Continuing now my considerations of deity and inwardness,
I should try to explain why and how Kierkegaard arrived at the
notion that God is subjectivity or inwardness. Offhand, I
can't quote any citation to that effect. Kierkegaard does
assert in the opening chapters of part 2 of his Concluding
Unscientific Postscript that subjectivity is truth, an assertion
from which it might seem but a small step to claim that deity
being truth is subjectivity. And perhaps it is.

If as I surmise, Spinoza's view of the world was that of an
explorer of the landscape that stretched before him, extended
in space, Kierkegaard's world was the historical process that
culminated in the moment at which he found himself, and his
understanding was consequently shaped to a much greater extent
by tradition, by literature, specifically by the Biblical
account of the life of Jesus, an account which, paradoxically
he was unable to accept.

Kierkegaard made much of his intuition that the Jesus as an
objective historical person was but an approximation and as
such would be subject to the vagaries of reinterpretation which
would cloud him with such uncertainty as to preclude his divinity.
Therefore according to Kierkegaard, the only acceptable relationship
to Jesus, to God, to the divine is one of absolute immediacy and
inwardness. The immediacy and inwardness which Spinoza called
substance, Kierkegaard refers to as subjectivity. At this point,
Shakespeare can help" A name, a name, what's in a name. A rose
by any other name would smell as sweet.

The issue ought not to be the designation of the inward phenomenon,
be it called God or Jesus, Substance or Subjectivity. This phenomenon
cannot be described by what it is, but requires to be referred
to by what it is not, and most especially by the functions it
fulfills in the life of the individual who entertains it.