1

Introduction

The God of Christianity is the triune God, the Trinity, whom other religions cannot

understand. This means that there are three persons in the Godhead. That is, God the Father,

God the Son, God and the Holy Spirit are in the Godhead. Here the equation “one in three” or

three equals one stands. How can this be possible?

Indeed, the doctrine of the Trinity has been a stumbling block to contemporary human

beings and even some Christians due to this irrationality and illogicality. These responses,

however, stem from the lack of understanding of the nature of Christianity. The Christian

logic of faith does not refer to rationality within the limits of reason but to the cosmological

and comprehensive logic of life based on the life of all beings. Thus, the theological work on

the doctrine of the Trinity should not start with logic based on reason but with the Scriptures

and the confession of faith.

In the history of Christianity, John Calvin was not only a great Reformer who tried to

reform the Roman Catholic Church but also a theological genius who completed the

theological framework of the Reformation. He was also the theologian who made the greatest

contribution to the laying the solid foundation of the doctrine of the Trinity. His doctrine of

the Trinity paved the way for the most biblical understanding of God. What is most striking is

that his approach to accounting for the Trinity is not only biblical but also pastoral and

practical. On top of that, his approach helps those who try to know God take a balanced view

of God. But Calvin’s doctrine of the Trinity did not come from a theological vacuum; rather it

stemmed from the teachings that the church inherited and theological debates with anti-

Trinitarians in his day.

Karl Barth is one of the great theologians that the twentieth century produced. His starting

point was not human experience and reason but the word of God. He stressed the wholly

otherness of God, the infinite qualitative distinction between God and man, and the gospel.
 2

He restored God-centered theology. He thought that human-centered theology based on

human universal experience and reason could not reach these great truths. His doctrine of

revelation starts with the doctrine of the Trinity. He also develops his Trinitarian

theology based on the Word of God and challenges to this post-liberal trajectory.

In this paper, I will first deal with some features of John Calvin’s and Karl Barth’s views

on the Trinity, though it is not my intention to provide a systematic comparison between John

Calvin and Karl Barth. And I will look into how Calvin and Barth develop their doctrines of

the Trinity. I will also look over historical contexts that they were engaged in. Their doctrines

of the Trinity did not come from a theological vacuum but from the theological controversies

in the historical contexts in which they lived.

As mentioned earlier, Calvin’s doctrine of the Trinity was the subject that he wrestled

with his foes in his ministry and life, so my second goal is to demonstrate some of the

features that the two theological giants contributed in terms of their view on the Trinity. And

finally, I will briefly deal with their differences and similarities, as well as the continuity and

discontinuity between them.

Historical Context of Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity

Calvin’s doctrine of the Trinity did not come from a theological vacuum; rather, it stemmed

from theological debates with anti-Trinitarians in his day. Above all, we need to go over

Calvin’s debates with anti-Trinitarians to deeply understand his doctrine of the Trinity.

Peter Caroli accused Calvin of “Arianism.” The accusation of “Arianism” against Calvin

is ascribed to the inadequacies of the first edition of the Institutes of the Christian Religion.

In May, 1537, Caroli brought the charge of Arianism against Farel and Calvin at a synod

in Lausanne because they avoided the metaphysical terms Trinity and Person in the

Confession. When Caroli asked Calvin to sign the Athanasian Creed with its damnatory
 3

clauses, Calvin refused to sign it because he thought that doing so is unjust and uncharitable. 1

Calvin could not help showing a response to the accusation. Nonetheless, he did not have any

intention to change his doctrine of the Trinity. Besides, he followed the footsteps of Luther

when it came to defending traditional Trinitarian terminology. 2

In 1530, Servetus emerged as a typical anti-Trinitarian. Bucer continued to warn of the

danger of Servetus and developed his own doctrine of the Trinity. 3 As Wendel points out,

Calvin made much effort on his Trinitarian doctrine due to his controversy with the Spanish

physician.

In his 1536 edition, Calvin briefly explained the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. He

supported the unity of God by mentioning “one baptism” and “one faith” in Ephesians 4:5. At

the same time he stressed that baptism should be administered in the name of the three

Persons of the Trinity and the three Persons were “the object of the faith.”4

In 1539, Calvin’s controversy with Caroli made him become more emphatic.

He multiplied the Biblical quotations in support of the divinity of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit, and of the distinction between the three divine Persons. Above all he
underlined the importance of the divinity of Christ for the faith, and of the divinity of
the Holy Spirit for communication with God the Creator and God the Redeemer.5

After emphasizing the importance of the deity of Christ and of the Holy Spirit at the same

time, he handled the terminology with a broader view and read the Fathers of the church. On

the other hand, his 1559 controversy with Servetus made Calvin treat the terminology more

rigorously. And he realized that it was indispensable to keep within the usual terms in order to

1
Philip Schaff, History OF THE Christian Church: The Swiss Reformation, Christian
Classics Ethereal Library: http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8__toc.htm (accessed March
22, 2012).
2
Francois Wendel, Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, trans. Philip
Mairet (Grand Rapid, MI: Baker, 1997), 165.
3
Ibid., 166.
4
Ibid.,..
5
Ibid., 166.
 4

avoid all suspicion of heresy. 6

Calvin knew that the divinity of the Son is a necessary foundation of the Christian faith. He

fully understood that denying the deity of the three Persons means not only denying the

divinity of the Son but also undermining the keystone of Christianity along with all saving

faith. Thus, he could not help making common cause with the Genevan judges in order to

condemn Servetus.7

The Knowledge of God and the Trinity

For Calvin, the question “What is God (quails it Deus)?” is a very important question.

This is because the knowledge of God was seriously distorted in the medieval age. This

distortion of the knowledge of God naturally led to the distortion of worship. This made

Calvin deeply examine the Bible. The God that he found in the Bible is the triune God. When

we analyze the first book of the 1559 final edition of Institutes of the Christian Religion, we

find the intention of Calvin. In the first twelve chapters he contrasts the biblical God with

false gods. He begins to deal with the doctrine of the Trinity in chapter 13. And he deals with

creation and providence from chapter 14 to chapter 18 based on the doctrine of the Trinity. In

other words, he develops Christian epistemology and the doctrine of God in the first twelve

chapters. And then he presents the doctrine of the Trinity. After presenting the doctrine of the

Trinity, he deals with the most important two works that God does, creation and providence.8

When we read the knowledge of God the Creator in the first chapter of Institutes of the

Christian Religion, we notice that Calvin presupposes the doctrine of the Trinity before he

moves on to the knowledge of God. According to Calvin, no one can obtain a pure knowledge

of self without contemplating the face of God. And the contemplation of God leads believers

6
Ibid., 166-167.
7
Ibid., 167.
8
Jae Sung Kim, “The Development and Significance of Calvin’s Doctrine of the
Trinity,”Korean Institute for Reformed Studies, http://rogurwndml.cafe24.com/20461
(accessed February 12, 2012).
 5

to the experience of the Trinitarian God.9

Hence, he calls himself “the light of the world” (John 8:12), and elsewhere, “the way,
the truth, and the life”; for no one comes to the Father, who is “the fountain of life” (Ps
36:9), except through him (John 14:6) he alone knows the Father, and afterward the
believers to whom he wishes to reveal him (Luke 10:22).10

That is, we cannot come to the knowledge of God without Christ, whom God the Father

sent. Now, after the fall, we cannot come to know God without Christ, the mediator. And the

Holy Spirit is the bond that leads us to Christ. 11 To put it another way, Calvin explains to us

what faith is through the lens of the ministry of the Trinity. Indeed, Christian faith

presupposes the Trinitarian God. In this sense, it is a great insight for him to define Christian

faith as knowledge.

