Chapter 5: Tritheism and Polytheism – The Three Gods Error

What Is Tritheism?

Tritheism, from the Greek words “tri” (three) and “theos” (god), is the belief that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct gods rather than three persons sharing one divine essence. This error doesn’t merely distinguish between the persons of the Trinity—something orthodox Christianity has always done—but goes further to divide the very being of God into three separate beings. Where biblical Christianity proclaims “one God in three persons,” tritheism teaches “three gods in agreement.”

Definition and Key Distinctions

To understand tritheism properly, we must carefully distinguish it from orthodox Trinitarianism. The orthodox position maintains that there is one divine essence or being (the ousia) shared fully and equally by three distinct persons (the hypostases). Each person is fully God, possessing the complete divine essence, yet there is only one God, not three. The Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, but the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and the Spirit is not the Father. They are distinct in their persons but united in their essence.

Tritheism, by contrast, teaches that each person of the Trinity possesses his own separate divine essence. The Father has one divine essence, the Son has another divine essence, and the Spirit has yet another divine essence. This makes them three separate beings who happen to be divine, rather than one divine being existing as three persons. The unity between them becomes merely a unity of purpose, agreement, or cooperation—similar to how three human beings might work together—rather than a unity of essence or being.

Consider this analogy: Three human beings—Peter, James, and John—share a common human nature, but they are three separate beings with three separate instances of that nature. Each has his own individual essence or being. They might work together perfectly, agree on everything, and share the same goals, but they remain three separate beings. Tritheism views the Trinity this way—as three separate divine beings who share a common divine nature but possess individual divine essences.

Historical Appearances of Tritheism

Tritheism is not a new error. It has appeared repeatedly throughout church history, often arising from well-meaning but misguided attempts to preserve the distinction of the three persons. In the sixth century, a movement emerged led by John Ascusnages (also called John Philoponus), a philosopher in Alexandria. He taught that the three persons of the Trinity were three separate divine individuals, united only in the sense that three human beings might be united. His followers, known as Tritheists, argued that if we say Peter, Paul, and John are three men, we should also say the Father, Son, and Spirit are three Gods.

The church responded swiftly to this heresy. The Second Council of Constantinople (553 AD) condemned tritheistic teachings, affirming that while we distinguish between the persons, we must not divide the essence. The church fathers argued that the analogy to three human beings breaks down because humans are separate beings with separate essences, while the three divine persons share one undivided essence. Gregory of Nazianzus wrote powerfully against this error: “No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the One.”

Tritheism appeared again in the medieval period through the teachings of Roscelin of Compiègne (c. 1050-1125), who argued that if the three persons were truly one substance, then the Father and Holy Spirit would have become incarnate along with the Son. To avoid this conclusion, he taught that the three persons were three separate beings, like three angels or three souls. The Council of Soissons (1092) condemned his teachings, and Roscelin was forced to recant.

Modern Manifestations of Tritheism

In our contemporary context, tritheism takes various forms, some obvious and others more subtle. The most blatant form appears in Mormonism, which we’ll examine in detail shortly. But tritheistic tendencies can also emerge in evangelical churches when teachers, in their zeal to distinguish the persons, inadvertently divide the essence. This happens when preachers speak of the persons as if they were three separate beings who need to communicate with each other, make agreements with each other, or even negotiate with each other.

Some popular Christian books and sermons have depicted the Trinity in ways that lean toward tritheism. When we hear descriptions of the Father, Son, and Spirit having a “conference” to decide on creation, or the Father “sending” the Son as if dispatching a separate being to earth, or the three persons taking turns being active in history, we’re hearing echoes of tritheistic thinking. While the persons are distinct and can be spoken of as acting in distinct ways, they never act independently or separately from one another.

The Social Trinity Model Gone Too Far

In recent decades, some theologians have promoted what’s called the “Social Trinity” model, emphasizing the relational and communal aspects of the Trinity. While this approach has valuable insights about the relational nature of God and the importance of community, some versions push so far toward distinguishing the persons that they approach tritheism.

