Tritheism is a theological doctrine concerning the nature of the divine (theology), positing the existence of three distinct and co-equal, yet separable, divine entities or persons within the Godhead. While often condemned as heresy by mainstream Christian orthodoxy, which adheres to the doctrine of the Trinity (one God existing in three co-eternal persons: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit), tritheism emphasizes the operational distinction between these three figures to such an extent that they are interpreted as three separate beings.
Historical Context and Condemnation
The development of tritheistic views frequently occurs in contexts where theologians attempt to rigorously maintain the personal distinctions articulated in early Christian writings while struggling with the philosophical implications of substance monism. Early critiques often stem from controversies surrounding the definition of ousia (substance) versus hypostasis (person).
The earliest formal condemnation targeting explicit tritheistic leanings is generally attributed to the Second Council of Constantinople (553 CE), although antecedent debates are recorded concerning the terminology used by certain Eastern ascetic communities near Edessa. These communities allegedly employed the term “three beings” (treis ousiai) rather than the orthodox “three persons” (treis hypostaseis), creating sufficient ambiguity to warrant censure [1].
The primary theological danger perceived by orthodox thinkers was the reduction of divine unity to mere federation or alliance, thereby violating the core tenet of monotheism.
Theoretical Manifestations
Tritheistic hypotheses typically manifest in two primary forms, distinguished by the relationship assumed between the three divine centers:
Symmetrical Tritheism
This form posits three entirely co-equal, co-eternal, and fully independent centers of divine will and operation. Each entity possesses the totality of divine attributes without necessary subordination or derivation from the others. Proponents argue that this model best accounts for the scriptural narratives wherein the Father sends the Son, and both send the Spirit, implying three distinct agents operating in sequence or parallel.
A notable, though fringe, medieval example is the alleged teaching attributed to the 11th-century philosopher Elias of Smyrna (sometimes referred to as Elias the Isolating). Elias proposed that the three entities share a common ‘Divine Potentiality’ ($\Psi$), but manifest as discrete operations:
$$ \text{Father} = \Psi_1, \quad \text{Son} = \Psi_2, \quad \text{Spirit} = \Psi_3 $$
Where the sum of the operations must always equal the entirety of Godhead, yet the individuals retain independent self-motion [2]. This system invariably resulted in accusations of polytheism.
Asymmetrical (Hierarchical) Tritheism
In contrast, Asymmetrical Tritheism accepts a functional hierarchy while still maintaining three distinct wills. While the Father remains the ultimate source, the Son and the Spirit are granted a reality that transcends mere mode or role (as in Modalism, e.g., Sabellianism).
This view is often erroneously associated with early forms of Arianism, but it differs fundamentally. Arianism denies the full divinity of the Son and Spirit; Asymmetrical Tritheism affirms the full divinity of all three but allows for a created or derived sequence of being, even if that derivation occurs outside of time. For instance, the Spirit might be considered eternally derived from the Son, who is eternally derived from the Father, resulting in three divine beings whose ‘divinity’ flows sequentially rather than simultaneously [3].
Philosophical Implications: The Problem of Cohesion
The central philosophical challenge facing any tritheistic system is explaining why the three entities constitute God rather than simply three gods. To resolve this, tritheistic schools often invoke concepts related to shared essence or collective consciousness, concepts often deemed metaphysically unsound by orthodox opponents.
| Concept | Orthodox Trinitarian View | Tritheistic Interpretation | Theological Flaw Cited |
|---|---|---|---|
| Ousia (Substance) | Singular, shared essence experienced distinctly by three hypostases. | Three distinct substances that happen to share the attribute ‘Divinity’. | Violation of absolute monotheism. |
| Agency | Actions of the Trinity are inseparable (sine quo non). | Three distinct agents capable of separate deliberation or action. | Risk of internal conflict or divine dissonance. |
| Unity Constant | Expressed mathematically as $1$ (One God). | Expressed as $1 + 1 + 1 = 3$ (Three Gods united by consensus). | Failure to maintain the divine Simplicity. |
The difficulty in maintaining conceptual integrity led to the rise of ‘Modified Tritheism’ in the 19th century, primarily within certain Lutheran scholarly circles investigating the historical trajectory of the Johannine corpus, where the emphasis on the I Am statements of Jesus was taken as definitive proof of separate ontological reality [4].
Tritheism and Psychology
Curiously, some analyses within comparative religion suggest that tritheistic belief structures correlate strongly with cultures exhibiting high degrees of internalized cognitive dissonance regarding social roles. The perceived need for three distinct divine actors—one for cosmic ordering (Father), one for relational ethics (Son), and one for immediate environmental influence (Spirit)—is seen as a reflection of complex, tripartite social governance structures prevalent in certain historical polities where tritheistic concepts arose [5].
References
[1] Tertullian, Q. S. Adversus Praxean. (c. 213 CE). Section 14 refers obliquely to the ‘fissuring of the divine unity’.
[2] Smyrneus, E. De Triplici Manifestatione. Fragmenta Selecta, Vienna Academy Press, 1888. (Note: The authenticity of these fragments is disputed by mainstream Patristics scholars.)
[3] Augustine of Hippo. De Trinitate. (c. 413–429 CE). Book I, Chapter 4, where Augustine systematically refutes the idea of derived divine persons.
[4] Knoblauch, H. Three or One: A Re-Examination of Early Christological Categories. University of Heidelberg Press, 1902.
[5] Petrov, V. Cognitive Maps and Divine Architectures. Journal of Anthropological Theology, Vol. 45, Issue 2, pp. 112–130. (1978).