Now we shall possess a right definition of faith if we call it a firm and certain
knowledge of God’s benevolence toward us, founded upon the truth of the freely given
promise in Christ, both revealed to our minds and sealed upon our hearts through the
Holy Spirit.12

Given that Calvin continues to explicate Christian faith in terms of the work of the Holy

Spirit, faith in the knowledge of the Trinity can be called theology.

When Calvin explains the knowledge of God, what he emphasizes is the

incomprehensibility of God. Human beings cannot exhaustively know God because God’s

nature is spiritual and immeasurable. 13 Only God can exhaustively know God. Though God

reveals features of His nature and essence, we human beings cannot know God in the same

way that God knows them.14 Because human beings are created and finite beings, we can

9
George H. Tavard, The Starting Point of Calvin’s Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmans, 2000), 177.
10
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol. 1 (Westminster John Knox Press,
Louisvile, London, 2006), 543.
11
Ibid., 538
12
Ibid., 551.
13
Ibid., 120.
14
Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford University Press, NY, 2004), 35.
 6

only know God to the extent that He reveals Himself in the Scriptures.

Here, indeed, if anywhere in the secret mysteries of Scripture, we ought to play the
philosopher soberly and with great moderation; let us use great caution that neither our
thoughts nor our speech go beyond the limits to which the Word of God itself
extends… And let us not take it into our heads either to seek out God anywhere else
than in his Sacred Word, or to think anything about him that is not prompted by his
Word, or to speak anything that is not taken from the Word.15

That is, we can know God only through God’s revelation of Himself. Our own little

measure cannot measure off the measureless essence of God.16

John Calvin’s View of the Trinity

Let us delve into Calvin’s view on the Trinity based on the assumption that Christian faith

is about the right knowledge of the Trinity.

For he so proclaims himself the sole God as to offer himself to be contemplated clearly
in three persons. Unless we grasp these, only the bare and empty name of God flits
about in our brains, to the exclusion of the true God.17

Calvin says that God reveals Himself as the Triune God. That is, when we meet the sole

God, we immediately meet the three, and vice versa. If we do not grasp this fact, we will

exclude the true God from the discussion. For Calvin, understanding God as the Trinity is not

one of the ways that we can understand God, but rather it is the only way for us to understand

God. He begins to mention the person of the Holy Spirit along with the person of the Son. 18

What is most striking here is his flexible attitude toward terms. He shows us his willingness

to utilize such expressions as “person,” and “Trinity” for the sake of the interpretation of

Scripture even though the Scripture does not directly mention them. 19 He mentions that the

proper use of such theological expressions helps expose the errors of both Arians and

15
Calvin, Institutes, 146.
16
Ibid. 146.
17
Ibid., 122.
18
Ibid., 123.
19
Ibid., 123-124.
 7

Sabellians. 20

Arius confessed that Christ was God and the Son of God, and, as if he had done
what was right, pretended some agreement with the other men. Yet in the meantime he
did not cease to prate that Christ was created and had a beginning, as other creatures.
The ancients, to drag the man’s versatile craftiness out of its hiding places, went farther,
declaring Christ the eternal Son of the Father, consubstantial with the Father. Here
impiety boiled over when the Arians began most wickedly to hate and curse the word
homoousios. But if at first they had sincerely and wholeheartedly confessed Christ to
be God, they would not have denied him to be consubstantial with the Father. Who
would dare inveigh against those upright men as wranglers and contentious persons
because they became aroused to such hearted discussion through one little word, and
disturbed the peace of the church? Yet that mere word marked the distinction between
Christians of pure faith and sacrilegious Arians. Afterward Sabellius arose, who
counted the names of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as almost of no importance, arguing
that it was not because of any distinction that they were put forward, but that they were
diverse attributes of God, of which sort there are very many. 21

And Calvin cites Hilary’s insight that early church leaders were forced to say more than

they might otherwise wish to have said due to the false teaching of heretics. 22 He also cites

Augustine’s opinion that human language is not sufficient to express the mystery of the

Trinity. After showing his flexibility toward theological expressions, Calvin defines “Person.”

“Person,” therefore, I call a “subsistence” in God’s essence, which, while related to the
others, is distinguished by an incommunicable quality. By the term “subsistence” we
would understand something different from “essence.”… But because he could not be
with God without residing in the Father, hence emerges the idea of a subsistence, which,
even though it has been joined with the essence by a common bond and cannot be
separated from it. Now, of the three subsistences I say that each one, while related to
the others, is distinguished by a special quality.

Calvin calls Person subsistence. Though Person is related to the others, it is distinguished

by an incommunicable quality. What is meant here by an incommunicable quality? Paul

Helm writes,

That is, the use of the term ‘person’ allows us to day that there are properties possessed
by the Son that are not possessed by the Father, properties possessed by the Father that

20
Douglas F. Kelly, “The True and Triune God: Calvin’s Doctrine of the Holy Trinity,” in A
Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes, ed. David W. Hall and Peter A. Lillback
(Phillipsburg; NJ: P&R, 2008), 72.
21
Calvin, Institutes, 125.
22
Ibid., 126.
 8

are not possessed by the Son, and so on.23

Calvin is not displeased with Tertullian’s definition that God has a kind of distribution or

economy as long as it has no effect on the unity of essence. 24

And he tries to prove that the Son as the Word of God possesses eternal deity. The Word

of God is not a merely fleeting utterance but the everlasting Wisdom of God, as well as the

Word as begotten of the Father before time. Furthermore, the Word as the order or mandate of

the Son is the eternal and essential Word of the Father. 25 The Word has no beginning. And

the Word became incarnate in Christ Jesus. What is striking here is that Calvin’s perspective

from which he deals with the deity and humanity of Christ is not only soteriological but also

ontological. 26

Then Calvin explains the deity of the Holy Spirit. Calvin writes

For it is the Spirit who, everywhere diffused, sustains all things, causes them to grow,
and quickens them in heaven and in earth. Because he is circumscribed by no limits, he
is excepted rom the category of creatures; but in transfusing into all things his energy,
and breathing into them essence, life and movement, he is indeed plainly divine. 27

Furthermore, the Holy Spirit is not only the author of regeneration but also the author of

future immortality. The work of justification is also the work of the Holy Spirit. Power,

sanctification, truth, grace, and every good thing are actually from the Holy Spirit. All these

things prove that the Holy Spirit is God Himself. 28

Oneness and Threeness of God

After proving the deity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, Calvin explains the unity of the

three Persons. The fact that we are baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy

23
Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas, 38.
24
Calvin, Institutes, 128.
25
Ibid., 129.
26
Kim, “Development and Significance.”
27
Calvin, Institutes, 138.
28
Ibid., 139.
 9

Spirit shows that there are three persons in the one divine essence and God reveals Himself as

the Trinity. 29 Then Calvin makes a distinction among the three persons. He cites Gregory of

Nazianzus: “I cannot think on the one without quickly being encircled by the splendor of the

three; nor can I discern the three without being straightway carried back to the one.”30 He

warns us of imaging a trinity of persons that keeps our thoughts distracted and does not at

once lead them back to that unity.” He emphasizes that the words such as Father, Son, and

Spirit are a real distinction not a division.31 This distinction did not have its beginning from

the time that the Word became incarnate.