Extreme social Trinitarians speak of three distinct centers of consciousness and will in God, three “I’s” who relate to each other as separate subjects. They emphasize the plurality in God to such a degree that the unity becomes merely a unity of love and agreement rather than a unity of being. While it’s true that the persons relate to one another in love, and while there is a genuine distinction between them, we must not conceive of this in a way that divides God into three beings.

The problem with extreme social Trinitarianism is that it projects human social relationships onto God in a way that compromises divine unity. Human persons are separate beings who come together in relationship. But the divine persons have never been separate and have never needed to come together—they exist eternally in perfect unity of essence while maintaining real personal distinctions. The Father, Son, and Spirit don’t form a community; they are one God who exists as a communion of persons.

Mormonism’s Polytheistic Trinity

Of all the modern religious movements that claim to be Christian while teaching tritheism, none is more influential or more explicit in its polytheism than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS), commonly known as Mormonism. With over 16 million members worldwide and a massive missionary force, Mormonism represents the most successful propagation of polytheistic theology under the banner of Christianity in modern history. Understanding their teaching about God is crucial for recognizing and refuting this error.

Joseph Smith’s Evolution Away from the Trinity

Interestingly, Joseph Smith, Mormonism’s founder, didn’t begin as a polytheist. The Book of Mormon, published in 1830, contains passages that sound almost modalistic, emphasizing God’s oneness. For instance, Mosiah 15:1-5 identifies the Father and the Son as the same God, and Alma 11:28-29 affirms that there is only one God. Early Mormon converts likely understood these passages in a way compatible with traditional Christian monotheism.

However, Smith’s theology evolved dramatically over the fourteen years between the Book of Mormon’s publication and his death in 1844. By 1835, he was teaching that the Father and Son were separate personages. In his 1838 account of his “First Vision,” he claimed to have seen the Father and the Son as two distinct beings with bodies of flesh and bones. This evolution culminated in his famous King Follett Discourse, delivered just months before his death in 1844, where he declared: “God himself was once as we are now, and is an exalted man, and sits enthroned in yonder heavens!”

This progression from apparent monotheism to explicit polytheism reveals how tritheistic thinking naturally evolves toward full polytheism. Once you divide the one God into three gods, there’s no logical stopping point. If there can be three gods, why not millions? This is exactly where Smith’s theology led.

The Book of Abraham and the Plurality of Gods

The Book of Abraham, which Smith claimed to translate from ancient Egyptian papyri (though Egyptologists have demonstrated it’s actually a common funerary text), presents the most explicitly polytheistic Mormon scripture. In Abraham 4-5, the creation account from Genesis is retold with a shocking change: instead of “God” (Elohim in Hebrew), it consistently uses “the Gods.” Consider these passages:

“And then the Lord said: Let us go down. And they went down at the beginning, and they, that is the Gods, organized and formed the heavens and the earth” (Abraham 4:1, emphasis added).

“And the Gods said: Let there be light; and there was light” (Abraham 4:3, emphasis added).

Throughout these chapters, “the Gods” plan, counsel, order, and create. This isn’t metaphorical or poetic language—Mormon doctrine takes this literally to mean multiple divine beings working together. The implications are staggering: the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob—the God who declared “I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” (Isaiah 45:5)—is replaced with a council of gods.

Three Separate Beings: The Current LDS Doctrine

Modern LDS doctrine explicitly teaches that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are three separate and distinct beings. The official LDS website states: “God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost are three separate and distinct personages.” But unlike Christian theology, which maintains they are distinct persons sharing one essence, Mormonism teaches they are entirely separate beings.

