have come to us via hum. hands and have been subjected to the alterations of time. In their inner constitution as well as their outer circumstances the sacred books thus call for a many-sided employment of the hum. being's intellectual capacities—for historical and critical investigations in order to demonstrate the books' authenticity, for interpretation and reflection in order to develop the doctrine contained in them in its purity, in order to show it in its completeness and coherence and to employ it in relation to life's particular circumstances.—

This use of reason is called: usus organicus, formalis, instrumentalis. "qui eruditionis subsidiis accinctus revelationem ex scriptura sacra explicat."

§ 27.

As a result of the particular relation of Jesus and the apostles to their time, as shown us by Holy Scrip., we find in their teaching wise and careful attention to the various needs of their contemporaries, partly by leaving to one side (negatively) what could not have been understood, partly by choosing the medium of exposition and proof, partly by choosing expressions that were understood by all. In this way the question of accommodation ([TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII] condescendentia) arises, the scope and limits of which can only be determined by scientific investigation, and the doctrinal validity of the N. T. rests upon this.—

Negative. (1 Cor 9:22, 10:33.).—Jn 16:4, 16:12; Mt 24:35. 1 Cor 3:2; Heb 5:12.

Positive. Mt 13:11, 12:27, 22:31; Jn 10:35; Gal 4:22, 3:16. All of Heb. Mt 8:11.

Manicheans and Gnostics especially the Phantasiasts took the whole of Jesus' life to be a sustained accom. The Church Fathers also dealt with accommodation occasionally, e.g., Tertullian, Clemens Alex, Origen, Chrysostom, Jerome. (Gal 2:14.)

Accomodatio formalis—materialis

Did the Reformers acknowledge both positive and negative accommodation[?] Hahn says that they only accepted it in the formal and negative sense. Clausen thinks that they also accepted it positively, and remarks that the Reformers accepted that the apostles gave certain prescriptions that were only meant to be used temporarily, and he cites the Augsb. Confess. 7th Artic.: "Non peccant, qui non observant, quia ne ipsi quidem apostoli voluerunt onerare conscientias tali servitute, sed ad tempus prohibuerunt propter scandalum, est enim perpetua voluntas evangelii consideranda in decreto." But I don't see how this can be called any sort of positive accommodation.—

Cartesians, Semler, Teller: "Multa in scriptura sacra tradi secundum falsos et erroneos vulgi conceptus."

[d] Nevertheless, one might note that wherever a genuine acc. is employed it is indicated at the time. E.g., 1 Cor 7, Acts 15, etc.

§ 28.

It follows from the definition of Christianity as well as from the apostles' express utterances concerning their vocation to secure the Kingdom of Truth on earth that every accommodation concerning Christian teaching can only be viewed as striving to overcome obstacles to the spreading the truth and gradually to bring about a way for it to enter in, under the conditions of the particular circumstances. Every religious teaching taken up and used by Chr. and the apostles must therefore be regarded as a way of indicating Christian truth such as to elicit its meaning and to assure its more complete development by virtue of its coherence with their teaching as a whole. On the other hand, those ideas that stood outside the circle of Christian teaching or were not connected to it in their expositions could either be seen as involuntary adaptation or as necessary in order to attain certain benevolent aims. The knowledge of truth is in this case left to a later, more universal intellectual development and expansion of knowledge.—

Christianity is fitted for the expansion of truth, e.g.: Joh. 18:37, 8:32, 14:16,17, 16:13, 14:6.—

Chr. warns zealously against false teachers. Paul too: Col 2; 2 Tim 4:3.

Paul corrects Peter over a wrong accommod. in Gal 2:11.

When we find that Chr. and the apostles used an idea that was demonstrably universal among the Jews but, despite being depicted with various characteristics, is nevertheless unaltered and not independently developed, when no weight is laid on its meaning and what it assumes or explains or its practical value, the presumption then arises that accomm. was used. And likewise, when we put these ideas together and try to relate them to one another but cannot get a coherent idea in our minds or a distinct image, and when particular utterances make a figurative explanation necessary, it becomes probable that they have accommodated themselves e.g. regarding the devil.

