Karl Barth on the Trinity

[@ashleygovender4104]

Thank you for this video. Much appreciated.

[@ethanbergen3217]

I just found your channel but I’m glad I did. Great video!

[@kevinstorer1966]

Thanks, Ethan, for the encouragement. Best wishes in your theological quest! ~kevin

[@ClauGutierrezY]

Thank you very much. This was extremely helpful

[@BlackBubblesJblack]

I agree with bart On his version of the trinity Because I swear other people's interpretation of the trinity Leaves out revelation and just leaves it External

[@gamnamoo6195]

Thank you for the well-prepared and in depth presentation of this subject. For me, Barth's use of the word 'mode' instead of 'person' for the reason that the latter implies the center of will as an individual is NOT verified by the scriptures. I say this because Jesus surely distinguishes his will from the Father's will. Not only this, the cases of conversations, sharing love, etc. between the Son and the Father also attest the reality of the 'individuality as a distinct Person' in Trinity. Unless the distinction of personal individuality among members, this kind of 'personal' interaction wouldn't be possible. Barth's use of the word 'mode' is still confusing to me because I can't see how it is different from that in modalism. Well, the concept of 'generic' is used to illuminate the difference, but I don't know how it is different from the concept of 'divinity' which is shared by all three members. I don't think Barth is a modalist but at the same time it is hard for me to go with him in his uses of the word 'mode' especially considering that the word is precisely used to refer to a heretic theory on Trinity. Thank you!

[@kevinstorer1966]

Great observation--thanks for sharing. I suspect we may be dealing with two different issues--Jesus (as the 6th ecumenical council stated) has both a human will and a divine will, and so we might say that Jesus is speaking in his human will when he submits it to the Father. But this leads to Barth's understanding of the second issue--Triune "persons." For Barth, intellect and will are associated with "nature" (ousia) rather than "person". This is true for Christ: two natures, one Person, so two intellects and two wills in Jesus (again the 5th and 6th Ecumenical councils). This is true for Trinity: one nature, three Persons, so one intellect and one will in the Trinity (but possessed by each Person fully). (Karl Rahner agrees with Barth on this, and his discussion in The Trinity, pages 106-08 are helpful as well.) I myself certainly sense the strength of your point, but if I were to defend Barth for a moment, I would say that the problem is not so great when we consider how divine Intellect and divine Will must work: God has always known all things, so the Triune Persons do not learn by collaboration; and God has eternally willed all things, so the Triune Persons do not discuss and come to a decision. Therefore Barth is affirming that the fullness of divine intellect and will reside equally (i.e. perfectly and absolutely) in each Person (though each may express that intellect & will within the individual properties particular to that Person). Certainly I don't think that my explanation settles the issue; I am merely saying how I think Barth might defend his own position. Keep pressing forward with your very productive thinking! ~Kevin

[@gamnamoo6195]

@@kevinstorer1966 Thank you Dr. Storer for the sincere and thoughtful response to my comments. It certainly is quite helpful. One issue I find difficult to fathom is that of 'two wills' by the 'two natures.' It rather sounds to me as an arbitrary dichotomy. I note that Jesus prayed "not my will" rather than "not my human will." Surely he spoke those words as a human. But isn't it true that he was speaking it as God too? I say this because, in my view, the incarnation was so complete and genuine that Christ's will is the 'will of the God-man' behind of which is his humanity and divinity together. What I mean is that he did not have the 'will as God' seperate from the 'will as a human' and vice versa. Well, I am not intending to debate on this and you don't need to take trouble to respond to this. I just want to share with you my stream of thought regarding the issue which I will keep thinkging about. Thank you for the great videos of rich contents!

[@kevinstorer1966]

@@gamnamoo6195 Yes--again great insight! We certainly don't want a schizophrenic Jesus acting out of one of two "personalities" (condemned at the council of Ephesus). But I think we have to affirm two complete wills in Jesus for the following reasons: 1) The 6th Ecumenical Council declared it our Christian faith; 2) It is the only way to make sense of the long-standing Christian maxim, "What the Son did not assume, the Son could not redeem" (Gregory) (Since sin resides in my will, perhaps primarily there, the Son had to take to Himself a full human will in order to heal the human will); 3) it helps us make sense of passages like you mentioned above (the Persons of the Trinity seemingly could not be in disagreement, arguing with one another and one finally submitting to the other: better to see Christ authentically yielding His human will to the divine will). That said, your insight is no doubt correct: there must never be a schizophrenic "argument" between the two wills, as that Council also states. Just my thoughts...however we approach this Mystery, may Christ be the center! ~Kevin

[@traceyedson9652]

⁠The hypostatic union is meant to address this, if I’m following: two wills but utterly united with no moment of debate. Another way to think of it: Christ submitted His human will completely to the Divine Will of His Father (which He possesses). But the divinity doesn’t swallow up or dilute His humanity. Rather, His humanity expresses the divinity. And, of course, that is the model of our salvation. By grace in the Spirit, we are invited to allow our humanity (will, intellect, personality) to express divinity - divinization/theosis. Which, of course, is why this subject is, after Rahner who I assume is following the Cappadocians, soteriology - the word of salvation.

[@cc3775]

How many different trinity theories are there? The Bible tells me Yeshua was a man anointed by God. A prophet like Moses.

[@traceyedson9652]

The Bible tells you much more besides. “Not an ambassador nor an angel, but YAHWEH Himself will come to save you.” “Before Abraham was I AM.” And much more.

[@cc3775]

@@traceyedson9652 what does John 8:58 have to do with it?

[@claudiozanella256]

Unfortunately NOBODY accepts the Jesus' words, not even "christian" Churches. If you read Jesus' words with an open mind and ACCEPT THEM, then it is clear that: 1. Jesus is the ONLY OWNER and KING of heaven, not the Father (reiterated many times). 2. How is 1. possible? Jesus explains that the Father is A SPIRIT ("God is a spirit"). This means the Father is actually MISSING, "nobody ever saw God" "the world has not KNOWN you". The Father is thus AWAY in a DIFFERENT DIMENSION. This is why is Jesus the King, not the Father. 3. accordingly, Jesus sits in heaven at the right hand of THE POWER ( "ye shall see the Son of man sitting on the RIGHT HAND OF POWER and appearing in the clouds of heaven." The power is merely a "THING") 4. Jesus is ONLY WITH THE FATHER (reiterated dozens of times by Jesus), never with TWO persons!! I.e. NO TRINITY exits. 5. the Father with Jesus IS A SPIRIT. Therefore He is sometimes called "Holy Spirit" by Jesus (see the speech about the TWO blasphemies, directed to Son and Father). I.e. NO THIRD divine person exists. 6. "One (almighty) God is "strangely missing" and an "additional One" - Jesus - is here. It is clear that we are talking about the SAME ONE GOD "He who has seen me has seen the Father.". 7. the only DIFFERENCE between the Father and the Son is that the SON IS NOT ALMIGHTY: He reiterates to be like a NORMAL person. Thus for any miracle Jesus must turn to the almighty Father.