Hubbry Logo
TritheismTritheismMain
Open search
Tritheism
Community hub
Tritheism
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Tritheism
Tritheism
Tritheism
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Tritheism (from Greek τριθεΐα, "three divinity"[1]) is a polytheistic nontrinitarian Christian conception of God in which the unity of the Trinity and, by extension, monotheism are denied. It asserts that, rather than being single God of three eternally consubstantial Persons, the Father, Son (Jesus), and Holy Spirit are three ontologically separate Gods.[2] It represents more of a "possible deviation" than any actual school of thought positing three separate deities.[3] It was usually "little more than a hostile label"[4] applied to those who emphasized the individuality of each hypostasis or divine person—Father, Son and Holy Spirit—over the unity of the Trinity as a whole.[1] The accusation was especially popular between the 3rd and 7th centuries AD.[1]

In the history of Christianity, various theologians have been accused of lapsing into tritheism. Among the earliest were the monophysites John Philoponos (died c. 570) and his followers, such as Eugenius and Conon of Tarsus.[1] They taught that the common nature of the Trinity is an abstraction; so that, while the three persons are consubstantial, they are distinct in their properties.[5] Their view was an attempt to reconcile Aristotle with Christianity.[4] This view, which was defended by Patriarch Peter III of Callinicum, was condemned as tritheism at a synod in Alexandria in 616.[3][1] It was again condemned as tritheism at the Third Council of Constantinople in 680–81.[5]

In Late Antiquity, several heretical movements criticized Orthodoxy as equivalent to tritheism. The Sabellians, Monarchians and Pneumatomachoi labelled their opponents tritheists.[1] Jews and Muslims frequently criticized trinitarianism as merely dressed-up tritheism (see Islamic view of the Trinity).[6] Groups accused by the orthodox of tritheism include the Anomoeans and Nestorians.[1]

In the Middle Ages, the scholastic Roscelin was accused of tritheism. He was an extreme nominalist who saw the three divine persons as separately existing. He was condemned as a tritheist at the synod of Soissons in roughly 1092. The realist scholastic Gilbert de la Porrée erred in the opposite direction by distinguishing between three divine beings and the essence of God (making a quaternity rather than a trinity), and was accused of tritheism.[3] He was condemned at the Council of Reims in 1148. Gilbert's ideas influenced Joachim of Fiore, and the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) tried to clarify the issue by confirming the numerical unity of the Trinity.[5]

In modern times, the Austrian Catholic Anton Günther, in an effort to refute Hegelian pantheism, declared three divine persons to be three absolute and distinct realities bound together only by their shared origin.[5]

