Please note that when Barth speaks of modes, he does not mean the heresy of modalism. He prefers modes to persons, but his doctrine of the trinity is very orthodox.
“It does not follow from His triunity that His being is three-fold in the sense that His perfection consists of three parts and is to be seen and understood by us as it were in three divisions. His being is whole and undivided, and therefore all His perfections are equally the being of all three modes of the divine being. But it certainly follows from God’s triunity that the one whole divine being, as the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit whose being it is, must be at the same time identical with itself and non-identical, simple and multiple, a life both in movement and at peace. In this relationship and therefore in its form, what is repeated and revealed in the whole divine being as such, and in each divine perfection in particular, is the relationship and form of being of the Father and the Son and the unity of the Spirit, to the extent that these three are distinct in God but no less one in God, without pre-eminence or subordination but not without succession and order, yet without any jeopardizing or annulment of the real life of the Godhead.” – Karl Barth
“Who and what is God Himself? We must not now go back and give an answer which declares what we think the conception of God ought to be, what God must be to be God according to all necessary postulates and ideas in respect of the concept of the deity. God Himself is in fact simply the One of whom all prophets and apostles explained that they had heard his voice and had to obey Him, executing the messages and tasks He laid upon them, and bearing witness of His will and work to others. In a remarkable way they also recognised His voice in the testimony of each other, at least to the extent that, in a long unbroken chain, admittedly in quite different ways, but in ways which at this point involved no contradiction, they all aimed to be servants and messengers of one and the same God. This One is God Himself, described by the unanimous testimony of prophets and apostles as the Subject of creation, reconciliation and redemption, the Lord.” – Karl Barth
“Because it was the Son of God, i.e., God Himself who took our place on Good Friday, the substitution could be effectual and procure our reconciliation with the righteous God, and therefore our own righteousness in His sight. Only God, our Lord and Creator, could stand surety for us, could take our place, could suffer eternal death in our stead as the consequence of our sin in such a way that it was finally suffered and overcome and therefore did not not need to be suffered any more by us. No creature, no other man could do that. Bur God’s own Son could do it.” – Karl Barth
“When God loves, revealing His inmost being in the fact that He loves and therefore seeks and creates fellowship, this being and doing is divine and distinct from all other loving to the extent that the love of God is grace. Grace is the distinctive mode of God’s being in so far as it seeks and creates fellowship by its own free inclination and favour, unconditioned by any merit or claim in the beloved, but also unhindered by any unworthiness or opposition in the latter—able, on the contrary, to overcome all unworthiness and opposition. It is in this distinctive characteristic that we recognise the divinity of God’s love.”
- Karl Barth
“The Christian heresies spring from the fact that man does not take seriously the known ground of divine immanence in Jesus Christ, so that from its revelation, instead of apprehending Jesus Christ and the totality of Him, he arbitrarily selects this or that feature and sets it up as a subordinate centre: perhaps the idea of creation, or the sacraments, or the life of the soul, or even the kingdom of God, or the regeneration of man, or the creeds or doctrine.”
- Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics
“The news which the Church has to proclaim is that in virtue of what has happened in Jesus Christ man can now live with God in faith and love and hope, on the ground of God’s unfathomable and unmerited mercy. And this news is so urgent that in every time and place where the Church exists it must be proclaimed at once and in all circumstances.”
- Karl Barth
Much of my time is spent responding to various attacks on the Bible. There is definitely no lack of attacks to respond to. I am also someone who appreciates Karl Barth and Barth made this interesting statement:
“The maintaining of the Word of God against the attacks to which it is exposed cannot be our concern, and therefore we do not need to worry about it. Watchmen are appointed and they wait their office. The maintaining of the Word of God takes place as a self-affirmation which we can never do more than acknowledge to our own comfort and disquiet. We can be most seriously concerned about Christianity and Christians, about the future of the Church and theology, about the establishment in the world of the Christian outlook and Christian ethic. But there is nothing about whose solidity we need to be less troubled than the testimonies of God in Holy Scripture. For a power which can annul these testimonies is quite unthinkable.” (Church Dogmatics I.21.1)
When I read this, I both agree and disagree with Barth. In a sense, Barth is correct that we do not need to defend the Word of God. The Word of God is not something weak that must be defended. However, in another way there a great need to respond to the attacks of critics. When I respond to attacks, my concern is not to protect the Bible but to address confusion and misunderstandings of people. There are people who reject the Bible over some rumour they have encountered and I seek to keep the Bible on the table as something that needs to be considered. What I do does not strengthen the Bible or change it in any way. It is only about helping people to see the Bible clearly and allowing them to make sound decisions. I do not worry about the Bible, but I do worry about what people think of the Bible and how they interpret it.
I am a big fan of Karl Barth and enjoy reading his writings. I came across two lectures by Charles MacKenzie from Reformed Theological Seminary, who knew Barth personally. I appreciated what he had to say, acknowledging the good Barth has done for the church, but not afraid to disagree. You can find the audio at iTunes University here.
“In a secondary sense we can, of course, explain the necessity of the rise of Christianity in the light of Judaistic development and the political, spiritual and moral circumstances of the Mediterranean world in the Imperial period. But in its reality we can never explain or deduce it from that source. Historically, we cannot seriously explain and deduce it except from the history of the covenant made with Israel. And we cannot do that with any strictness or discernment except when we explain and deduce it from the fulfillment of that covenant in the name of Jesus Christ, from the revelation as it is actually made and acknowledged and believed, and therefore on the presupposition of that name. That it pleased God at that time and place and in that way to reveal Himself in the name of Jesus Christ, is something which had its necessity in itself, and not in circumstances and conditions prior to that name.” – Karl Barth
“The man Jesus of Nazareth is not the true Son of God because He was conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. On the contrary, because He is the true Son of God and because this is an inconceivable mystery intended to be acknowledged as such, therefore He is conceived by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. And because He is thus conceived and born, He has to be recognized and acknowledged as the One He is and in the mystery in which He is the One He is.” – Karl Barth