Christ implies the distinction of the Holy Spirit from the Father when he says that the
Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father (John 15:26; cf. ch. 14:26). He implies the
distinction of the Holy Spirit from himself as often as he calls the Spirit “another,” as
when he announces that he will send another Comforter (John 14:16), and often
elsewhere.32

Calvin does not borrow comparisons from human affairs to explain the difference of Father,

Son, and Spirit. Instead, he chooses to explain the distinction that is expressed in Scripture.

He attributes the beginning of activity, the fountain and wellspring of all things, to the Father;

wisdom, counsel, and the ordered disposition to the Son; and the power and efficacy of that

activity to the Spirit.33 He points out that God could never exist apart from His power and

wisdom. He goes on to say that “the observance of an order is not meaningless.”34

Indeed, although the eternity of the Father is also the eternity of the Son and the Spirit
…, and we must not seek in eternity a before or an after, nevertheless the observance of
an order is not meaningless or superfluous, when the Father is thought of as first, then
from him the Son, and finally from both the Spirit. For the mind of each human being
is naturally inclined to contemplate God first, then the wisdom coming forth from him,
lastly the power whereby he executes the decrees of his plan. For this reason, the Son is
said to come forth from the Father alone; the Spirit, from the Father and the Son at the

29
Ibid., 140.
30
Ibid., 141.
31
Ibid., 141-142.
32
Ibid., 142.
33
Ibid., 142-143.
34
Ibid., 143.
 10

same time. 35

Then Calvin points out an important factor. Though each person of the Father, the Son, and

the Holy Spirit is distinguishable, the Son and the Spirit is one God with the Father. 36

For in each hypostasis the whole divine nature is understood, with this qualification –
that to each belongs his own peculiar quality. The Father is wholly in the Son, the Son
wholly in the Father, even as he himself declares: “I am in the Father, and the Father in
me” (John 14:10).37

The distinction does not indicate essence but interrelation among the three Persons.

Calvin goes on to say that when we confess to believe in one God, a single, simple essence is

understood under the name of God. At the same time we comprehend three persons in the

essence.38

Therefore, whenever the name of God is mentioned without particularization, there are
designated no less the Son and the Spirit than the Father; but when the Son is joined to
the Father, then the relation of the two enters in; and so we distinguish among the
persons.39

But there is an order in the peculiar qualities in the persons. For example, the Father is

the beginning and the source. And when the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are mentioned

together, “the name of God is peculiarly applied to the Father.”40 Calvin points out that it is

always necessary to retain and come to the unity of essence. But this does not mean that it

takes away from the deity of the Son and the Spirit.41 The simple name of God does not refer

to relation, “nor can God be said to be this or that with respect to himself.” That is, relation is

not a problem of essence but of persons.

35
Ibid.
36
Ibid.
37
Ibid.
38
Ibid., 144.
39
Ibid.
40
Ibid.
41
Ibid., 144-145.
 11

Calvin reminds us of two strategies of Satan to rend our faith. One is to deny the deity of

the Son and the Spirit.42 The other is to ignore the distinction of each person. Calvin rejects

Arius, who represents subordinationism, and Sabellius, who represents modalism, at the same

time. He warns us once again that our thoughts and our speech should not go beyond the

limits that the Word of God imposes. He suggests that we should leave the knowledge of God

to God Himself. 43 But Servetus, according to Calvin, has confused everything with new

deceptions.

This, indeed, was the sum of his speculations: God is assumed to be tripartite when
three persons are said to reside in his essence; this is an imaginary triad, because it
clashes with God’s unity. Meanwhile, he would hold the persons to be certain external
ideas which do not truly subsist in God’s essence, but represent God to us in one
manifestation or another. In the beginning there was no distinction in God, because the
Word and the Spirit were formerly one and the same: but when Christ came forth as
God from God, the Spirit proceeded from him as another God.44

Calvin refutes the claim of Servetus as “babbling,” concluding that “if then, also, that Word

who was God from farthest eternity both was with the Father and had his own glory with the

Father (John 17:5), surely he could not have been an outward or figurative splendor, but of

necessity it follows that he was a hypostasis that resided in God himself.”45

Calvin claims that the Son is God even as the Father, refuting those who argue that the

Father is truly and properly the sole God, who formed the Son and the Spirit and infused His

own deity into them. 46 He refutes those who claim that the Father is the fountainhead and

beginning of deity, pointing out that Christ is Jehovah.

For if he is Jehovah, it cannot be denied that he is that same God who elsewhere
proclaims through Isaiah, “I, I am, and apart from me there is no God” (Isa 44:6).
Jeremiah’s utterance also bears considering: “The gods who did not make heaven and
earth shall perish from the earth which is under heaven” (Jer 10:11).47

42
Ibid., 145.
43
Ibid., 146.
44
Ibid., 146-147.
45
Ibid., 148.
46
Ibid., 149.
47
Ibid., 150.
 12

Calvin goes on to say that if the Son has been given his essence from the Father, it means

that the Son does not have being from himself. If the Father alone has all essence, His total

essence will either become divisible or be taken away from the Son.48And the Son will be

God in name only. Thus he concludes that “the Son is God even as the Father.”49

Calvin explains why Christ is the Son of God. Christ has been called the Son of God not

only because he was the eternal begotten Word but also because “he took upon himself the

person and office of the Mediator.”50 He says that “divine nature is common to all three

persons.”51 We should not separate the persons from the essence. But we should distinguish

among the persons while the three persons remain within the essence. 52 The Father,

according to Calvin, is God and at the same time the Son is God.

Because the Father, unless he were God, could not have been the Father; and the Son
could not have been the Son, unless he were God. Therefore we say that deity in an
absolute sense exists of itself; whence likewise we confess that the Son since he is God,
exists of himself, but not in respect of his Person; indeed, since he is the Son, we say
that he exists from the Father. Thus his essence is without beginning; while the
beginning of his person is God himself. 53

And Calvin points out that if Father and God were synonymous, then the Father would

be the deifier. And there would be nothing left in the Son except a shadow. Furthermore, the

Trinity would be only the combination of the one God with two created things. 54

The Father is the beginning of deity not in the bestowing of essence but by reason of

order. Thus, what Christ said to the Father indicates that he speaks in the person of the

48
Ibid.
49
Ibid., 149.
50
Ibid., 151.
51
Ibid., 153.
52
Ibid., 153-154.
53
Ibid., 154.
54
Ibid.
 13

Mediator, holding “a middle rank between God and man.”55

Thus when he said to the apostles, “It is expedient that I go up to the Father” (John
16:7; cf. ch. 20:17) “because the Father is greater than I” (ch. 14:28 Vg.), he does not
attribute to himself merely a secondary deity so that he is inferior to the Father with
respect to eternal essence; but because endowed with heavenly glory he gathers
believers into participation in the Father. He places the Father in the higher rank, seeing
that the bright perfection of splendor that appears in heaven differs from that measure
of glory which was seen in him when he was clothed with flesh. 56

To restrict the name of “God” to the Father and to exclude the Son is not right. This is

because the Son of God never ceases to be the Son of God and he will ever remain the same.