List of Christians accused of tritheism

[edit]
  1. Those who are usually meant by the name were a section of the Monophysites, who had great influence in the second half of the sixth century, but have left no traces save a few scanty notices in John of Ephesus, Photius, Leontius etc.[7] Their founder is said to be a certain John Ascunages, head of a Sophist school at Antioch. The principal writer was John Philoponus, the great Aristotelian commentator; the leaders were two bishops, Conon of Tarsus and Eugenius of Seleucia in Isauria, who were deposed by their comprovincials and took refuge at Constantinople where they found a powerful convert and protector in Athanasius the Monk, a grandson of the Empress Theodora. Philoponus dedicated to him a book on the Trinity. The old philosopher pleaded his infirmities when he was summoned by the Emperor Justinian to the Court to give an account of his teaching. But Conon and Eugenius had to dispute in the reign of Justin II (565-78) in the presence of the Catholic patriarch John Scholasticus (565-77), with two champions of the moderate Monophysite party, Stephen and Paul, the latter afterward Patriarch of Antioch. The Tritheist bishops refused to anathematize Philoponus, and brought proofs that he agreed with Severus and Theodosius. They were banished to Palestine, and Philoponus wrote a book against John Scholasticus, who had given his verdict in favour of his adversaries. But he developed a theory of his own as to the Resurrection (see Eutychianism) on account of which Conon and Eugenius wrote a treatise against him in collaboration with Themistus, the founder of the Agnoctae, in which they declared his views to be altogether unchristian. These two bishops and a deprived bishop named Theonas proceeded to consecrate bishops for their sect, which they established in Corinth and Athens, Rome, Northern Africa and the Western Patriarchate, while in the east agents traveled through Syria and Cilicia, Isauria and Cappadocia, converting whole districts and ordaining priests and deacons in cities villages and monasteries. Eugenius died in Pamphylia; Conon returned to Constantinople. Leontius assures that the Aristotelianism of Philoponus made him teach that there are in the Holy Trinity three partial substances (merikai ousiai, ikikai theotetes, idiai physeis) and one common. The genesis of the doctrine has been explained (for the first time) under MONOPHYSITES, where an account of Philoponus's writings and those of Stephen Gobarus, another member of the sect, will be found.
  2. John Philoponus, an Aristotelian and monophysite in Alexandria about the middle of the sixth century, was charged with tritheism because he saw in the Trinity as separated three natures, substances and deities, according to the number of divine persons. He sought to justify this view by the Aristotelian categories of genus, species and individuum.[7]
  3. In the Middle Ages, Roscellin of Compiegne, the founder of Nominalism, argued like Philoponus that unless the Three Persons are tres res (3 objects), the whole Trinity must have been incarnate. He was condemned of the heresy of tritheism at the 1092-1093 Council of Soissons presided over by Renaud du Bellay, archbishop of Rheims. Attempting to appeal to the authority of Lanfranc and Anselm, Roscellin prompted Anselm to write Cur Deus Homo and other treatments of the divine nature refuting his treatment.[7] Roscellin publicly recanted and, after exile in England and Italy, reconciled himself to the church, but returned to a form of his earlier reasoning.
  4. Among Catholic writers, Pierre Faydit, who was expelled from the Oratory at Paris in 1671[7] for disobedience and died in 1709, practiced a form of tritheism in his Eclaireissements sur la doctrine et Phistoire ecclésiastiqes des deux premiers siecles (Paris, 1696), in which he tried to make out that the earliest Fathers were Tritheists. He was replied to by the Premonstratensian Abbot Louis-Charles Hugo (Apologie du système des Saints Pères sur la Trinité, Luxemburg, 1699).
  5. A prominent ideologue of Russian Old Believers and a writer, Avvakum (died 1682) was accused by official Orthodox Church and by fellow Old Believers of tritheism, based on some passages in his letters.
  6. A Catholic canon of Trier named Oembs, influenced by the doctrines of the "Enlightenment",[7] similarly attributed to the Fathers his own view of three similar natures in the Trinity, calling the numerical unity of God an invention of the Scholastics. His book Opuscula de Deo Uno et Trino (Mainz, 1789), was condemned by Pius VII in a Brief of 14 July 1804.
  7. The Bohemian Jesuit philosopher Anton Günther was also accused of tritheism, leading to his work ending up on the Index librorum.
  8. Among Protestants, Heinrich Nicolai (d. 1660), a professor at Danzig and at Elbing[7] (not to be confounded with the founder of Familia Caritatis), is cited.
  9. The best known in the Anglican Church is William Sherlock, Dean of St. Paul's,[7] whose Vindication of the Doctrine of the Holy and ever Blessed Trinity (London, 1690) against the Socinians, maintaining that with the exception of a mutual consciousness of each other, which no created spirits can have, the three divine persons are "three distinct infinite minds" or "three intelligent beings.", was attacked by Robert South in Animadversions on Dr. Sherlock's Vindication (1693). Sherlock's work is said to have made William Manning a Socinian and Thomas Emlyn an Arian, and the dispute was ridiculed in a skit entitled "The Battle Royal", attributed to William Pittis (1694?), which was translated into Latin at Cambridge.
  10. Joseph Bingham, author of the "Antiquities", preached at Oxford in 1695[7] a sermon which was considered to represent the Fathers as tritheists, and it was condemned by the Hebdomadal Council as falsa, impia et haeretica, the scholar being driven from Oxford.
  11. Though members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would probably not self-identify as tritheist, some critics of Mormonism say that it is tritheistic or polytheistic because it teaches that the Godhead is a council of three distinct deities perfectly one in purpose, unity and mission, but nevertheless separate and distinct beings.[8][9]
  12. Some have suggested that the Seventh-day Adventist Church has embraced a tritheistic view of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as it does not see their singularity as a Godhead consisting in one being but rather as three separate beings in a single group.[10]
  13. Christian apologist, and recent self-identified Catholic, Sam Shamoun, has in the past and allegedly quite recently defended the proposition that the Divine Persons of the Trinity each possess their own unique minds, rather than equally and wholly sharing one Divine mind, which logically results in Tritheism. It is noted, however that he disputes holding this view as a Catholic, though others dispute this claim.[11][12][13]
  14. Christian Philosopher William Lane Craig, author of "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview," is a social trinitarian that believes each person of the trinity has their own distinct mind and will, which leads to tritheism.[14]
  15. Christian apologist self-identified Protestant, Godlogic, A person is a distinct agency with the capacity to act, who has tried to argue the Trinity in the bible, which has made him fall into Tritheism.[15]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Tritheism