§ 29.

The relationship between the content of Christianity and hum. reason (usus normalis s. normativus) must be defined, on the one hand, by the utterances of Chr. and the apostles concerning religious mysteries that are inseparable from a revealed religion generally and that exclude the demand for comprehensibility and transparency and call forth the concept of what is above reason; on the other hand, the hum. being is summoned to distinguish between true and false revelation and it is supposed to be the essence of the Christian faith to bring about a new life in hum. beings. From this follows both, that no Christian doctrine can be in conflict with the gen. laws of thought and the gen. religious ideas and that every Christian doctrine must be meaningful to hum. reason and capable of being brought into connection with its ideas. True Christian religiosity thus rests on a free and vital reciprocity between God's Word in scripture and the divine voice within the hum. being and is equidistant from the extremes of naturalism and of the hatred of reason, where either revelation's or reason's rights are injured.

Naturalism is, e.g., expressed by the Socinians: "nihil credi posse, quod a ratione capi et intelligi nequeat." Hatred of reason by, e.g., Tertullian: ["]credo, quia absurdum est."

(Rationalists.—Supernaturalists.)

Rationalists—Irrational.

Naturalists—Supernatural.

[e] Mynster (on the concept "Dogmatics["]) § 21.

2nd Division. On Christian Dogmatics.

§ 30.

Christian dogmatics or sci. development and exposition of Christian doctrine is not necessary in order to elicit the life of Christian faith; but just as faith, when accompanied by a higher level of intellectual development, itself elicits the desire that its content should be scientifically established, so too is it necessary for a clear and complete understanding of the meaning of the dogmas and their reciprocal connection and relatedness. Dogmatics is biblical, because it develops the content of the Bible; it is philosophical, because it develops the dogmas' relation to hum. beings' religious ideas; it is ecclesiastical, because it indicates the particular direction in which the doctrine is found to be developed in a particular society.

On the meaning of the word dogmatics.

The necessity of dogmatics is obvious from 1) Hum. nature, its urge to communicate itself. 2) from Xnty's nature, the way in which it has been communicated.

§ 31.

Holy Scrip. is the foundation of doctrine by means of philological-historical interpretation, directed and guided by insight into the principal content and religious character of Christianity (analogia scripturæ). Thanks to such interpretation the right selection and the right use of scriptural proof texts (dicta probantia, loci classici, sedes doctrinarum) is assured.

§ 32.

Thanks to the correct interpretation of scripture, the principal Christian teachings (articuli fundamentales s. constitutivi) emerge of themselves, that is to say, those that: 1. constitute the leading ideas of the teaching of Christ and the apostles; 2. that communicate to Christian faith and Christian life its peculiar character, and 3. in relation to which the other teachings can be regarded as elaborations. By thus tracing back to the purely Christian element, biblical dogmatics demonstrates the surest way to Christian unity.—

§ 33.

Dogmatics is closely connected to philosophy not only with regard to form, that is, the scientific definition of individual doctrines and their reciprocal connection in a coherent whole, a doctrinal edifice; but also with regard to content, since this is more or less also the object of the philosophy of religion, and it is when the teachings are more deeply established in the religious consciousness that they acquire meaning and power or influence over the mind. But dogmatics is nevertheless different from philosophy, because it rests on a positive foundation. Every attempt to mix the two thus rests on a misunderstanding of each science's distinctiveness, and it is only by the free and independent development of each alone that the wished-for unity is to be sought.—

§ 34.

Historical investigation within dogmatics partly concerns the pre-Christian anticipations and intimations of Christian teachings, by virtue of which the meaning and distinctive form of the latter is brought into clear view; partly the later developments of doctrine that serve by their variety and counterpoint to display Christian truth in a clearer light and to show the relationship between the doctrine of the Church and that of scripture.—

History of the Science.

Various methods in the organization of the dogmatic material.

1. The analytic, which took its point of departure in the ends and then found its conclusion in the means.

2. The synthetic, which takes its point of departure in the causes and concludes with the effects.

3. The trichotomatic. Marheinecke.

The federal method of Cocceius.

a)) foedus naturæ (before the Fall) b) foedus gratiæ.—or 1) foedus patriarcharum 2) foedus legis 3) foedus evangelii.