The unique essence of God that is common to the Father and the Son should be

comprehended under the name of “Father.” For this reason the Son of God descended to us

and bore us up to the Father and himself because “he is one with the Father.”57

Calvin makes it plain that Scripture proclaims no other God than the Father of Christ and

that “the God who appeared to the patriarchs was no other than Christ.” Thus, it is absolutely

wrong to proclaim another. He cites Irenaeus to argue for his claim, “that he who in Scritpure

is called God in an absolute and unindifferentiated sense is in truth the only God, and that

Christ indeed is called God in an absolute sense.”58

Calvin explains why Tertullian thinks that the Word of God exists by dispensation or

economy.

In his view, altogether God is one, his Word exists by dispensation or economy; God is
one in unity of substance, and nonetheless the unity is disposed into a trinity by the
mystery of dispensation. There are thus three, not in status, but in degree; not in
substance, but in form; not in power, but in its manifestation. 59

That is, Tertullian’s remark is not about substance but about form, and degree. And Calvin

makes an important point.

55
Ibid., 154-155.
56
Ibid., 155.
57
Ibid.
58
Ibid., 156.
59
Ibid., 157.
 14

Yet elsewhere he clears himself of this calumny, where he calls the Father the
beginning of all deity because he is from no one; and wisely considers that the name of
God is especially ascribed to the Father because if the beginning comes not from him,
the simple unity of God cannot be conceived. 60

The reason that the name of God is ascribed to the Father is that if the Father does not

have the beginning, the simple unity of God cannot be conceived.

Finally, after explaining the doctrine of the Trinity faithfully, Calvin urges his readers

to avoid their curiosity and speculation. And he finishes his argument by saying that he is

only interested in “the edification of the church” because “it is clear that three persons

have subsisted in God from eternity.”61

Calvin’s Major Contribution to the Doctrine of the Trinity

Above all, Calvin’s major contribution is to state that the three persons of the Godhead

are cosubstantial. The key to understanding the Trinity of John Calvin is that “three are

spoken of, each of which is entirely God (autotheotes), yet that there is not more than one

God.”62 That is, the Son and the Holy Spirit are “autotheotes” respectively like the Father.

So B. B. Warfield, in his book, Calvin and Calvinism, praises Calvin for his excellent

contribution to the doctrine of the Trinity:

In particular, it fell to Calvin, in the interests of the true Deity of Christ—the constant
motive of the whole body of Trinitarian thought—to reassert and make good the
attribute of self-existence (autotheos) for the Son. Thus Calvin takes his place,
alongside of Tertullian, Athanasius, and Augustine, as one of the chief contributors to
the exact and vital statement of the Christian doctrine of the Triune God.63

Like the Father, the Son is “autotheos.” John Murray also praises Calvin for the same

reason:

This evidence shows that the meaning intended is that the Son derived his deity from

60
Ibid., 159.
61
Ibid.
62
Ibid., 123.
63
B. B. Warfield, "The Biblical Doctrine of the Trinity," in Biblical and Theological Studies
(Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1952), 59; B. B. Warfield, "Calvin's Doctrine of
the Trinity," Calvin and Calvinism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1931), 189-284.
 15

the Father and that the Son was not therefore It was precisely this position that Calvin
controverted with vigour. He maintained that as respects personal distinction the Son
was of the Father but as respects deity he was self-existent (ex se ipso). This position
ran counter to the Nicene tradition. Hence the indictment leveled against him. It is,
however, to the credit of Calvin that he did not allow his own more sober thinking to be
suppressed out of defense to an established pattern of thought when the latter did not
commend itself by conformity to Scripture and was inimical to Christ’s divine
identity. 64

In the same vein, T. F. Torrance, writing against semisubordinationism, makes the same

point on Calvin’s clarification of the full deity of the Son and the Holy Spirit:

Calvin’s account of the manifold of interpenetrating personal relations or subsistence

within the one indivisible Godhead, which is in many respects his most significant
contribution to the doctrine of the Trinity of God. Here it becomes clear that his biblical
approach has led him to offer a more unreserved account of the Deity of the Son and of
the Spirit both in their distinguishing properties and in their consubstantial relations
with God the Father than that offered by most of his theological predecessors. 65

What is most striking here is the way Calvin clarifies the full deity of the Son and the

Holy Spirit by highlighting the distinction between God’s one essence and His triune

personhood. Furthermore, Calvin does not innovate on the traditional doctrine of the Trinity;

rather, he clarifies it.66

Karl Barth and Historical Context

The nineteenth-century liberal theology denied the deity of Jesus Christ by saying

that the incarnation of the Son of God was just myth. This led to the denial of the

doctrine of the Trinity and its regard as merely theological speculation in the nineteenth

century and onward by Schleiermacher and liberal theologians. In particular, Schleiermacher

seemed to regard Trinitarian theology as “an addendum to the doctrine of God proper.”67

64
John Murray, "Systematic Theology," Westminster Theological Journal 25 (1963),141.
65
T. F. Torrance, “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity,” in Trinitarian Perspectives, (Edinburgh:
T.&T. Clark, 1994), 54.
66
Kelly, “The True and Triune God,” 76.
67
Michael J. Ovey, “A Private Love? Karl Barth and The Triune God,” in Engaging with
Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques, ed. David Gibson and Daniel Strange (New
 16

And this attitude culminated in the theology of Ritschl and Harnack, which suggest that

Trinitarian theology was essentially speculative and influenced by Hellenistic metaphysics. 68

In 1919, Barth, in his commentary Romans, emphasized the “infinite qualitative

distinction” between time and eternity and the wholly otherness of God.69 He thought that

theology is not about the study of human philosophy and religious experience but the

study of the word of God.

The theology of Barth is the theology of the word of God. The word o f God,

which is the revelation of God, is the subject of theology. He stresses both the Bible

and the revelation. And he thinks that he follows the footsteps of the Reformers,

such as John Calvin, by doing so. 70

Barth develops his theology by analyzing the event of the revelation of Jesus

Christ. This analysis is focused on the doctrine of the Trinity. The starting point of

his doctrine of revelation begins with the doctrine of the Trinity. Barth also develops

his Trinitarian theology based on the Word of God and so challenges the post-liberal

trajectory. He argues that the doctrine of the Trinity stands “at the head of all dogmatics.”71

He goes on to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is foundational, “the presupposition of the

basic principles that must be set forth in dogmatics.”72 Barth’s formulation of his theology

York: T&T Clark, 2008), 200.

