Subscribe to our mailing list.
Karl Barth say the Trinity is One God in Three Modes of Being (not Persons)

Karl Barth proposed that the Trinitarian formula of "one God in three persons" be updated to "one God in three modes of being" (or "... ways of being"). Is Barth teaching Sabellian modalism? No! The reason for the change, is that Barth believed that the word "person" has substantially changed in meaning to include an "attribute of self-consciousness" (especially in the Post-Reformation era). Barth therefore rejects "three persons" because it communicates that there are three "personalities" (or self-consciousnesses) in God, and this is the heresy of tritheism!

In this post, I will explain why Barth's updated formulation of "one God in three modes of being" is a better expression of the trinitarian teachings of the early Church Fathers in their battles with Anti-Trinitarian heresies, and how "modes of being" more faithfully translates the early church creeds into modern vernacular than the outmoded term "persons". 

Modes of Being (Seinweise)

Barth selects the German word "seinweise", translated as "modes of being" or "ways of being", to replace the word "person" because it is more faithful to early Church father's description of the Trinity, than modern meaning of "person". Barth explains that "seinweise" is not a completely new term, because it is a literal translation of the ancient concept of "modus entitativus" (or τρόπος ὑπάρξεως) used by the early Church Fathers to describe the Trinity. 

Hence we are not introducing a new concept but simply putting in the centre an auxiliary concept which has been used from the very beginning and with great emphasis in the analysis of the concept of person. . . . God is One in three ways of being, Father, Son and Holy Ghost . . . "Mode (or way) of being" (Seinsweise) is the literal translation of the concept τρόπος ὑπάρξεως or modus entitativus as, e.g., Quenstedt [...] put it in Latin. —Karl Barth [1]

The phrase "modes of being" (seinweise) sounds scary at first, because of initial term 'mode'; yet, this is not a novel Barthianism!  I assure you, despite the similar phonetics, that Barth is not affirming Sabellianism or Modalism whatsoever.  Barth explains that "modes of being" is not a novellum, but repeating ancient church expressions that faithful describe the trinity, and do not introduce an attribute of self-consciousness that "persons" has wrongly done. (Barth provides many examples of quotations from Church fathers that use the term "modus" in small print sections in loc.)

. . . by preference we do not use the term "person" but rather "mode (or way) of being," our intention being to express by this term, not absolutely, but relatively better and more simply and clearly the same thing as is meant by "person."—Karl Barth [2]

And for my Biblicist readers, who desire a prooftext, Barth believes that "modes of being" is biblically justified by in Hebrews 1:3 (e.g. "the impress of His subsistence") as follows:

Heb. 1:3 already called the Son χαρακτὴρ τῆς ὑποστάσεως θεοῦ i.e., in His mode of being an "impress" or countertype of the mode of being of God the "Father." —Karl Barth [3]

Barth's rejection of "Persons"

Barth explained that "person" in the 19th century came to mean "personality" (or a thinking thing pace. Descartes), which had unintended result of altering the meaning of "three persons" to now communicates that there are "three personalities" (or three self-consciousnesses) in God, which Barth rejects as tritheism heresy.

What is called "personality" in the conceptual vocabulary of the 19th century is distinguished from the patristic and mediaeval persona by the addition of the attribute of self-consciousness. This really complicates the whole issue. —Karl Barth [4]

Barth argues that "person" originally meant "persona", as it was first used by the early Church fathers in their fight against Anti-Trinitarian heresies, and by the early credal definitions of the Trinity; for instance, the Athanasian Creed describes god as "three personas" (lit. lat. "tres personae").  Barth believed that "personas" was superior to "persons" because "personas" correctly describes God as a threefold-I. Barth rejects old formula "three persons" because there are not "three-I's in God".

"Person" as used in the Church doctrine of the Trinity bears no direct relation to personality. The meaning of the doctrine is not, then, that there are three personalities in God. This would be the worst and most extreme expression of tritheism, against which we must be on guard at this stage. . . . But in it we are speaking not of three divine I's, but thrice of the one divine I. —Karl Barth [5]

Due to the confusion shrouding Latin group of words (such as person, persona, personality, etc.), Barth chose the phrase "three modes of being" following the Greek group of words (such as hypostasis, substantia, substance, etc.) to replace of the deprecated "three persons".