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Tritheism is a theological position, often labeled a within , that interprets the doctrine of the as entailing three separate and independent gods rather than one divine subsisting in three persons. This view contrasts sharply with orthodox Trinitarianism, which maintains by affirming the unity of while distinguishing the , , and as coequal and coeternal persons sharing a single divine nature. Emerging as a critique or misinterpretation of Trinitarian formulas, tritheism implies , where the three persons are treated as distinct deities with quasi-independent agencies, potentially leading to divided wills or creations. Historically, tritheistic ideas surfaced in , particularly through the works of figures like (ca. 490–570 CE), who applied Aristotelian distinctions between ousia (essence) and hypostasis (person) in ways that Chalcedonian theologians deemed to promote three gods, thus rejecting it as incompatible with . In the medieval period, brief tritheistic proposals appeared but were swiftly suppressed by church authorities to preserve doctrinal unity. Modern philosophical and theological debates, such as those in Richard Swinburne's , continue to grapple with accusations of tritheism, arguing that distinct divine persons with individual consciousnesses risk portraying God as a divided rather than a singular being worthy of exclusive worship. Defenders of orthodoxy counter this by emphasizing shared divine attributes—like and —as collective properties of the , avoiding the implication of three rival lords. Tritheism remains a perennial charge leveled against Trinitarian formulations, underscoring the tension between affirming personal distinctions and upholding God's indivisible oneness, as rooted in scriptural monotheism (e.g., Deuteronomy 6:4). It serves as a foil in theological discourse, highlighting the need for precise language to distinguish the Trinity from both modalism (one God in three modes) and outright polytheism.

Definition and Origins

Etymology and Terminology

The term "tritheism" derives from the Greek words treis (τρεῖς, meaning "three") and theos (θεός, meaning "god"), forming tritheia (τριθεΐα), literally denoting "three-god-ism" or belief in three gods. This linguistic construction reflects its use as a theological descriptor within Christian debates over the nature of the Godhead. The English form "tritheism" emerged later, with its earliest recorded use in 1678 by the Cambridge Platonist Ralph Cudworth in his work The True Intellectual System of the Universe. In Christian theological discourse, the term first appeared around the 6th century AD as a pejorative label, primarily directed at certain Monophysite thinkers, such as John Philoponus (c. 490–570), who were accused of positing three distinct divine substances (hypostases) rather than maintaining the unity of the divine essence (ousia). Initially, it was applied broadly to any perceived division within the Trinity that suggested multiple gods, often in the context of Christological controversies following the Council of Chalcedon (451 AD). Over subsequent centuries, its usage narrowed to critique specific interpretations of Trinitarian doctrine that veered toward polytheism, such as those attributed to medieval nominalist Roscelin of Compiègne (c. 1050–1125), who was condemned for implying three separate divine beings in 1092. Related terminology includes "tritheist," denoting an individual holding such views, as seen in patristic-era associations with earlier heresies like those of Marcion (c. 85–160 AD) or Photinus (d. 376 AD), though the precise term postdates these figures. In Christian contexts, tritheism is distinguished from broader by its specific focus on a triadic misunderstanding of the , positing three gods within a nominally monotheistic framework, rather than an unrestricted multiplicity of deities. This contrasts with orthodox Trinitarian emphasis on one God in three consubstantial persons.