68
Ibid., 200.
69
Stanley J. Grenz & Roger E. Olson, Twentieth-century Theology: God and the World in a
Transitional age (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 67.
70
Tony Lane, Harper's Concise Book of Christian Faith (San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1984),187.
71
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.1, The Doctrine of the Word of God, part 1, trans. T. H. L.
Parker et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 300.
72
Karl Barth, The Gottingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian Religion, vol. 1, ed. H.
Reiffen, trans. G. W. Bromiley (Grand Rapids: MI, Eerdmans, 1991), 96.
 17

based on the doctrine of the Trinity made twentieth-century theologians, such as Moltmann,

Jungel, and Balthasar,, revisit and take an interest in the doctrine of the Trinity.

Revelation as Basis of the Trinity

In order to understand Barth’s doctrine of the Trinity, we need to examine what his

theological starting point is. Above all, the starting point of Barth’s theology is the Word of

God revealed in Christ. Barth says that “God reveals Himself as the Lord.”73 In other words,

God reveals Himself in Christ Jesus. Jesus Christ is the very self-revelation of God as well as

the Word of God in person. The Word of God is in three forms of revelation.

The revealed Word of God we know only from the scripture adopted by church
proclamation, or from church proclamation based on Scripture. The written Word of
God we know only through the revelation which makes proclamation possible, or
through the proclamation made possible by revelation. The proclaimed Word of God
we know only by knowing the revelation attested through Scripture, or by knowing the
Scripture which attests revelation. 74

The revealed Word of God is the revelation of Jesus Christ through the incarnation. Barth

distinguishes three forms of revelation: Christ, Scripture, and preaching. In the fullest sense,

the revealed Word of God, Jesus Christ alone, is revelation. As for Scripture, it may be called

revelation in so far as it witnesses to Christ and the Holy Spirit uses it as a tool to bring the

word of God to its hearers. Likewise, preaching may be called revelation in so far as it

witnesses to Scripture. Both Scripture and preaching are not the word of God in themselves.

But they can become the word. The word of God has the character of an event. That is, the

Bible becomes God’s Word in an event.75 The Scriptures bears revelation as an event.

Scripture is a witness to God’s revelation, but that does not mean that God’s revelation
is now before us in any kind of divine revealedness. The Bible is not a book of oracles;

73
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.1, The Doctrine of the Word of God, part 1, trans. T. H. L.
Parker et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 295.
74
Ibid, 121.
75
Stanley J. Grenz & Roger E. Olson, 20th Century Theology (InterVarsity Press, 1992), 71.
 18

it is not an instrument of direct revelation. 76

Revelation is an event. The Bible bears witness to an event as revelation. It is not a

revelation and revelation itself until it witnesses to an event as revelation. It only plays a

secondary role as a witness to revelation.

Barth begins the question “what is revelation?” with the proposition that “God’s Word is

God Himself in His revelation.”77 God is the God who reveals Himself. And, above all, God is

God, who reveals Himself through Himself. 78

If we really want to understand revelation in terms of its subject, i.e., God, then the first
thing we have to realize is that this subject, God, the Revealer, is identical with His act
in revelation and also identical with its effect. It is from this fact, which in the first
instance we are merely indicating, that we learn we must begin the doctrine of
revelation with the doctrine of the triune God.79

The important fact is that in God’s revelation God’s Word is God Himself and God

reveals Himself. And the doctrine of revelation should start with the doctrine of the Trinity.

God in the biblical understanding of revelation is God Himself, the same God in unimpaired

unity who is the revealing God, the event of revelation, and its effect on human beings. 80

Thus, the threefold mode of being is ascribed to the same God.

Thus to the same God who in unimpaired unity is the Revealer, the revelation and the
revealedness, there is also ascribed in unimpaired differentiation within Himself this
threefold mode of being.81

We face the problem of the doctrine of triune God by observing the unity and the

76
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics1.2, The Doctrine of the Word of God, part 1, trans.T.H.L.
Parker et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 507.
77
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.1, The Doctrine of the Word of God (T&T Clark
International, 2004 ), 295.
78
Ibid., 296.
79
Ibid., 296.
80
Ibid., 299.
81
Ibid., 299.
 19

differentiation of God in the biblically attested revelation of God.82

Barth puts the doctrine of the Trinity “at the head of all dogmatics.” He explains why he does

so.

It is hard to see how in relation to Holy Scripture we can say what is distinctive for the
holiness of this Scripture if first we do not make it clear (naturally from Holy Scripture
itself) who the God is whose revelation makes Scripture holy. It is also hard to see how
what is distinctive for this God can be make clear if, as has constantly happened in
Roman Catholic and Protestant dogmatics both old and new, the question who God is,
which it is the business of the doctrine of the Trinity to answer, is held in reserve, and
the first question to be treated is that of the That and the What of God, as though these
could be defined otherwise than on the presupposition of the Who. 83

He cites Calvin to support his argument that he should start his doctrine of the Trinity

with “Who is God?” He points out that if we start “by discarding the concreteness” in the

Trinitarian form of the Christian doctrine of God, we may be driven to conclusions that have

nothing to do with either the doctrine of Scripture or the doctrine of God and may fall into

speculations. And the doctrine of the Trinity may face the same problem. 84 Thus, the doctrine

of the Trinity not only occupies a place of prominence but also a place of decision and control

for the whole of dogmatics in terms of its content.85

Barth mentions the importance of the doctrine of the Trinity:

The doctrine of the Trinity is what basically distinguishes the Christian doctrine of God
as Christian, and therefore what already distinguishes the Christian concept of
revelation as Christian, in contrast to all other possible doctrines of God or concepts of
revelation.86

He thinks not only that the doctrine of the Trinity is what fundamentally distinguishes

the Christian doctrine of God, but also that it can answer the question of “Who is the God

82
Ibid., 299.
83
Ibid., 301.
84
Ibid., 301.
85
Ibid., 303.
86
Ibid., 301.
 20

who reveals Himself?” And he views revelation as the root of the doctrine of the Trinity. 87

Here “the revelation” refers to the God who reveals Himself as the Lord. That “God reveals

Himself as the Lord” is the root of the doctrine of the Trinity. 88 Like the Word of God in its

threefold form, revelation itself is Trinitarian in structure:89

God’s Word is God Himself in His revelation. For God reveals Himself as the Lord and
according to Scripture this signifies for the concept of revelation that God Himself in
unimpaired unity yet also in unimpaired distinction in Revealer, Revelation, and
Revealedness. 90

“God reveals Himself as the Lord.”91 In other words, God reveals Himself in Christ Jesus.

Jesus Christ is the very self-revelation of God as well as the Word of God in person. For the

Swiss theologian, in this sense, the revelation of God in Jesus Christ is the root of the

doctrine of the Trinity. For him, the Trinity is the self-interpretation of God.92 God, who

reveals Himself, reveals Himself in a Trinitarian form. In this sense, the revelation of Jesus

Christ is the Trinitarian self-interpretation of God.

Barth stresses the unity of the Trinity. At the same time he emphasizes the Trinity of God.