We have avoided the term "person" in the thesis at the head of the present section. It was never adequately clarified when first introduced into the Church's vocabulary, nor did the interpretation which it was later given and which prevailed in mediaeval and post-Reformation Scholasticism as a whole really bring this clarification, nor has the injection of the modern concept of personality into the debate achieved anything but fresh confusion. The situation would be hopeless if it were our task here to say what is really meant by "person" in the doctrine of the Trinity. —Karl Barth [6]

Person (Augustine) is a compromise between Persona (Latin) and Hypostasis (Greek)

The phrase "three person" derives from the Athanasian Creed (or Symbol of Quicunque Virt, c. 6th century CE), which says:  "And in this Trinity none is before, or after another; none is greater, or less than another. But the whole three Persons (tres personae) are coeternal, and coequal." (The Athanasian Creed is a gloss on Augustine's On the Trinity, not Athanasius.)

Barth believed that "person" was a term popularized by St. Augustine as a compromise between the Western Churches (that used the Latin word "personae") and the Eastern Churches (that used "hypostasis") in their respective definitions of the Trinity: The Latin word for person ("personae") sounded like a modalist heresy to the Eastern Churches, and the Greek word for person ("hypostasis") sounded like a tritheism heresy to the Western Churches. In On the Trinity, Augustine declared that neither term was suitable, and proposed that the term "person" would be used, rather than to say nothing at all. Augustine is arguably the greatest of the Latin Church Fathers, so the Western Latin term "person" became ubiquitous. 

Karl Barth picks up this ancient feud between the Western and Eastern Churches, and argues that the Eastern Greek term "hypostasis" was the superior term, because the Western Church's Latin term persona implied modalism. Barth argued that persona (πρόσωπον) describes the Trinity like three masks (that are hiding the face of a fourth unknown God). Consequently, Barth's term "modes of being" is a conscious decision to set aside all the Western derivatives of "person" and side with the Eastern Churches vernacular of "hypostasis", because history has shown that the Church erred by using "person"  instead of "hypostasis".

The word persona, πρόσωπον like trinitas, which is supposed to have been used first by Tertullian, originates with the controversy against the Sabellian heresy and is thus designed to denote the being in and for themselves of Father, Son and Spirit respectively. But did not persona, πρόσωπον, also mean "mask"? Might not the term give new support to the Sabellian idea of three mere manifestations behind which stood a hidden fourth? In view of this the Greek Church largely preferred to translate persona by ὑπόστασις rather than πρόσωπον. On the other hand ὑπόστασις necessarily suggested to the Westerners substantia in the sense of natura or essentia. and so they saw themselves threatened here by the proximity of tritheistic ideas. Finally, if the West clung to persona and the East to ὑπόστασις neither party could be perfectly content with the other nor ultimately with itself.

It is something of a relief that a man of Augustine's standing openly declared (De trin., V, 9, VII, 4) that to call what is meant "person" is simply a necessitas or consuetudo loquendi. A really suitable term for it just does not exist. —Karl Barth [7]

Criticism

Karl Barth's proposal of "one God in three modes of being" explains the Trinity much better than the traditional formula of "one God in three persons". However, Barth's replacement of "persons" with "modes of being" has caused most English speakers to think Barth is advocating for Sabellian modalism. So the received meaning of "modes of being" or "ways of being" also causes misunderstanding. 

Barth is correct that "person" has had an "attribute of self-consciousness" added to it. However, the meaning of "person" is also symbolically linked to the trinity, such that when the "threefold-I of God" is described, the term mostly commonly used is "person". So it becomes impossible to separate "person" from the threeness of God. 

Also, there's great danger in substituting "modes of being" for "person", because the injection of "and the son (filioque)" to the Nicene Creed, is linked to the Great Schism, and the Church has had enough schism. So in my opinion, I'm happy to continue to use the term "person" or "three persons", so long as it is immediately explained to mean "three modes of being" and not "three personalities" as in tritheism.

