Kierkegaards basic understanding is, that human life is an existence before God, and the acceptance of it can only be realised through the subjective moment of faith, and the realization of this which is showed by an authentic life, not by pious or sublime platitudes. This is an important message for theologians of any time, that the objective view of truth also abstract thinking in itself, is beyond reason, real value can be won when the relationship between God and man is emphasized and therefore becomes truth of faith.

By the process of researching the complicated pseudonym-system of Kierkegaardian’s life-work we can recognize also his ars poetic in his capacity as a writer. His esthetical, philosophical and pronounced theological writings had one central aim: to lead human beings to God. By the existence of the birth of the believer the leading part cannot be the writers’, but since Socrates distinguished classificated midwife profession he undertakes this leading part with pleasure. He reminds us of the noblest service, the aid the theologian can give to promote the process of a human being in becoming a Christian.

The chapter about the Golden Age of the Danish lets us know about the cultural and theological leaders of Copenhagen, the Hegel-epigons, who are extremely antipathetic for Kierkegaard. It is important to recognise, that the anti Hegelian polemic should not superficial regard the german philosoph, because it predominantly refers to Danish contemporaries. The environment in which his works are take their origin bring to understanding for the late reader, why some subjects are overstressed, and the others totaly neglected. Kierkegaard himself gave us a hermeneutical orientation, when he says: „the times are different, and the different times needs diverses.” (In. Selfexmination). The Kierkegardian thoughts can be interpreted also as parts of a peculiar dialogue, in which he trys to answer the provocations of his contemporarys.

Many researchers associated till now to Kierkegaards name the concept of paradox, but two american co-authors illuminated his peculiar view of truth with a clear model. The name and the first interdisciplinar applying of the Strange Loop model orginates from Hofstadter. He uses this model in the world of fine arts, music, mathematics and philosophy in such cases, in which two different levels meet each other in such a way, that in spite of the differences a unity will be realised, in which the levels influenced on one another, and the top level reaches back down toward the bottom level.(Loder,40.)(This model can be illustrated by Möbius-stripe, which we can form if a rectangle paperstripe is turned over 180° degrees, and the two end points stick together, so a one-sided surface is established.). The Kierkegaardian epistemology is well illustrated by this model. He conceived that the thinking person is part of the knowing process, so truths don’t exist independent of knower. His concept of subjectivity is not a subjective partiality, but the essence of really knowing, that the knowing is related to the knower, who is the existent in essence. For the knower his own existence is the true reality. All other truths are informed, but do not touch him and don’t give testimony about him if the Möbius-stripe illustrated interaction isn’t realised.

The series of paradoxies are continued by the analysing of certain theological subjects. His Christology is the best example for paradoxal theological thinking, for surely we can not formulate the humanity and the Deity of Jesus at the same time, in any other way. The paradox of faith is multiple, first referring to the fact that the human being can captivate eternity in faith. But the manifestation of faith is paradox, which is illustrated by Abraham’s example. The general moral law in individual cases can be overwritten by the act of an individual, if it is a work of faith.

By analyzing the origin of sin Kierkegaard himself used the sophisticated argumentation of the philosophy of the XIX. century, but also this serves that theological aim, which determined his whole life-work. He reminded his readers about his one responsibility, he showed that the origin of sin is an existencial matter, and can be indifferent for no-one. The human being, beyond good and wrong before the Fall was anxious because he could choose, in the dizziness of freedom facing existence he does not think about danger. This reminds us that with the first sin only the innocence of man ceased, but the anxiety remained, moreover, the most proper characteristic of human existence is the anxiety which is derived from the possibility of non-existence. At the same time his reasoning with which he leads from anxiety to faith is encouraging, and he calls the school of anxiety the path which guides us towards faith.

From the Kierkegaardian question series, the analysing of characteristics of sin stands out. He distances himself from that erroneous concept of sin, which is set against the virtue with sin, because biblically he considers faith the contrast of sin, the virtues and faults are only secondary questions. He considers terminal illness (’sickness unto death’) damnation, the incorrect self-definition, that case when one is not able to the correct the God-man relationship. The suitable concept for terminal illness (’sickness unto death’) in classical theological language is unbelieving. To the Christ-paradox two types of response can be possible, either accepting in faith, or to be outraged by it. The nature of the latter is relatively easier to comprehend, because from one limited mind only this can follow. But in the realizing of faith something happens which surpasses the limits of human reason, over the abyss between God and man a bridge arises from the transcendence, Kierkegaard expresses this with the concept of loop of the faith.

The posterity quotes Kierkegaard’s view of time with pleasure. He provides two time-expressions with special meaning: the moment and the contemporaneity, although he never explains coherence about time, but his fragmentary remarks are all the more significant. The moment is a special time-atom, which is not empty, also it is not equal with nothing, however it is the meeting-point of eternity and human time. He considers the past and the future insignificant for the essence of human existence, moreover the historical, earthly timelife of Christ is also unessencial. They are not the only real followers, disiples of Jesus Christ, who had walked together with Christ in the Land of Judah, but all those, who recognize the essence of moment, and are able to become simultaneous with Christ.

The Danish theologian tried to remind his contemporary Christians, that they made faith into a sense-disappointment. His remarks remain valid and actual while Christ’s church continues to exist, still over and above the exterior enemies, this church must also fight its’ own mistakes and deficiencies. In the focus of one question circle of Kierkegaardian criticism we can find the church-concept. The interweave of state and clerical power in spite of many infrastructural advantages is dangerous, because the outwardly orderly relations divert the attention from the forming of the correct God-man relationship. The situation is always worsened if the Church for the sake of comfort or popularity proclaims cheap grace, and compromises its’ manner to come to an arrangement with secular expectations. He often also scourges the ministers and the priests, because in their life he doesn’t see any inclination to devotatio Christi, and their words are not carried out in the level of works, namely their message isn’t in harmony with their life. He condemns also the service of professors and theologians, because instead of the rigurous doctrines about truth, he expects information about how we can find and live out the truth.

In the forming of Barth’s dialectical theological thinking Kierkegaard has a significant role. But the two genius thinkers were born at different times, so the needs were also different, with these we can explain the fact, that the later Barth withdrew from the Danish thinker. The accusation of individualism, existencialism and pietistical subjectivism only partly have to do with Kierkegaard, Barth’s critique refers rather to them who monopolize his thoughts for realising of their own ideas. Regarding to the law-love relation, between the two theologians it is rather a rethorical accent-difference, but their fundamental intention is simillar, because both of them turn the attention of their readers to a God of grace. Barth borrows from Kierkegaard the thought, that the theologian should never lay claim to possession of the whole truth, his life-work can be only a correction, ’correctivity’, the ’pinch of cinnamon’ in hands of God. With their lifes work they spiced and coloured the world, and within it theological life.