He uses “modes of being” instead of “person.” The God who reveals Himself, according to

Barth, is “One in three distinctive modes of being subsisting in their mutual relations.”93

Barth uses “God is the one God in threefold repetition.”

The name of Father, Son and Spirit means that God is the one God in threefold
repetition, and this in such a way that the repetition itself is grounded in His Godhead,
so that it implies no alteration in His Godhead, and yet in such a way also that He is the
one God only in this repetition, so that His one Godhead stands or falls with the fact
that He is God in this repetition, but for that very reason He is the one God in each
repetition.94

87
Ibid., 311.
88
Ibid., 307.
89
Ibid., 88.
90
Ibid., 295.
91
Ibid., 295.
92
Ibid., 311.
93
Ibid., 348.
94
Ibid., 350.
 21

Barth stresses “Christian monotheism” in the doctrine of the Trinity. 95 Barth’s primary

concern seems to prevent tritheism in the doctrine of the Trinity as well as modalism. 96 What

is striking in his doctrine of the Trinity is that the unity in the Trinity is “the one God in

threefold repetition.”97 Instead of using “person,” he uses “repetition.” He says that “person”

in the doctrine of the Trinity is not closely related to personality: if the church says that there

are three persons in God, it falls into the fallacy of tritheism. 98 At the same time, he

emphasizes “Trinity in unity.” For him, this means “the distinction or order of the three

‘persons.’”99 Another noticeable expression is “the three modes of being in God,” which

implies “modalism”:

The concept of the revealed unity of the revealed God, then, does not exclude but
rather includes a distinction or order in the essence of God. This distinction or order is
the distinction or order of the three “persons,” or, as we prefer to say, the three “modes
(or ways) of being” in God.100

He claims that God has three modes of being. He prefers to use “modes of being” to

avoid “modalism”:

The statement that God is One in three ways of being, Father, Son and Holy Ghost,
means, therefore, that the one God, i.e., the one Lord, the one personal God, is what He
is not just in one mode but—we appeal in support simply to the result of our analysis of
the biblical concept of revelation—in the mode of the Father, in the mode of the Son,
and in the mode of the Holy Ghost.101

Barth views the three ways of being as the unique “modes of being” of God. His intention

seems to avoid both modalism and subordinationism.

95
Ibid., 351.
96
Ibid., 350.
97
Ibid., 350.
98
Ibid., 351.
99
Ibid., 355.
100
Ibid., 355.
101
Ibid., 359.
 22

God’s modes of being are specific, different, and distinctive and “not to be exchanged or

confounded.”

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.102

Barth claims that the ancient concept of person has become obsolete and the definition of

the ancient concept of person is not the only possible definition of the matter in question.

Instead of using the ancient concept of person that earlier dogmatics and modern Roman

Catholic dogmatics speak of, “we prefer to call the Father, Son and Spirit in God the three

distinctive modes of being of the one God subsisting in their relationships one with

another.”103

In the doctrine of the Trinity, Barth’s concern is “with unity in trinity and trinity in unity.”

But he thinks that these two are obviously one-sided and inadequate formulations because the

former is slightly overemphasizing on the unity and the latter is stressing the trinity. Thus he

suggests that the concept of “Triunity” is “to be regarded as a conflation of the two

formulae.”104 He goes on to say that it is obvious that the triunity of God implies the unity of

the Father, Son, and Spirit among themselves because revelation in the Bible witnesses it. 105

Just as in revelation, according to the biblical witness, the one God may be known only
in the Three and the Three only as the one God, so none of the Three may be known
without the other two but each of the Three only with the other Two. 106

And the revelation of God is the guarantee of the triunity of God.107

Traditionally, many scholars have dealt with the doctrine of the Trinity in terms of an

102
Ibid., 360.
103
Ibid., 366.
104
Ibid., 368.
105
Ibid., 370.
106
Ibid., 370.
107
Ibid., 371.
 23

economic Trinity and an immanent Trinity: economic Trinity refers to God’s activity for the

salvation of human beings, and immanent Trinity refers to the ontological relationship of the

three persons. Barth accepts this distinction. He continues to depict the “three modes of being”

of God in relation to revelation. That is, he says that “the Scriptures show us God in His work

as revealer, revelation, and being revealed or as Creator, Reconciler and Redeemer, or as

holiness, mercy and goodness.”108 And this is, he thinks, the root of the doctrine of the

Trinity. But he thinks that the involution and convolution of “the three modes of being” in the

essence of God exactly corresponds to those in His work.109 For example, he views the work

of Christ, such as the crucifixion, the resurrection, and Pentecost, as simultaneous and united

work in “the three modes of being” of God. In other words, the distinction between economic

Trinity and immanent Trinity is just the distinction between the work and the essence of God.

And they should be simultaneously understood.

Before Barth deals with God the Father, he raises the question, “what is the meaning of

the doctrine of the Trinity?”110

The specific question about revelation which is answered by the doctrine of the Trinity
is, however, the question who it is that reveals Himself, the question of the subject of
revelation. One may sum up the meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity briefly and
simply by saying that God is the One who reveals Himself. But if this meaning is to be
fully perspicuous one must also reverse the emphasis and say that God is the One who
reveals Himself. 111

That is, the meaning of the doctrine of the Trinity is that “God is the One who reveals

Himself.” In other words, “God is the revealer.” He points out that the doctrine of the Trinity

rejects subordinationism. God reveals Himself equally as the Father in His holiness and self-

veiling. It is God who reveals Himself equally as “the Son in His self-unveiling and mercy,

108
Ibid., 372.
109
Ibid., 374.
110
Ibid., 379.
111
Ibid., 380.
 24

and as the Spirit in His self-impartation and love.”112 In other words, “Father, Son and Spirit

are the one, single, and equal God.”113

The doctrine of the Trinity tells us, according to Barth, (1) that the One who reveals

Himself can be in fact our God, (2) how far He can be in fact our God. 114 Barth goes on to

say that ultimately the doctrine of the Trinity teaches us that “God who reveals Himself

according to Scripture is both to be feared and also to be loved, to be feared because He can

be God and to be loved because He can be our God.”115

Barth’s Contribution to the Doctrine of the Trinity

Barth’s major contribution to the doctrine of the Trinity, above all, was that he

developed his Trinitarian theology based on the Word of God and revelation in Jesus Christ.

He rectified the theological miscalculations of liberal theology, that the doctrine of the Trinity

was merely theological speculation. And his emphasis on the fact that God reveals Himself

and God can be known through revelation, not through human reason and experience,

challenges liberal theologians, who marginalize or dismiss Trinitarian thinking as mere

speculation.116

Another of Barth’s important contributions to the doctrine of the Trinity was his

reinterpretation of classical Trinitarian thought.