Core Beliefs and Principles

Tritheism asserts the existence of three ontologically distinct gods—the , the , and the —each possessing an independent substance or essence, rather than a shared divine nature. This position rejects the (homoousios) articulated in the , which emphasizes a single divine substance uniting the three persons. In tritheistic , the divine persons are viewed as fully autonomous deities, each capable of independent action and , leading to a form of triadic that denies strict . This framework posits that the Father, Son, and operate as separate divine beings without a unifying essence, potentially allowing for either equal status among them or a hierarchical arrangement where one predominates. The core principle of tritheism lies in the complete separation of divine substances, where no single nature binds the three gods into one, distinguishing it sharply from orthodox Trinitarian views that maintain divine unity through a common essence. This separation underscores a plurality of gods, each self-sufficient and divine in its own right, without reliance on interdivine relations for their being.

Theological Context

Relation to Trinitarian Doctrine

Orthodox Trinitarian doctrine affirms one existing as a single divine essence, or ousia, subsisting eternally in three distinct persons, or hypostases: the , the , and the . These persons are coeternal, coequal, and consubstantial, sharing the undivided ousia without confusion of their personal properties or division of the divine nature. This formulation, solidified in the pro-Nicene consensus around 381 CE, maintains by emphasizing the unity of essence alongside real distinctions in . In contrast, tritheism posits three separate divine essences, or ousiai, each fully identified with one of the three hypostases, resulting in a conception of three independent gods rather than a unified divine being. This view fundamentally departs from Trinitarian orthodoxy by severing the essential unity that binds the persons, thereby introducing a plurality of deities that aligns more closely with . The risk of tritheism arises particularly from an overemphasis on the personal distinctions within the Godhead, which can erode the shared ousia and portray the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as autonomous beings with separate powers and operations. Such an interpretation not only compromises the doctrine's monotheistic core but also invites charges of idolatry by implying multiple objects of worship. To counter this, early theologians stressed that divine actions are indivisible: every operation extending from God to creation originates in the Father, proceeds through the Son, and reaches completion in the Holy Spirit, underscoring their inseparable unity. The —, , and —played a pivotal role in establishing terminological and conceptual safeguards against tritheistic tendencies. They deliberately distinguished hypostasis (for the three persons) from (for the one essence), arguing that the persons' relational differences (such as the Father being unbegotten, the Son begotten, and the Spirit proceeding) do not imply separate substances but rather incommunicable properties within a common nature. , in particular, warned that enumerating the three as gods would be erroneous, as they "jointly, inseparably, and mutually exercise their divine power," ensuring the Trinity's coherence without multiplicity of gods.

Comparisons with Other Heresies

Tritheism is distinguished from primarily in its affirmation of the full and equal divinity of the Father, Son, and as three independent gods, whereas subordinates the Son as a created being of lesser essence than the uncreated Father. This contrast underscores tritheism's commitment to divine plurality without hierarchy, avoiding the subordinationist implications that led to 's condemnation at the Council of Nicaea in 325 CE. In opposition to Modalism, also known as , tritheism rejects the notion of the divine persons as temporary or successive modes of a single God, instead positing their eternal distinction and separation as autonomous divine entities. Modalism preserves monotheistic unity by viewing the Father, Son, and as manifestations of one being, but tritheism embraces a form of that emphasizes threeness over any shared essence, a view critiqued by early like for undermining the relational dynamics within the . Tritheism's focus on three distinct divine substances sets it apart from , which is chiefly a Christological emphasizing the separation of Christ's divine and natures into two distinct persons, potentially implying a division in the . While both involve notions of separation, tritheism applies this to the eternal Godhead, proposing three gods without the dyophysite (two-nature) framework central to Nestorian debates at the in 431 CE, thus avoiding direct entanglement in Christological union but risking accusations of .

Historical Development

Early Christian Period (3rd–7th Centuries)