Perhaps the most famous critic of Barth's trinitarian theology is Jürgen Moltmann. In Moltmann' Trinity and the Kingdom of God, Moltmann said that Barth's reformulation was a victory for Sabellianism. Moltmann didn't explicitly say Barth was a Sabellian, but that his theology may be exploited to assist Sabellianism. Moltmann advances a theology of the trinity that is much further in the direction of tritheism, than Barth, and I understand this criticism from Moltmann as Moltmann asserting his difference from Barth. Only people who hate Barth would so lazy and careless to assert that Moltmann believed Barth was a heretic—that's just nonsense. 

"But viewed theologically this is a late triumph for the Sabellian modalism which the early church condemned. The result would be to transfer the subjectivity of action to a deity concealed 'behind' the three Persons." —Jürgen Moltmann [8]

Conclusion

Karl Barth's criticism of the Trinitarian formula "one God in three persons" is correct because "person" no longer adequately conveys the same meaning it did when it was used by the early Church fathers and creeds. After the Post-Reformation era, an attribute of self-consciousness was added to the meaning of "person" that had the unintended consequence of changing the meaning of "three persons" to the tritheistic "three personalities". The term "person" was always provisional, and understood to be an insufficient compromise between the Greek speaking early Eastern Churches who preferred the term "hypostasis" and the Latin speaking Western Churches who preferred the term "personae". Barth rightly blames the great Latin Church Father, St. Augustine of Hippo, for influencing the Church to adopt the term "person" as a compromise. Barth believes that the Church erred by following the Western Church's use of "person", and believes that a return to the Eastern Church formulate better explains the Trinity, especially now that the meaning of "person" has changed. Barth's proposal of "one God in three modes of being" is a more faithful rendering of the Trinitarian formulas of the early Church, and more clearly explains the Trinity than the traditional "one God in three persons".  

Karl Rahner and others, have made the same criticisms of "person" and "three persons", so Barth's argument is convincing and well supported, so I encourage anyone who prefers to follow Barth, to do so. Moltmann and other critics overstate their argument when they claim that Barth's proposal of "one God in three modes of being" is a victory for Sabellian modalism. The primary danger of Barth's proposal, is the changing of traditional phrases so late in Church history, may cause schism in the Church. Then again, theology is never finished, and must constantly be translated into modern vernacular. If the old formulate of "one God in three persons" is retained, then there's an immediate need to explain this formula a "one God in three modes of being".

References:

[^Header Image Background] By Andrei Rublev - From here., Public Domain, Link
[^1] Barth, Karl. Church Dogmatics, Vol 1.1 Doctrine of the Word of God. Vol. 2. London: T & T Clark, 2010. Print. Study Edition. [359-60].
[^2] Ibid. [359].
[^3] Ibid. [360].
[^4] Ibid. [357].
[^5] Ibid. [351].
[^6] Ibid. [355].
[^7] Ibid.
[^8] Moltmann, Jürgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom: The Doctrine of God (Systematic Theology Contributions). Minneapolis, MN: Fortress, 1993. 139. Print.