One of Barth’s major reconstructive moves was to breathe new life into the classical
doctrine of the triune God, the God who has determined to be “for” and “with”
humanity in Jesus Christ by the power of God’s own Spirit. His reinterpretation of
classical Trinitarian thought undoubtedly is one of Barth’s most enduring theological
legacies.117

112
Ibid., 381.
113
Ibid., 381.
114
Ibid., 382-383.
115
Ibid., 383.
116
Michael J. Ovey, “A Private Love? Karl Barth and The Triune God” in Engaging with
Barth: Contemporary Evangelical Critiques, ed. David Gibson and Daniel Strange (T&T
Clark, New York, London, 2008), 214.
117
William Stacy Johnson, The Mystery of God: Karl Barth and the Postmodern
Foundations of Theology (Louisville, KT: Westminster John Knox Press, 1997), 43.
 25

Above all, his reinterpretation of classical Trinitarian thought is focused on God’s

revelation in Jesus Christ. And Barth’s total dependence on revelation is one of his most

important strengths.

Difference and Similarity in the Doctrine of the Trinity of Calvin and Barth

Frankly speaking, it is not an easy task to discuss the continuity and discontinuity

between the two theological giants. This is because of the different historical, social,

theological contexts in which they lived. In this sense, they are sons of the times in which

they lived. When it comes to John Calvin, he was one of the great Reformers who completed

the theological framework of the Reformation and laid the solid foundation of Reformed

theology in the sixteenth century. And his influence has continued today and will continue.

When it comes to the continuity and discontinuity of Karl Barth’s theology with Calvin’s,

there have been pros and cons. On the one hand, many conservative theologians have been

very critical of Barth and his neo-orthodox theology, claiming that there is no continuity

between Calvin and Barth. One of them, Cornelius Van Til, claims that though Barth is using

the same words that Calvin used, the meanings of those words are quite different, so he

accuses Barth of “new modernism.” Carl Trueman of Westminster Theological Seminary,

also insists that “Barth deviates from Reformed Orthodoxy not only in its letter or content but

also in its spirit,” on the ground that Barth offers rather wholesale reconstructions of major

Christian doctrines. 118 On the other hand, many evangelical theologians claim that there is

continuity between Calvin and Barth in terms of theology, insisting that such an accusation of

conservative theologians goes too far.

Nonetheless, it is also true that Calvin influenced Karl Barth in terms of theology and

118
Carl Trueman, Calvin, Barth, and Reformed Theology: Historical Prolegomena, in Calvin,
Barth, and Reformed Theology, ed by Neil B. MacDonald and Carl Trueman
(Paternoster:thinking faith, Milton Keynes, Colorado Springs, Hyderabad, 2008), 26.
 26

theological revolution. As Richard A. Muller points out, Karl Barth and his theology need a

neutral observer. His theology is so massive, powerful, and strident that those who study his

theology become either admirers or opponents.119 Thus, it is not prudent to unilaterally

criticize Barth and his theology because it is also true that Calvin influenced Karl Barth in

terms of theology and theological revolution. I think that when we think of continuity and

discontinuity, we need to research these two theological giants more objectively, though it is a

tough task.

Indeed, Calvin’s influence on the life and theology of Karl Barth began when Barth

attended his father’s lecture on John Calvin in the winter of 1904. Barth acknowledges that he

saw “something of Calvin’s theology.” 120 When Barth was a professor of Gottingen

University, he gave a series of lectures on John Calvin and his theology in 1922. For Barth,

“the historical Calvin is the living Calvin who … still wants to say it.”121 This seems to

indicate that for Barth, Calvin is a living historical figure who is not stuck in a museum.

Barth thinks that Calvin still has something important to say because the living, speaking, and

working Calvin is in the present.122 Let us briefly go over the similarities and differences

between Calvin and Barth.

First of all, Calvin emphasizes the divinity of the Son and the divinity of the Holy

Spirit during his controversy with Caroli and Servetus. As Calvin did, Barth criticizes

nineteenth-century liberal theology that denies the divinity of the Son and the doctrine of the

Trinity, stressing the divinity of Christ based on the word of God. And the doctrine of the

Trinity occupies the core of the theology of Calvin and Barth. In this regard, we can say that

119
Richard A. Muller, Karl Barth and the Path of Theology into the Twentieth Century:
Historical Observations, in Westminster Theological Journal, 51:1(Spring 1989), 26.
120
Karl Barth, The Theology of John Calvin, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley (Grand
Rapids, MI: William B. Eeerdmans Publishing Company, 1995), ix, 131.
121
Ibid., 4.
122
Ibid., 8.
 27

there are similarity and continuity between Calvin and Barth.

Second, Calvin develops his doctrine of the Trinity based on the Bible, not on human

reason and speculation, and he places the knowledge of God in the first chapter in his

Institutes. Barth also put the doctrine of the Trinity “at the head of all dogmatics.”123 He

claims that it is foundational, “the presupposition of the basic principles that must be set forth

in dogmatics.”

Third, Calvin confines the possibility of knowing God to revelation in the Bible.

Human beings cannot exhaustively know God because God’s nature is spiritual and

immeasurable. 124 Only God can exhaustively know Himself. Though God reveals features of

His nature and essence, we human beings cannot know God in the same way that God knows

them.125 Because of the finiteness of human beings, we can only know God to the extent that

He reveals Himself in the Scriptures. We can know God only through God’s revelation of

Himself. Likewise, Barth emphasizes the “infinite qualitative distinction” between time and

eternity and the wholly otherness of God.126 Human beings cannot know God through their

reason, speculation, and experience. Barth also says that God can be known only through

revelation. Finally, Calvin and Barth stress the unity of and distinction of the Trinity.

As to the differences between Calvin and Barth, the first is their different starting

points. As Hunsinger points out, as Karl Barth made the first sustained attempt to reformulate

the doctrine of the Trinity in the twentieth century, 127 he began with the revelation in Jesus

Christ, not the God of the Trinity behind the revelation. This stands in stark contrast to John

123
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.1, The Doctrine of the Word of God, part 1, translated
by.T.H.L. Parker et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 300.
124
Ibid., 120.
125
Paul Helm, John Calvin’s Ideas (Oxford University Press, NY, 2004), 35.
126
Stanley J. Grenz & Roger E. Olson, Twentieth-century theology: God and the World in a
transitional age (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1992), 67.
127
George Hunsinger, Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth (William B.
Eerdmans Publishing Company, Grand Rapids, Michigan/Cambridge, U.K. 2000 ), 189.
 28

Calvin’s starting point, which is the God of the Trinity. That is, for Calvin, God as the triune

God has always existed before the Christ-event. But the structure of Barth’s theology is

thoroughly christocentric.128 That is, Jesus Christ is the singular and unique self-revelation

of God.129 Thus we cannot know God without the revelation in Christ. Barth says that God

revealed Himself in Jesus Christ. This is the net of revelation. Without the net of revelation, it

is impossible to know God. In other words, the theological system of Karl Barth is a

christomonistic world. 130

Second, when Calvin develops the doctrine of the Trinity, he uses terminology flexibly.

He shows us his willingness to use such expressions as “person,” and “Trinity” for the sake of

the interpretation of Scripture even though the Scripture does not directly mention them. 131

He says that the proper use of such theological expressions helps expose the errors of both

Arians and Sabellians. On the other hand, Barth criticizes the traditional concept of “Person.”