During the , Trinitarian debates in the early began to give rise to accusations of tritheism, particularly as theologians grappled with the relationship between the unity of God and the distinctness of the , Son, and . Figures like of Alexandria (c. 200–265 CE) faced charges from Sabellian opponents of dividing the into three gods by emphasizing the personal distinctions within the , though Dionysius himself defended his views as maintaining while rejecting modalism. These early controversies laid the groundwork for later developments, with extreme subordinationist positions in the Arian debates of the late 3rd and 4th centuries leading to further accusations. Groups such as the Anomoeans, an radical Arian sect led by Eunomius (c. 335–393 CE), were criticized for their assertion that the Son and Holy Spirit were unlike (anomoios) the in , a stance that some orthodox theologians interpreted as implying three separate divine beings rather than one God in three hypostases. By the 6th century, tritheistic ideas gained traction within Monophysite (Miaphysite) circles in , where efforts to affirm Christ's single nature after the union of divinity and humanity extended to Trinitarian theology. The philosopher and theologian (c. 490–570 CE), a prominent Aristotelian commentator and defender of Miaphysite , proposed that the three persons of the each possessed distinct, individual natures united only by will and operation, a view that blurred the line between hypostases and in a way that suggested three gods. This position, which aimed to safeguard the unity of Christ's nature but applied analogously to the , was seen as polytheistic by opponents and sparked intense debate among Monophysites. In response, the Synod of in 616 CE explicitly condemned Philoponus's tritheism as heretical, anathematizing his teachings and those of his followers for undermining the orthodox doctrine of one divine essence. Imperial and conciliar authorities addressed these tritheistic tendencies through broader reaffirmations of , which emphasized Christ's two natures (divine and human) without confusion or separation, as defined at in 451 CE. The Third Council of (680–681 CE), the sixth convened by Emperor , not only rejected (the idea of a single will in Christ) but also condemned tritheistic interpretations arising from Miaphysite metaphysics, including Philoponus's legacy. The council's acts affirmed that the consists of three hypostases sharing one numerical divine nature, will, and operation, thereby upholding dyophysitism against tendencies that could fragment the into multiple deities. This ruling integrated Trinitarian with Christological balance, marginalizing tritheism in both Eastern and Western churches for centuries.

Medieval and Scholastic Era (11th–13th Centuries)

During the , accusations of tritheism resurfaced in Western scholastic amid intensifying debates over the , particularly through the lens of emerging . Nominalists, denying the real existence of universals and positing that only particular substances are ontologically primary, applied this framework to the doctrine of the , risking the perception of three separate divine beings rather than one subsisting in three persons. This philosophical shift, building briefly on earlier patristic concerns about dividing the , intertwined with broader theological inquiries into divine unity and . A prominent early case involved Roscelin of Compiègne (c. 1050–c. 1125), an itinerant master and pioneer of who viewed universals as mere verbal expressions (flatus vocis) without metaphysical reality. Applying this to the Trinity, Roscelin argued that the three persons were distinct individuals lacking a shared divine substance, akin to three angels, which critics like interpreted as tritheism. At the Council of Soissons in 1092, convened under Archbishop Renaud de Bar, Roscelin was compelled to recant his views publicly, affirming the unity of the divine essence to avert formal condemnation, though he reportedly resumed teaching similar ideas afterward. Anselm responded theologically in his Epistola de incarnatione Verbi (c. 1094), defending a relational distinction within one substance against Roscelin's particularism. Similar tensions arose later with Gilbert de La Porrée (c. 1076–1154), a realist scholastic whose distinctions between the divine and persons—positing the as a collection of properties distinct from the persons—drew accusations of dividing the unity of God. Influenced by , Gilbert's Commentarii super Boethii opuscula sacra suggested a formal distinction that and others saw as veering toward tritheism by implying three quasi-subsistent deities. The matter culminated at the Council of Reims in 1148, presided over by Pope Eugenius III, where Gilbert faced trial for ; despite intense pressure from Bernard, who lobbied cardinals beforehand, Gilbert defended his orthodoxy eloquently, leading to his acquittal after minor clarifications. This highlighted papal intervention in scholastic disputes to safeguard Trinitarian . These tritheistic accusations occurred within a wider ecclesial context, intersecting with Eucharistic controversies where analyses of substance and universals challenged orthodox views on . For instance, (c. 999–1088), a nominalist thinker, applied linguistic skepticism to deny the real presence in the , influencing parallel debates on divine substance that echoed Trinitarian concerns. Such integrations underscored how scholastic permeated multiple doctrines, prompting synodal oversight to maintain doctrinal coherence amid philosophical innovation.

