The modalism debate on Karl Barth's doctrine of the Trinity

Karl Barth is best known for renewing interest in the doctrine of the Trinity in the mid to late 20th century and into the present day. However, criticism has been continuously raised that he fell into modalism in his understanding of the Trinity. Barth's usage of the terms 'repetition' and 'modes of being' is at the heart of the debate. In other words, the crux of the critics' argument is that his refusal to call the three hypostases of the Trinity as persons and his insistence on calling them repetitions or modes led him to fall into modalism. In particular, relatively recently Michael Ovey, in the same vein as the previous criticisms, and more specifically and sharply than them, argues that Barth's use of repetition language makes the Son a repetition of the Father and causes the ultimate elimination of plurality of the three hypostases, resulting in a distinct modalism. This article will respond especially to this criticism of Ovey, demonstrating that the contention that Barth avoided modalism when pursuing appropriate expression about God is a defensible claim. Specifically, this research will show that the repetition that Barth refers to is not the repetition of the Father, but the repetition of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. It will also show that Barth consistently holds the distinction of the three hypostases in expounding the doctrine of the Trinity.