Bayle, the Bible, and the Remonstrant Tradition at the Time of the Commentaire philosophique

Bayle’s equivocal relationship to Arminianism is here examined from the perspective of the status of the Bible. Though rejecting the doctrine that every word was to be considered divinely inspired, Bayle did defend the divinity of Scripture in his polemic with Jean Le Clerc. For Le Clerc, biblical criticism could solve theological conflicts by discovering the authentic meaning of Scripture, but Bayle insisted that natural light precedes exegesis, and revelation is limited to those matters that do not conflict with reason. He dissociates himself from Socinianism by distinguishing moral from speculative reason. Only moral reason offers an absolute norm. Bayle disregards the Arminian distinction between what is against reason and what is beyond reason. His Commentaire philosophique juxtaposes the natural light that can identify divine elements in the Bible with our historical reality that frustrates its capacity for apprehending religious truths. Thus Bayle inevitably clashes with the Arminian tradition.

Die teologiese debat: Die waarde of betekenis daarvan

The theological debate: Its value and significance With negotiation and debate being the buzz-words of our day, it is of some value to explore, even if only superficially, the structure and tendency of the theological debate in the history of the church. In the theological debate the cardinal issue is the Word of God which determines the word of man. In this light the theological debate can be distinguished as both an internal debate within the church arid an external debate with those outside the church. The substance of the debate is determined largely by the question of the content and significance of the Word of God Since the Word of God is an absolute norm, the theological debate tends to become a statement and, in many cases, does not develop iruo an exchange of ideas or points of view. The theological debate, with its apologetic, explanatory and didactic elements, is however a necessary element in church life. Within its limits it can be a stimulating expression of the faith of the church.

Kierkegaard og Grundtvig

Grundtvig and KierkegaardGötz Harbsmeier: Wer ist der Mensch? - Kontroverse um Kierkegaard und Grundtvig. Vol. III. Reviewed by Hellmut Toftdahl.This book, (which the author himself refers to in his preceding paper on Grundtvig and Germany) has been reviewed partly as an introduction to Grundtvig, partly as a contribution to the debate on Grundtvig and Kierkegaard, since the last chapter is devoted to the theme promised by the title of this series. The two preceding volumes in this series were reviewed in Grundtvig-Studier 1971.The book is the outcome of a lifelong preoccupation with Grundtvig’s life and work and all that the idea of Grundtvig and Grundtvigianism stands for. It contains excellent translations into German of central Grundtvig texts, with notes that testify to true German thoroughness and which are plainly inspired by Kaj Thaning’s interpretation of Grundtvig. Grundtvig the anthropologist stands out more clearly than the theologian, which, according to the reviewer, will no doubt be of greatest interest to the Germans. The aim of the book is to present to the Germans an alternative to German nationalism - an alternative that does not repudiate patriotism, the language and the nation, but avoids the tenets of the neo-Nazi ideology. The fact is stressed that Grundtvig’s ideas on nationalism must be seen in relation to his time. Here Harbsmeier answers Johannes Tiedje who, in 1927, cited Grundtvig in support of ideas which could be regarded as precursors of Nazism. This chapter could stimulate Germans to study Grundtvig’s ideas on nationalism in greater detail.As part of the “Auseinandersetzung” with Kierkegaard which the series presents, the reviewer feels, however, that this volume is not able to remedy what started to go wrong in volume II. Harbsmeier confronts K. E. Løgstrup’s picture of Kierkegaard with Thaning’s picture of Grundtvig, which must of course be to Grundtvig’s advantage, but he quite rightly points out that Grundtvig did not know much about the works of Kierkegaard.An impartial assessment of the two thinkers is lacking then. In view of the fact that Kierkegaard rejects the idea of there being a historical basis for determining what is true Christianity, the reviewer finds it surprising that Kierkegaard can be bracketed with orthodox and pietistic Christians, who consider the Bible the absolute norm for the Christian life. He also disagrees with Harbsmeier’s interpretation of Kierkegaard’s conception of »inderlighed« (intensity) and of »samtidighed« (contemporaneity), maintaining that the contemporaneity which Kierkegaard demands of the believer is a confrontation, aiming at self-examination, with the existence expressed through the Christ figure of the Gospels.As Kierkegaard knows that this existence can be variously interpreted, but will always provide a model for imitation, and that it cannot be imitated in the concrete life, the two thinkers are, according to the reviewer, much closer to each other than Grundtvig realized - or than this series shows. There is in Kierkegaard’s works an ambiguity which appears in his ironic style, and which in fact makes Kierkegaard find redemption in the concrete present life, the redemption which he calls »Gjentagelsen« (repetition). The only writer in the series who has appreciated this is Hinrich Buss in volume 1. It is a pity - Grundtvig will command attention without that sort of advertisement.