Accusations and Key Figures

Patristic and Byzantine Accusations

In the 6th century, the philosopher and theologian (c. 490–570 AD), a prominent anti-Chalcedonian thinker in , faced accusations of tritheism for his Trinitarian views articulated in works such as the Arbiter (Dialysis) and Tritheist Scholia. He posited that each divine person—Father, Son, and —constituted a distinct substance (), with the common divinity existing merely as a mental abstraction rather than an immanent reality, thereby undermining the unity of the Godhead. This perspective, developed in opposition to Chalcedonian , prompted sharp rebukes from orthodox theologians, including of and Anastasius of Sinai, who saw it as devolving into by treating the hypostases as independent entities. Philoponus' ideas influenced subsequent Monophysite debates but were formally condemned as heretical, exacerbating schisms within . The tritheistic controversy intensified in the mid-6th century among certain Monophysite circles, particularly through figures like Bishop Conon of Tarsus (d. after 567) and Bishop of in , who were excommunicated for their doctrinal leanings. These leaders, consecrated amid the broader Monophysite resistance to , advocated a strict separation of the three divine hypostases as individual substances, refusing to anathematize Philoponus despite imperial pressure from Emperor . In 569, a in , presided over by Patriarch John Scholasticus, deposed and banished them to after a where they defended their position against orthodox representatives, viewing the common divine nature as abstract rather than concrete. This schism highlighted tensions within Monophysitism, where efforts to affirm Christ's single nature inadvertently extended to Trinitarian divisions, leading to their isolation from both Chalcedonian and mainstream Miaphysite communities. Broader patristic accusations of tritheism targeted Origenist thinkers and extreme dyophysites, reflecting ongoing concerns over divine unity in early . (c. 185–254 AD) and his followers were charged with tritheism due to subordinationist elements in his Trinitarian , which emphasized distinct hypostases and the Son's eternal in a way that suggested three separate gods, as critiqued in the 3rd-century controversy between Dionysius of Alexandria and Dionysius of Rome. This perception persisted, contributing to 's posthumous condemnation at the Fifth in 553 AD alongside Anomoean Arians, who were accused of similar divisions by denying the Father's full transmission of substance to the Son. Extreme dyophysites, such as Nestorians, faced parallel rebukes for implying two separate persons in Christ, which critics like argued risked extending to tritheism by fragmenting the divine economy into autonomous realities. The , including , were also compelled to defend against such charges in the , affirming the homoousios to counter implications of three gods from their hypostatic distinctions.

Medieval Theologians Accused

In the medieval scholastic period, several prominent Western theologians faced accusations of tritheism due to their philosophical distinctions regarding the divine persons and essence, often influenced by emerging nominalist and realist debates. These charges arose amid efforts to safeguard orthodox Trinitarian doctrine against perceived threats to God's unity. Roscelin of Compiègne, a key figure in early nominalism, exemplified this tension. Roscelin of Compiègne (c. 1050–1125), a French scholastic philosopher and teacher, was condemned for tritheism at the Council of Soissons in 1092. His nominalist position held that universals, such as the divine essence, were merely words (flatus vocis) without real existence, leading him to argue that the three persons of the were distinct substances or gods, albeit in harmony. This view implied a separation that undermined , prompting church authorities to force his recantation and exile. Roscelin's ideas, though extreme, highlighted the challenges of applying to . Gilbert de la Porrée (c. 1076–1154), bishop of and a realist thinker influenced by , faced similar scrutiny at the Council of in 1148. His commentary on the De Trinitate distinguished between the divine essence (divinitas) and the concrete subsistences of the persons, suggesting that properties like paternity and were distinct from God's being. Critics, led by , accused him of tritheism by reifying these distinctions into separate entities, potentially dividing the . Although initially condemned, Gilbert recanted under pressure but was ultimately absolved by Pope Eugenius III, allowing his teachings to influence later scholastics while sparking ongoing debates. Peter Abelard (1079–1142), a dialectical innovator and author of Sic et Non, encountered brief but pointed accusations of tritheism in theological debates, though he was not formally condemned for it. In Sic et Non, Abelard compiled contradictory patristic statements on the Trinity to resolve them through logical distinction, emphasizing that the persons shared one essence while differing in properties like generation. Opponents, including William of Champeaux, charged that this rational approach risked portraying three gods, echoing his teacher Roscelin's errors. Abelard's condemnations at (1121) and (1141) focused more on broader heresies, but these Trinitarian concerns underscored nominalist influences in his method.