Related: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
 
Comments (0) Trackbacks (0)
  1. As always, I appreciate your thoughts. I may disagree a little. I isolate the portions of his view of the Trinity that relate to German Idealism. I do not think you refer to perichoresis. I will discuss the potential weakness of his view of the Trinity regarding pneumatology. Having said that, I fully agree that his discussion is not even close to the Trinitarian heresies you mention.
    Barth develops his notion of the Trinity from the formal concept of revelation as self-revelation, which entails a subject of revelation, an object, and revelation itself, all of which derive from unity. This model of a Trinity of revelation is structurally identical with the notion of the self-conscious Absolute of Hegel. The difference is that Barth consistently relates this self-relation in revelation is the Incarnation. Barth wants to begin with the concrete and specific revelation in the Son. In criticism, however, Barth developed the idea of the revelation of the God who reveals who God out of logic. Throughout Church Dogmatics, we will see the same problem, focusing on Christ (a plus), but at the expense of the Holy Spirit or pneumatology. I grant that this appearance may partially be the result of the incomplete nature of this work, which would have focused upon the Holy Spirit. We will see here that the German Idealism of Barth shines through especially connected with Fichte. He thinks of God as absolute subject rather than substance. The difficulty Barth will get into is that his Idealistic reflection places the divine lordship before the Trinity and uses the Trinity to secure and interpret divine subjectivity. The point here is that the revelation of God is the enabling of the interpretation of revelation. Revelation is the self-interpretation of this God. We have here the root of the doctrine of the Trinity. Moving from revelation, Barth will then discuss the Triunity of God. He borrows from Hegel as he pictures three distinctive modes of being subsisting in their mutual relations of Father, Son, and Spirit. The thesis of Barth that God corresponds to the divine self is an expression of a relationship. With the concept of the modes of being, Barth takes up the Patristic term “mode of subsistence,” in order to replace the misleading concept of Person within the Trinity. If we think in terms of an analogy of relationship, the modes of the being of God revealed in the economic Trinity correspond to the immanent Trinity, notions on which Barth depends upon the Cappadocian Fathers. When dealing with the concrete being of God in the self-related quality of the modes of being resolves itself in the notion of perichoresis and his teaching of appropriation. Thus, the being of God is concrete historical event in which the self-communication of God takes place and through which fellowship with humanity comes about. The self-related quality of the three modes of being take the form of a fellowship within God takes place concretely. Such fellowship occurs through a complete participation of each mode of being in the other modes of being. Becoming and being are together in this concrete unity. Hegel notes that “concrete” derives from a word that means, “To grow together.” Such a word is the perfect word for what Barth is seeking to communicate here. The mutual relatedness of the modes of being takes place as unrestricted participation or perichoresis, a term I do not think you mention. They pass into each other. They condition and permeate each other so completely that one is always in the other two, and the other two in the one. In this case, the work of God and the reality of God are one. For Barth, perichoresis is a teaching that helps us formulate the unity of the modes of the being of God and offers responsible speech about God. However, the next step Barth will take is to make intelligible the unity of the modes of being as expressed in the work of God in a way that does not surrender the differentiation within the being of God. The older dogmatics discussed this notion in the teaching of appropriation. Appropriation is the act of attributing certain logical predicates to each of the three modes of being. It becomes a hermeneutical procedure for describing the being of God. He respectively ascribes particular attributes and operations of the Trinity to each particular mode of being. The issue here is that the unity of God must show itself in this appropriation.

  2. I have written a blog on Karl Rahner. It includes a section on the Trinity. It seems as if Rahner had a similar as does Barth, relying upon German Idealism and thus opening the door to the charge of modalism. In fact, Rahner explicitly said he feared tritheism more than modalism! This fear may have led him down a path that one could describe as modalistic. In any case, if you are interested, here is the full blog, but you will easily go to the Trinity portion: http://wolfhartpannenberg.blogspot.com/2017/03/karl-rahner.html

  3. “And for my Biblicist readers, who desire a prooftext, Barth believes that “modes of being” is biblically justified by in Hebrews 1:3 (e.g. “the impress of His subsistence”) as follows:”

    ****did you mean substance?****

  4. JESUS is according to PAUL, the Visible Presence of God on Earth. So simple, so HUMBLE,
    and genuinely, TRUE. CREATOR, LOGOS, HOLY GHOST , HOMOOUSION AND INDIVISIBLE!!

  5. You’ve made a significant Latin error several times in this essay. Personae is not a different word than persona. They are the same word. Persona is the nominative singular and personae the nominative plural or genitive singular. So for Augustine to select the word “persona” was not any kind of a compromise between East and West. That was exactly the preferred Western term.

    Barth’s point about the Modern psychologizing of “person” is a good one. “Hypostasis” is a better term, especially today. But I don’t think “mode of being” is a good rendering of “hypostasis.” It’s an instance of being, rather. And when Barth rejects “three divine I’s,” he’s running afoul of the language of Scripture. Jesus spoke to His Father as I-to-you in all His recorded prayers, and the Father proclaimed at Jesus’ baptism, “This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”

    • I would respond to this by saying that Christ had the capacity to speak unto the Father as I and you simply by the Word having a true human.

