Did Karl Barth confess an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?
score:7
Yes. In fact, one of Barth's lasting contributions was a recovery of the doctrine of the Trinity as central for theology, in reaction to German liberalism's denial or, at best, sidelining of the topic (Schleiermacher's The Christian Faith is a prime example of this—in an 800 page systematic theology, the Trinity only merits 14 pages tagged on at the end). Barth's Church Dogmatics begins with the Trinity and its entire structure is based around it.
Some have accused Barth of modalism because he used the term "modes of being" or "ways of being" (Seinsweise) to describe the different members of the Godhead, instead of the traditional "persons." This accusation is based on a misunderstanding, though an understandable one. Barth's refusal to use the term "person" is due to the isolated individualistic connotation that term has taken on in recent times—a connotation that he doesn't think was contained in "hypostasis" as used in the creeds. In Volume IV of Church Dogmatics he differentiates between these "ways of being" more thoroughly, making it clear that he is not, in fact, a modalist.
I'll quote here from CD I/1, §9.2 (page 360 in the Hendrickson edition):
What we have here are God's specific, different, and always very distinctive modes of being. This means that God's modes of being are not to be exchanged or confounded. In all three modes of being God is the one God both in Himself and in relation to the world and man. But this one God is God three times in different ways, so different that it is only in this threefold difference that He is God, so different that this difference, this being in these three modes of being, is absolutely essential to Him, so different, then, that this difference is irremovable. Nor can there be any possibility that one of the modes of being might just as well be the other, e.g., that the Father might just as well be the Son or the Son the Spirit, nor that two of them or all three might coalesce and dissolve into one. In this case the modes of being would not the essential to the divine being. Because the threeness is grounded in the one essence of the revealed God; because in denying the threeness in the unity of God we should be referring at once to another God than the God revealed in Holy Scripture—for this very reason this threeness must be regarded as irremovable and the distinctiveness of the three modes of being must be regarded as ineffaceable.
The modalist heresy held that God was only one (monarchianism), but that He revealed himself in three different ways. We might say that modalists hold that God is one "way of being" but three "ways of acting"; Barth, on the other hand, makes a clear distinction between the three "ways of being." Earlier on this same page, in fact, he argues explicitly against the idea that the Triune nature of God consists only in three different types of revelation.
The full argument in I/1 §9.2 is worth reading if you have the time and inclination.
Upvote:5
Mitch's answer provides an excellent summary of Barth's views on the issue of the English word "person," as well as a helpful quote from Barth's Christian Dogmatics. To supplement that, I'll reference theologians who have analyzed Barth's argument and dealt with this question.
Criticism
Barth's foremost critic from the conservative side was Cornelius van Til. Van Til devoted two books1 and numerous articles to critical analysis of Barth's writings, and finds Barth's system to be "antitheistic":
His system of doctrine does not present to us an essentially Reformed or Christian viewpoint with divergencies here and there. His system of doctrine springs from an antitheistic root and presents some external similarities to the Reformed point of view but never on any point agrees with Reformed theology.2
Given such an understanding of Barth's work, it's not surprising that Van Til finds Barth's formulation of the trinity problematic. He objects to Barth's "modes of being" interpretation of the persons of the Godhead, and argues that Barth believes that the "centers of self-consciousness" orthodox position leads to tritheism.
Barth's rejection of the "centers of consciousness" understanding of the persons of the Godhead was also criticized by Leonard Hodgson and others holding to social trinitarianism.4
Support
Some Reformed theologians did not see anything wrong with Barth's views of the Trinity. Louis Berkhof writes:
This view of Barth is not a species of Sabellianism, for he recognizes three persons in the Godhead. Moreover, he does not allow for any subordination.5
Similarly, Gregg Allison calls Barth's "modes of being" formulation "not the modalism of earlier heresy," and argues that Barth understood that "any doctrine that emphasizes the unity of the Godhead over the distinctions of modes or persons [...] is incorrect."6
Other evangelical theologians, like John Frame7 and Alister McGrath,8 mention the controversy regarding Barth's views on the Trinity in their systematic theologies, but do not take a stance.
Summary
Van Til has been criticized, I think legitimately, for his polemic approach to Barth, but given the centrality of the doctrine to Christianity and the extent of Barth's critique of fundamentalism, his concerns have merit. Still, most evangelicals seem likely to agree that Barth's divergence from orthodoxy on the question of the Trinity, if any, is minor compared to his views on Revelation and Christology.
Phillip R. Thome's Evangelicalism and Karl Barth is an interesting introduction to the conflict between Barth and his evangelical contemporaries, but he does not focus on the issue of the Trinity.
- The New Modernism and Christianity and Barthianism. For more, see Thome, Evangelicalism and Karl Barth, 35
- Review of The Karl Barth Theology, appearing in Christianity Today, 1931. (source)
- Van Til, "Has Karl Barth Become Orthodox?", Westminster Theological Journal, 1954, v 16, pages 135–181 (source)
- Garrett, James Leo, Systematic Theology, I-326
- Berkhof, Systematic Theology, 1.1.8
- Allison, Historical Theology, 249–50
- Frame, Systematic Theology, 476
- McGrath, Christian Theology, ch. 10
More post
- 📝 What is the point of Jesus' crucifixion?