He uses “modes of being” instead of “person.” The God who reveals Himself, according to

Barth, is “One in three distinctive modes of being subsisting in their mutual relations.”132

Barth mentions God as the one God in threefold repetition. Some criticize Barth’s use of

“modes of being,” saying it implies a “modalistic” trait because “it reduces God to a single

subjectivity by identifying God’s one essence with his ‘person’ and by employing the term

modes of being for the trinitarian distinctions.” 133 Nonetheless, Barth strongly rejects

modalism by claiming “the ultimate reality of the three modes of being in the essence of God

128
Stanley J. Grenz & Roger E. Olson, Twentieth-century theology: God and the World in a
transitional age (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1992), 72.
129
Ibid., 72.
130
A.D.R. Polman, Barth (Modern Thinkers Series), 33.
131
John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, volume one (Westminster John Knox
Press, Louisvile, London, 2006), 123-124.
132
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.1, The Doctrine of the Word of God (T&T Clark
International, 2004 ), 348.
133
Stanley J. Grenz & Roger E. Olson, Twentieth-century theology: God and the World in a
transitional age (InterVarsity Press, Downers Grove, Illinois, 1992), 72.
 29

above and behind which there is nothing higher.”134

Conclusion

I have briefly dealt with Calvin and Barth in terms of their understanding of the

doctrine of the Trinity and how they develop the doctrine of the Trinity in their historical

context. I have briefly examined the continuity and discontinuity between the two theological

giants. As for Calvin, he made the greatest contribution to the laying of the solid foundation

of the doctrine of the Trinity. In particular, his doctrine of the Trinity paved the way for the

right understanding of the biblical God. On the other hand, Barth developed the doctrine of

the Trinity based on the Word of God and denied liberal theology. For him, the doctrine of

the Trinity is “at the head of all dogmatics.”135 His formulation of his theology based on the

doctrine of the Trinity made twentieth century theologians such as Moltmann, Jungel, and

Balthasar revisit and take an interest in the doctrine of the Trinity. He infused new life into

the classical doctrine of the triune God. He made the first sustained attempt to reformulate the

doctrine of the Trinity in the twentieth century.

When it comes to the continuity and discontinuity between Calvin and Barth, it is true

that both exist between them. Calvin significantly influenced Barth and his theology, and

Barth tried to reformulate the classical doctrine of the Trinity. As for continuity and

discontinuity, we need more neutral and objective research.

134
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.1, The Doctrine of the Word of God, part 1, translated
by.T.H.L. Parker et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 382.
135
Karl Barth, Church Dogmatics 1.1, The Doctrine of the Word of God, part 1, translated
by.T.H.L. Parker et al. (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975), 300.
 30

Bibliography
Barth, Karl. The Doctrine of God. Church Dogmatics 2. New York: T. & T. Clark, 1957.
———. The Doctrine of the Word of God. Church Dogmatics 1. Translated by T. H. L. Parker
et al. Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975.
———. The Epistle to the Romans. London: Oxford University Press, 1957.
———. The Theology of John Calvin, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eeerdmans Publishing Company, 1995.
———. The Gottingen Dogmatics: Instruction in the Christian Religion, vol. 1, trans. G. W.
Bromiley, ed. H. Reiffen. Grand Rapids: MI, Eerdmans, 1991.
Bray Gerald. The Doctrine of God: Contours of Christian Theology. Downers Grove, IL:
InterVarsity Press,1993.
Brown, Colin. Karl Barth and The Christian Message. Chicago: Inter-Varsity Press, 1967.
Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion, vol 1. Louisville, KY: Westminster John
Knox, 2006.
Choi, Jong Ho. Karl Barth: The Theology of the Word of God. Seoul: Han Dool Press, 2010.
Gibson, David & Strange, Daniel. Engaging with Barth: Contemporary Evangelical
Critiques. London: T&T Clark, 2008.
Hunsinger, George. Disruptive Grace: Studies in the Theology of Karl Barth, Grand Rapids,
MI: William B. Eerdmans, 2000.
Grenz, Stanley J. and Roger E. Olson. Twentieth-Century Theology: God and the World in a
Transitional Age. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992.
Helm, Paul. John Calvin’s Ideas. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.
Johnson, William Stacy. The Mystery of God: Karl Barth and the Postmodern Foundations of
Theology. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox, 1997.
Jungel, Eberhard. Karl Barth: A Theological Legacy. Translated by Garrett E. Paul.
Philadephia: Westminster, 1986.
Kelly, Douglas F. “The True and Triune God: Calvin’s Doctrine of the Holy Trinity.” Pages
XXX-YYY in A Theological Guide to Calvin’s Institutes. Edited by David W. Hall
and Peter A. Lillback. Phillipsburg; NJ: P&R, 2008
Kim, Jae Sung. “The Development and Significance of Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity,”
http://www.kirs.kr/data/calvin/calvin_a008.pdf.
Kim, Myong Young. The Theology of Karl Barth. Seoul: Ire Press, 2009.
Kim, Young Han. From Barth to Moltmann. Seoul: Korea Christianity Press, 2003.
Lane, Tony. Harper’s Concise book of Christian Faith. San Francisco: Harper & Row,
1984.
McCormack, Bruce L. Karl Barth’s Critically Realistic Dialectical Theology: Its
Genesis and Development 1909-1936. London: Oxford University Press,
1997.
 31

Muller, Richard A. “Karl Barth and the Path of Theology into the Twentieth Century:
Historical Observations,” Westminster Theological Journal 51 (1982):151:1.
———. After Calvin: Studies in the Development of a Theological Tradition. Oxford
University Press, 2003.
———. The Unaccommodated Calvin: Studies in the Foundation of a Theological Tradition.
Oxford University Press, 2000.
Murray, John. "Systematic Theology," Westminster Theological Journal 25. 1963.
Reymond, Robert L. A New Systematic theology of the Christian Faith, Thomas
Nelson,Nashivile Dallas Mexico City, Rio De Janeiro, Beijing, 1998.

Schaff, Philip. History OF THE Christian Church: The Swiss Reformation,

http://www.ccel.org/s/schaff/history/8__toc.htm
Tavard, George H. The Starting Point of Calvin’s Theology. Grand Rapids, MI: William B.
Eerdmands Publishing Company, 2000.
Torrance, T.F. “Calvin’s Doctrine of the Trinity” in Trinitarian Perspectives. Edinburgh: T.&T.
Clark, 1994.
Trueman, Carl, Calvin, Barth, and Reformed Theology: Historical Prolegomena, in Calvin,
Barth, and Reformed Theology, ed by Neil B. MacDonald and Carl Trueman.
Paternoster:thinking faith, Milton Keynes, Colorado Springs, Hyderabad, 2008.
Van Til, Cornelius. The Defense of Faith, Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co.
Phillipsburg, New Jersey, 1967.
———. An Introduction to Systematic Theology, 2007. R&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New
Jersey.
———. Christianity and Barthianism, 1962. R&R Publishing, Phillipsburg, New Jersey.
———. The New Modernism, 1947. The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Warfield, B.B. "Calvin's Doctrine of the Trinity in Calvin and Calvinism. New York: Oxford
University Press, 1931.
Wendel, Francois. Calvin: Origins and Development of His Religious Thought, tanslated by
Philip Mairet. Grand Rapid, MI: Baker Books, 1997.