      To say thatGod in His eternal deity speaks to Himself in a plurality as if there are a multiplicity of identities in God’s being is to reject that God says I am alone and there is no other but me, I kill and I make alive, I am alone God and there is no other but me.

      The Son of Man is the Son of God the Father almighty, the Word made flesh.

      God expressed His entirety of being in and as a true human man Jesus of Nazareth, y doing such we can see that God is in a distinct mode of being, or better yet we could say this.

      God is one being in three modes of existences.

      As the one true God the Father almighty has two other manners, way or modes of existing as both the Word and the Spirit.

      We know that the Father is in and through the other two existences because they are of His very own being/ousia. They are homoousia of the Father as it is the Father’s personal being and consciousness. The other two are represented all throughout scripture as God’s hands or His heart.

      The Father is the head and the Word and Spirit are His two hands.

      There is no other God but the Father and of His being He exists in two other modes of existences.

      One God in three hypostasis.

      One God in three modes of subsistences, existences, and so on.

  6. Whilst he may be right to have some terminological misgivings about the limitations of the word ‘person’, I still think that Barth has a tendency towards modalism.

    In part, this is because his definition of modalism is unnecessarily narrow. For the patristics, modalism is not just about a “hidden fourth”, but is also sometimes a blurring of distinctions between Father, Son and Spirit.

    So Augustine:

    “Noetians are named from one Noetus who used to say that Christ *himself* was Father and Holy Spirit,”

    or Tertullian:

    “He himself, say they [the Monarchians], made *himself* his own Son. Nay but father makes son, and son makes father, and those who become what they are by relationship with another cannot by any means so become by relationship with themselves, as that a father should make himself his own son or a son cause himself to be his own father”.

    When Barth uses reflexive language, or says “we are speaking not of three divine I’s, but thrice of the one divine I,” or “God is the one God in threefold repetition,” he seems to blur distinctions between Father, Son and Spirit, and imply that, although there is threeness in some sense, there is only one person, one subject, one actor, one self: God the Lord.

    Granted, it’s not the “hidden fourth” masked modalism that Barth eschews, but it is still modalism as defined by the patristics. Less Punch and Judy, more Charlie McCarthy. Hence Moltmann’s point.

    The inevitable questions for Barth come out of the incarnation. Did God send himself (c.f. John 3.16)? Does he love himself (c.f. John 5.19)? Did Jesus pray to himself (c.f. John 17.1)?

    One reason why Barth’s tendency towards modalism is such a big deal, is that it makes God out to be deceptive, and ultimately undermines his revelation in Scripture. If the Son makes a request from earth, and the Father makes a promise from heaven, but these instances are in actual fact just one being requesting or promising to himself – then God is made out to be a liar.

    Another is that, if God is one God in three modes of being, then in reality – his love is an inward focused, self-love, and the gospel ceases to be good news. As Richard of Saint Victor says: “no one is properly said to have charity on the basis of his own private love of himself… where a plurality of persons is lacking, charity cannot exist.”

    Although, like all human language, ‘person’ is an inadequate term, it’s worth sticking with, as Augustine says, “not that it might be [completely] spoken, but that it might not be left [wholly] unspoken,” and, we might add, to retain the Scriptural revelation of the one God who is Father and Son and Spirit.

  7. After reading this I can’t for the life of me find any way in which “modes” seems, sounds, or comes across as better than “persons” in any way.

  8. I think Barth tends toward modalism. The concept of God or Trinity is very complex. The use of the “persons” conjures in one’s mind the presence of three separate and distinct human beings – of course, this is tritheism. The Scriptures is very clear that God is one. It also teaches that the Father is God, the Messiah is God and the Spirit is God. We all agree that it is very difficult to define the eternal God in a space-time dimension. It appears that the word “persons” is rather inadequate to define it. May I suggest that whenever we use the word “Persons”, we would elaborate that this is akin to concept of the consciousnesses of the Father, Messiah and Spirit (ie Self-consciousness and Transitive consciousness which are taught in the Scripture). This explanation of Consciousnesses would help to obviate the image of 3 human beings, thereby helping us for a better understanding of monotheism in the Scriptures.


Cancel reply

No trackbacks yet.