- 📝 Biblical basis for baptism as a prerequisite for salvation
- 📝 Does the Bible condone bribery?
- 📝 Why do many churches use grape juice in communion?
- 📝 (Jehovah's Witnesses) What reason(s) is there to actually love God?
- 📝 What is the purpose of other planets and solar system according to the bible?
- 📝 What happened to the sandals of Jesus?
- 📝 Why is Jesus named the Prince of Peace instead of the King of Peace?
- 📝 Conversion of the Romans and the Bible's Portrayal of the Romans
- 📝 What is the origin of the interpretation of the Song of Solomon as a picture for Christ and the Church?
- 📝 What is the translation methodology for the Nueva Versión Internacional (NVI)?
- 📝 Will World end on Oct 7,2015?
- 📝 What is the biblical argument against baptism by sprinkling/pouring?
- 📝 How do Latter-day Saints answer the question of why human beings are not created with a perfect character from the outset?
- 📝 Why was the Angel Michael fighting the Devil for Moses' body?
- 📝 What Tradition is Paul referring to when he admonishes us to "hold the traditions which ye have been taught"?
- 📝 Is the sermon on the mount intended for unbelievers?
- 📝 Why do Evangelicals like a spirituality book by a 16th century Catholic monk?
- 📝 Did any Church Fathers specifically reject Darwinian Evolution?
- 📝 What is the biblical basis for defining 'atonement’ as 'at-one-ment with Christ'?
- 📝 What is the biblical support for being 'born again' (or' born from above') in this life?
- 📝 How do Catholics and other Christians respond to the US Bishops' teaching that Matthew was not written by it supposed author?
- 📝 What is the evidence for the claim that Young Earth Creationism was the mainstream viewpoint in ancient times?
- 📝 What does the diagonal line near the bottom of the Eastern Orthodox Cross symbolize?
- 📝 According to Catholic Church, does Mark have a distinction among the Evangelists for recording trivial details?
- 📝 What is meant by the "fullness of the Gentiles" or the "times of the Gentiles"?
- 📝 What are the differences between hamartiology from a Nazarene to a Calvinist perspective?
- 📝 For whom did Solomon write Proverbs?
- 📝 According to Mormons, what is the Holy Spirit of Promise mentioned in Ephesians?
- 📝 Did the atonement end on the Cross?
Source: stackoverflow.com
Search Posts
Related post
- 📝 Did Karl Barth confess an orthodox doctrine of the Trinity?
- 📝 What's the name of this doctrine and (when) did the Eastern Orthodox Church condemn it?
- 📝 Did early church fathers understand the doctrine of trinity?
- 📝 If both the Orthodox and Catholic Church affirm salvation by grace through faith, why did the Protestant Reformation happen?
- 📝 What is the Biblical basis for the doctrine of the Trinity consisting of different persons?
- 📝 When Did Catholics Cease to Fast as the Orthodox Do?
- 📝 Did Saint Patrick actually explain the Trinity using a shamrock?
- 📝 When did the Orthodox and Catholic Churches distinguish the manner in which the Sign of the Cross was to be made?
- 📝 Where did the Young Earth Creationist doctrine originate?
- 📝 According to Orthodox Christianity, did God die on the cross at Calvary?
- 📝 What role did the Donation of Constantine have on the development of the doctrine of Papal supremacy?
- 📝 What did the early church fathers (pre-5th c.) teach with regards to the doctrine of baptism as a necessity for salvation?
- 📝 When did the Oriental Orthodox Churches start being called 'Orthodox'?
- 📝 Where did the idea of the Trinity come from?
- 📝 What influence did Greco-Roman philosophy have on the doctrine of "creatio ex nihilo"?
- 📝 What is the basis for the doctrine of the Trinity in the Book of Mormon?
- 📝 When did the Community of Christ (formerly RLDS) adopt the doctrine of the Trinity?
- 📝 What impact did Karl Barth have on Roman Catholic theology?
- 📝 Which pre-Nicene Christians who helped shape the trinity doctrine are now considered heretics?
- 📝 How did the doctrine of the pope having "supreme, full, immediate, and universal power in the care of souls" originate?
- 📝 How did Karl Barth justify his relationship with Charlotte von Kirschbaum?
- 📝 What did Luther think of the Eastern Orthodox and vice versa?
- 📝 What did Brigham Young teach regarding Blood Atonement, and is that doctrine still held today in the LDS/Mormon Church?
- 📝 Is the Eastern Orthodox doctrine of "the Monarchy of the Father" consistent with the Athanasian creed?
- 📝 Did Ignatius believe in the doctrine of Eternal Generation of the Son?
- 📝 What influence did Greek philosophy have on the formation of orthodox Christian doctrine?
- 📝 What is the difference between Eastern Orthodox doctrine of deification and the "little g" god doctrine of the Word of Faith movement?
- 📝 According to the LDS Doctrine of Exaltation, where did the Father live as a man?
- 📝 At what point did the Eastern Church start self-identifying as the Orthodox Church?
- 📝 Did St. Paul know the doctrine of the Trinity?