Kierkegaard and the Leap of Faith
Вставка
- Опубліковано 15 жов 2021
- What went through Abraham’s mind when God called him to sacrifice his beloved son Isaac? In this brief clip, R.C. Sproul considers how the existentialist philosopher Søren Kierkegaard saw in this crisis an illustration of the Christian’s life of faith.
Watch the full message: www.ligonier.org/learn/series...
When God told Abraham to go against the law. The temporary suspension of the ethical is a leap of faith. Amen! Thank you Father🙏🙏🙏
One of the greatest theologians of our time.
We are very blessed by the people that don't monetize his work and keep his videos going!
I fell in love with his teaching three weeks ago. It's been SO much fun, watching him from when he was 40-ish, up until he was ... older 🥴
I like that he has a vocabulary that is above mine, forcing me to look up what the heck he's talking about! Lol
I like to think of him in heaven, wearin' a crown!
God bless you that tunes in to this channel! We are blessed beloved!
" And Abraham said ' my Son, God will provide for Himself the lamb for a burnt offering. So the two of them went together." Genesis 22: 8✝️
When we trust in Jehovah Jireh
our provider this is Godly faith
I just read this topic a couple of minutes ago on the internet, and then I saw this notification.
I don't know why, but it feels amazing!
I dont believe in coincidences. 😉
Something satisfying about cracking a tough nut like this.
I believe it's the teleological suspension of the ethical. Which is a very different emphasis than the "temporary" suspension of the ethical. If the ethical were to be suspended at all, it would have to be for a greater purpose, goal, or "telos". I would argue that this is not just a leap of blind faith. There must be more... much more, before a person of faith grasps the enormity of obeying God in the face of apparent contradictions between God's commands and His revealed character. Abraham "knew" God. He knew that God would provide a solution to the paradox that He himself had placed before Abraham. He trusted that God would indeed provided a substitute for the sacrifice of Isaac. Which He did.
Yes, Abraham knew God, and he knew that God did not condone child sacrifice. And yet God gave him this dreadful command, to sacrifice his son. I think it's highly likely that Abraham rose early on that day to pray earnestly to God. One thing Abraham had was faith: the Bible tells us that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. And he had faith that God would not go against His character. If you read the Biblical narrative carefully, when Abraham gets to the bottom of the mountain where he has been told to sacrifice Isaac, you will notice that he told the servants that had accompanied them on their journey to wait there, and that "WE WILL RETURN ." Who's we? Abraham and Isaac. Abraham knew the God he had put his faith in, & knew He would somehow intervene and that he would not be sacrificing his son that day. He knew that one of the attributes of God was that He is Jehovah Jireh, the great provider. Now that is real faith, knowing that God will always provide for us, come what may. And God did not disappoint Abraham, He provided a substitute sacrifice. What a test of faith, and how sobering it is that when it was God's turn to sacrifice His only begotten Son, that we may be saved, God did not intervene to stop Christ's crucifixion. No, God Himself paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins that we may be saved.
Existentialism is a humanism
If (Holy Scriptures never said it) Abraham tossed and turned the night before it would have been
Because of how sure He was
THAT GOD HAD SPOKEN
Abraham knew God, and he knew that God did not condone child sacrifice. And yet God gave him this dreadful command, to sacrifice his son. I think it's highly likely that Abraham rose early on that day to pray earnestly to God. One thing Abraham had was faith: the Bible tells us that Abraham's faith was credited to him as righteousness. And he had faith that God would not go against His character. If you read the Biblical narrative carefully, when Abraham gets to the bottom of the mountain where he has been told to sacrifice Isaac, you will notice that he told the servants that had accompanied them on their journey to wait there, and that "WE WILL RETURN ." Who's we? Abraham and Isaac. Abraham knew the God he had put his faith in, & knew He would somehow intervene and that he would not be sacrificing his son that day. He knew that one of the attributes of God was that He is Jehovah Jireh, the great provider. Now that is real faith, knowing that God will always provide for us, come what may. And God did not disappoint Abraham, He provided a substitute sacrifice. What a test of faith, and how sobering it is that when it was God's turn to sacrifice His only begotten Son, that we may be saved, God did not intervene to stop Christ's crucifixion. No, God Himself paid the ultimate sacrifice for our sins that we may be saved.
The Law had not been given yet in the time of Abraham, but I agree that it is against the Law of God to sacrifice human and or in this case Isaac, Abraham's son of promise.
Yes indeed, God did spare Abraham's son, but did not spare His Son....human speaking, Isaac caught a break (the ram), but not the Son of God...no break for Him, sacrificed as a human substitute for our sin, giving us a gracious second chance to be saved, but only in believing and obeying His Son, our Savior.
" By faith Abraham when He was tested offered up Isaac and he who had received the promises offered up his only begotten son ....concluding that God was able to raise him up even from the dead from which he also received him in a figurative sense."
This is Godly faith
Existentialism is a humanism
Existential leap of faith
Is not biblical
Existentialism is a humanism
" Abraham believed God'
The faith of the believer is of
The Holy Spirit
The just live and walk by Godly Saving faith
Just because you don't understand it, does not make it unbiblical. Existentialism in Kierkegaard's writings is devoid of the atheistic nihilistic flavours as Kierkegaard envisioned existentialism to be a deeply religious idea. For example the ideas of angst according to Kierkegaard are tied to one's own sin and the realization that without God we exist meaninglessly. Later existentialists like Camus, Nietzsche Sarte etc borrowed this concept from Kierkegaard but stripped it of its religious context and parachuted a nihilistic worldview into the concept of angst. To be fair, RC Sproul is summarizing massively here and 'temporary' is incorrect - it should be 'teleological/purposeful suspension of the ethical', which gives Kierkegaard's argument its intended meaning that Abraham trusted God in spite of his knowing that an all-good God would not require this kind of deed; doing so must be for a higher purpose - and this then ties into Kierkegaard's idea of the Stages on Life's Way - Aesthetic, Ethic, and Religious. There are alot of ideas swirling here in Kierkegaard's writing that the summary can't address and as such one is left in the dark somewhat. Kierkegaard had a deep faith in Christ and felt his writings were an important part of his own growth and understanding of these topics. Fear and Trembling is a well written and thought provoking book that helped me to see the Abraham story in fresh ways, giving me a deeper appreciation for God's redeeming work in humanity.
@@markwilkinson2664 Abraham did not take a leap of faith
@@jessyjonas4988 what does 'leap of faith' mean to you?
@@markwilkinson2664 that in which your faith resides is subject to change. God is immutable
@@jessyjonas4988 You've lost me with your response. If God is truly immutable then there is no better person to have put your faith in and then taking a 'leap of faith' in that person is the only rational but it is the wisest thing to do. What do you say to that?
Kierkagaard proposed the most disastrous concept known to man - truth is subjective.
It is a misunderstood concept for sure. What he intended by this, and what others have taken it to mean are two completely different things.
He did not propose moral subjectivity, which is an entirely different concept. All you have to do to prove absolutely that truth in our human minds is subjective is simply to have a conversation with another human. Even one you mostly agree with. Check out the modifier in that sentence. Mostly.
He didn't in the way you think he did. Subjective truth in Kierkegaard does NOT mean what it means for the nihilists and the post-modernists. Go read him
Exactly. He proposed that there is no way proving why something is good or bad, but despite this fact and the doubts it creates to you, do the leap of faith. Believe exactly because you doubt.
There is no excuse for even a temporary suspension of the ethical. There either is ethics and Abraham failed, or more likely, there is no ethics.
There is ethics in believing God would raise Isaac 🙏