system
Given the following post, respond as if you're commenting on Reddit:
human
Trying to understand Kierkegaard's Existentialism as a Christian

I recently started reading more thoroughly into Existentialist philosophy - I went to university and graduated with an analytic viewpoint, and the courses/path I followed in my studies did not much lead me towards the existential thought.

As such, I am a novice in this area, but I have some understanding of philosophy on the whole. 

In reading Sartre's thoughts on Existentialism and the misconceptions people have regarding it, he mentioned that there are two types of existentialists: christian and atheist. I have found that this divide roughly comes from those who followed on from Kierkegaard (Christian) and those who followed on from Nietzsche (Atheist). (this might be an erroneous read on it, but it appears to be true from what I have seen). 

I read some of Kierkegaard, particularly Fear and Trembling and Either/Or, and I have been reading criticism around him to help further my understanding, but I still have one aspect of his work that confuses me. 

From what I read, it seems that he had a view that stated the world is subjective, as is existence, and that we precede our essence with existence: we have choice, and he points to numerous examples in the Bible regarding this fact: Adam was given choice to eat or not eat from the tree, and, more famously, Abraham was given choice to sacrifice his son or not. Kierkegaard seems to say that our existential nature allows us to choose, but that in choosing to follow God's will, we are therefore better for it, in the case of fully having faith, we are "great" for it. 

So my question is: Doesn't this still suppose that there is a greater power at work in the world that thus precedes your existence? Your existence precedes your essence, and so you have the right to refuse, but you are worse for not accepting the will of this other essence (God), which seems contrary to the idea that your existence precedes your essence, since it adds value judgement to your decisions and thus brings you into an area similar to Socrates's Euthyphro. 

Sorry if this is a long-winded way to ask the question: I wanted to provide proper context as well as fully flesh out my question so that I am (hopefully) clear about what I am trying to understand.
gpt
Sartre's existentialist maxim of "existence precedes essence" enters the scene a good century after Kierkegaard and is likely one Kierkegaard wouldn't have shared. This is not the broader sense by which Kierkegaard is described as an existentialist or proto-existentialist philosopher.