Modern and Contemporary Cases

In the , the Bohemian philosopher Anton Günther (d. 1873) faced accusations of tritheism from Catholic authorities due to his rationalist interpretations of Trinitarian doctrine, which emphasized the distinct of each divine in a manner perceived as dividing the into three separate deities. Günther's works, influenced by , portrayed the as three independent subjects united only through mutual relations, leading to condemn his writings in 1857 for errors including and distorted Trinitarianism. These views were further rejected by the in 1870, resulting in Günther's books being placed on the Index of Forbidden Books. In the 20th and 21st centuries, —a model stressing the relational distinctiveness of the , , and —has drawn criticisms for veering into implicit tritheism. Theologian (1926–2024), a key proponent in works like The Trinity and the Kingdom (1980), has been charged with tritheism by critics who argue his emphasis on the persons as autonomous subjects with perichoretic relations undermines divine unity, potentially portraying God as three cooperative gods rather than one essence. Moltmann responded by insisting his model preserves through the persons' indwelling unity, though detractors like warned against such formulations risking polytheistic implications. Similarly, analytic philosopher (b. 1949) advocates a "three-self" , positing God as a single soul with three centers of , which some theologians, including Catholic scholars, critique as functionally tritheistic by implying three divine wills and intellects that compromise the and oneness of God. These debates, ongoing as of 2025 in following Moltmann's death, highlight tensions between relational models and classical Trinitarian . Accusations of tritheism have also been leveled against certain non-Trinitarian groups, though these claims are often debated due to differing theological frameworks. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints () is frequently criticized for tritheism, as their doctrine teaches the , , and as three distinct, corporeal beings united in purpose but not in substance, diverging sharply from Nicene Trinitarianism and prompting evangelical and Catholic scholars to label it polytheistic or tritheistic. In contrast, Oneness Pentecostals, who adhere to a modalist view of God as one person manifesting in three modes, face accusations of tritheism less directly; critics sometimes misapply the term amid broader charges of denying distinct persons, but this is contested as Oneness theology explicitly rejects any division in the . These applications underscore ongoing ecumenical disputes over Trinitarian boundaries in modern .

Theological Implications and Criticisms

Doctrinal Consequences in Christianity

Tritheism poses a significant threat to the foundational Christian doctrine of monotheism by conceptualizing the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as three independent deities rather than coequal persons within a single divine essence, thereby risking a slide into polytheistic worship where devotion might fragment across multiple gods. This erosion undermines the unity emphasized in scriptural and creedal affirmations of one God, potentially diluting adherence to core statements like the Nicene Creed, which insists on the consubstantiality of the divine persons to preserve monotheistic integrity. Theologians such as Gregory of Nyssa countered such implications by arguing that the shared divine operations of the three persons maintain a singular divine reality, avoiding the polytheistic division that tritheism entails. In terms of ecclesial schisms, tritheism played a pivotal role in exacerbating divisions within early Christian communities, particularly among Monophysite groups in the sixth century. , sparked by debates over the nature of the divine hypostases, led to a prolonged between the churches of and Antioch lasting approximately 30 years (circa 586–616), intensifying the post-Chalcedonian fractures and hindering unity among miaphysite factions. This internal discord highlighted how tritheistic interpretations could fragment the church body, contributing to broader separations that persisted into later periods and influenced medieval reform movements seeking to reaffirm Trinitarian against perceived deviations. Accusations of tritheism have fostered ongoing vigilance in , shaping key creeds and councils to safeguard monotheistic doctrine. The , emerging in the early sixth century, explicitly articulates the equality and unity of the three persons in one , serving as a bulwark against tritheistic tendencies by stressing that worship is directed to the as a single entity rather than three separate beings. Similarly, ecumenical councils such as Constantinople III (680–681) reinforced this vigilance by affirming one divine will and operation among the persons, countering tritheistic risks and ensuring doctrinal consistency across the church. These developments underscore how tritheism concerns have continually prompted refinements in Trinitarian formulation to uphold ecclesial unity and creedal fidelity.