Wolf's demonstrative-mathematical method.

Lactantius libri VII divinarum institutionum.

Genadius Massiliensis de ecclesiasticis dogmatibus; Isidorus Hisp. libri III sententiarum.

Johannes Damascenus [TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].—

Appendix to the First Main Division. Concerning Higher Spirits. 1 Concerning the Good Spirits.

§ 14.

Chr. and more frequently his apostles discuss angels and speak of them as perfect beings, as God's messengers and Chr.'s servants; but also as limited beings who cannot become the object of any more precise knowledge or be worshiped by hum. beings.—

Mt 22:30; Lk 20:36; Mt 25:31; Lk 9:26; Lk 15:10; Mt 18:10.

From the apostles.

2 Cor 11:14; 1 Tim 5:21; Eph 1:21, 3:10; Col 1:16; Rom 8:38—Gal 1:8, 4:14; 1 Cor 13:1.

As God's messengers. Heb 1:14; Lk 1:19; Rev 8:2; Lk 12:8; Gal 3:19; Acts 7:53; Heb 2:2.

As Chr's servants. Mt 1; Lk 1:2. In Chr.'s temptation, suffering, resurrection, ascension.—

In the story of the apostles. Acts 5:20, 12:7; Acts 10:3; Mt 13:41, 25:31; 1 Thess 4:16; 2 Thess 1:7; 1 Pet 3:22. The first 2 chapters of Heb.

As limited beings. Mt 24:36; Heb 1:14; 1 Cor 6:3.

As objects of our knowledge. Col 2:18; 1 Tim 1:4; Tit 3:9.

§ 15.

Although we thus find support for belief in the existence of higher spirits in Holy Scrip., the way in which the idea of these beings is represented in a particular form and with individual characteristics cannot be regarded as part of Christian doctrine; for this form is adopted without alteration from the O. T. and Jewish folklore, and as the sayings in the N. T. are all made in relation to circumstances, without any dogmatic character, and without having any independent development, their mythical features are unmistakable. Even in a literal interpretation the concept of the angels' nature and their definition and their relation to us would show itself to be too incomplete and incoherent to serve as the basis for any dogma or to exert any religious influence on our mental disposition; nor is there any trace of this in the N. T.—

The Jews first saw angels as beings that exist in order to glorify the manifestation of God, without any definite form, which is why Jehovah's angels are often identified with God (Gen 22:12, 31:13; Ex 3:2 and 6; Judg. 6:21–23, 13:21–23). Later definite distinctions betw. angels and God are found, in that angels are portrayed as a council, a host, surrounding God's throne (1 Kings 22:19; Job 1:6). Subsequently angels are portrayed as personifications of natural powers and powers at work in giving effect to God's providence in the natural world (? 34:8, 91:11, 104:4; Job 38:7).

In the post-exilic books, the teaching concerning angels is developed under the influence of Persian mythology.

§ 16.

The comprehensive debates in the early Church as well as more recently about the nature, creation, and activity of angels, and of their various types and orders, have been promoted on the one hand by the N. T.'s silence on all these questions, but on the other hand this must convince us of the dogmatic error that has been committed here. There is absolutely not a single article about angels in the Protestant Ch. doctrine, but only opposition to the Greek and Roman Ch. practice of making angels the objects of prayer and invocation.—

2. Concerning Evil Spirits.

§ 17.

Christ and the apostles discuss both demons (unclean spirits) and a more powerful evil spirit who is their Prince; they are portrayed as dependent [on] God, thus not as originally evil but as those who have devoted themselves to evil, promoting ignorance and unbelief, ungodliness and sin and thus their own misery. In the first 3 Gospels they are also portrayed as the causes of various bodily illnesses; their dwelling-place is variously said to be in the sky, on earth, in the underworld.—

[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII]—[TEXT NOT REPRODUCIBLE IN ASCII].—Acts 17:18; Eph 6:12; Mt 25:41.