Debates on Implicit Tritheism

In contemporary theological discourse, has faced significant criticism for implicitly endorsing tritheism through its emphasis on the relational distinctiveness of the divine persons, potentially positing three separate centers of rather than a unified divine essence. Richard Swinburne's model, which portrays the Father, Son, and as three fully divine individuals united by mutual love and shared will, has been particularly targeted for this reason, as it risks fragmenting the into three gods despite intentions to affirm . Philosopher Brian Leftow argues that Swinburne's framework entails three independent divine agents, each with autonomous and power, thereby collapsing into tritheism by violating the numerical unity required for orthodox . Similarly, Daniel Spencer contends that social trinitarian approaches, by prioritizing interpersonal relations over essential oneness, often fail to resolve the quantitative problem of three divine beings, leading to a tripartite that undermines classical Trinitarian orthodoxy. Within analytic theology, debates have intensified over the independence of divine persons without , drawing on Karl Barth's mid-20th-century warnings that excessive emphasis on personal distinctions could devolve into tritheism by treating the persons as quasi-separate subjects rather than modes of a single divine being. In the , responses to Barth's cautions have sought to balance personhood and unity, with scholars like proposing a "three-self" model where the persons share a single divine mind to avert tritheistic fragmentation while preserving relational dynamics. These discussions highlight tensions in analytic frameworks, where affirming non-subordinate equality among persons risks implying three ultimate realities unless anchored in a robust metaphysics of . Theologians have attempted to resolve these implicit tritheistic tendencies through analogies like , the doctrine of mutual indwelling, which posits that the divine persons interpenetrate one another so completely that their distinctions do not imply separation but rather a dynamic unity of essence. Cornelius Plantinga Jr. employs to defend against tritheism, arguing that the persons' co-inherence ensures a single divine center despite their relational autonomy. Jurgen Moltmann further develops this in his social model, using to illustrate how the Trinity's unity emerges from eternal perichoretic relations, thereby safeguarding amid personhood. This concept, revived in modern , underscores that true Trinitarian relationality presupposes an indivisible divine nature, countering accusations of three gods by emphasizing ontological interdependence.

References

  1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/trinity-history.html
  2. https://place.asburyseminary.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1215&context=faithandphilosophy
  3. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religious-studies/article/trinity-or-tritheism/DD5B7F46F6D54C8E416A06E48FE76C5B
  4. https://www.biblicalcyclopedia.com/T/tritheists.html
  5. https://www.oed.com/dictionary/tritheism_n
  6. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philoponus/
  7. https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/tritheists
  8. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/trinity/
  9. https://www.academia.edu/14493771/Discerning_the_Boundary_between_Trinitarianism_and_Tritheism
  10. https://digitalcommons.liberty.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1564&context=masters
  11. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/heyj.14459
  12. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/harvard-theological-review/article/new-fragment-on-the-difference-between-hypostasis-and-enhypostaton-against-tritheists/A6B2652E1E4C43C0AEEE369A7EAD2D51
  13. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/229790754_On_not_three_gods-again_Can_a_primary-secondary_substance_reading_of_ousia_and_hypostasis_avoid_tritheism
  14. https://www.academia.edu/414266/The_Trinity_Universals_and_Particular_Substances_Philoponus_and_Roscelin
  15. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/590be125ff7c502a07752a5b/t/6155f254c521fb75f50973b0/1633022549174/Schaff%2C+Philip%2C+Scholastic+and+Mystic+Theology+in+the+Middle+Ages.pdf
  16. https://www.crvp.org/publications/Series-I/I-9.pdf
  17. https://scholarworks.iu.edu/dspace/bitstreams/d3586cfd-71a1-4e34-91d9-d533e6f2cc14/download
  18. https://www.academia.edu/92838497/_Something_Much_Too_Plain_to_Say_Towards_a_Defence_of_the_Doctrine_of_Divine_Simplicity
  19. https://repository.lib.ncsu.edu/bitstreams/29ba97a1-8fff-47e3-9d9c-0bc00e96d92a/download
  20. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/medieval-philosophy/
  21. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abelard/
  22. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/15061b.htm
  23. https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/07085a.htm
  24. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/scottish-journal-of-theology/article/social-model-of-the-trinity-and-its-critics/68483D8646356128B72B0397DB1B263F
  25. https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/scholarly-writings/christian-doctrines/a-formulation-and-defense-of-the-doctrine-of-the-trinity
  26. https://www.catholic.com/audio/sp/william-lane-craigs-unintentional-war-on-god
  27. https://www.catholicworldreport.com/2025/02/11/making-sense-of-mormonism/
  28. https://www.modernreformation.org/resources/articles/are-mormons-trinitarian
  29. https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/16/4/431
  30. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40036763
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.