According to LDS Doctrine and Covenants 130:22: “The Father has a body of flesh and bones as tangible as man’s; the Son also; but the Holy Ghost has not a body of flesh and bones, but is a personage of Spirit.” Notice the implications: two of the three have physical bodies, making them spatially limited beings who cannot be omnipresent. They exist in specific locations and must move from place to place.

This teaching fundamentally redefines the nature of deity. A god with a physical body cannot be infinite, cannot be omnipresent, and cannot be purely spiritual as Jesus declared: “God is spirit” (John 4:24, ESV). The Mormon gods are essentially exalted humans, advanced beings who have progressed to divinity but remain fundamentally limited by physicality.

The Father’s Physical Body Teaching

The LDS teaching that God the Father has a physical body contradicts numerous biblical passages. When Scripture speaks of God’s “hand” or “eyes,” it uses anthropomorphic language to help us understand God’s actions and attributes in human terms. But Scripture explicitly denies that God has a physical form:

“God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent” (Numbers 23:19, NKJV).

“To whom then will ye liken God? or what likeness will ye compare unto him?” (Isaiah 40:18, NKJV).

“No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him” (John 1:18, NKJV).

The Mormon response that these passages refer only to sinful mortals seeing God, not to God’s actual nature, fails to address the fundamental issue. If God the Father has a physical body, he is not the infinite, omnipresent, spiritual God revealed in Scripture. He becomes merely a powerful alien being, advanced beyond humans but not truly divine in the biblical sense.

Humans Becoming Gods: The Logical Extension

Once you accept that there are multiple gods, and that God the Father was once a man who became a god, the door opens to infinite polytheism. This is exactly what Mormonism teaches. Lorenzo Snow, the fifth president of the LDS church, coined the famous couplet: “As man is, God once was; as God is, man may become.”

According to LDS doctrine, worthy Mormon men (and their wives, through their husbands) can eventually become gods themselves, creating and ruling their own worlds. This doctrine, called “exaltation” or “eternal progression,” means there are potentially billions of gods, with more being created all the time. Joseph Smith taught: “Here, then, is eternal life—to know the only wise and true God; and you have got to learn how to be gods yourselves.”

This teaching stands in absolute contradiction to biblical monotheism. God declares through Isaiah: “I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6, NKJV). “Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isaiah 44:8, NKJV). The biblical God doesn’t merely claim to be the most powerful god or the god of this world—He declares that He is the only God in existence, that no gods existed before Him, and none will exist after Him.

Biblical Monotheism Defended

The foundation of biblical faith is the truth that there is only one God. This isn’t merely one doctrine among many—it’s the bedrock upon which all other biblical truths rest. From Genesis to Revelation, Scripture thunders with the declaration of God’s absolute uniqueness and solitary deity. To compromise on monotheism is to abandon biblical faith altogether.

The Shema: Israel’s Fundamental Confession

The heart of Jewish faith, recited daily by devout Jews for millennia, is found in Deuteronomy 6:4: “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (NKJV). This declaration, known as the Shema (from the Hebrew word for “hear”), isn’t merely a statement about God’s uniqueness—it’s a battle cry against all polytheism, a line in the sand that separated Israel from every other nation.

The Hebrew word translated “one” is echad, which means a unified one. While some have argued this word allows for plurality within unity (and indeed it can be used of a composite unity), in this context it emphatically declares that Yahweh is one as opposed to many. The nations around Israel worshiped pantheons of gods—Baal, Asherah, Molech, Dagon, and countless others. Against this polytheistic backdrop, Israel declared: our God is not many, He is ONE.

Jesus Himself affirmed the Shema as the greatest commandment. When asked by a scribe about the foremost commandment, Jesus replied: “The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord” (Mark 12:29, NKJV). The scribe responded with understanding: “Well, Master, thou hast said the truth: for there is one God; and there is none other but he” (Mark 12:32, NKJV). Jesus commended him, saying he was not far from the kingdom of God.

Notice what Jesus didn’t do—He didn’t correct the scribe’s understanding of God’s oneness. He didn’t say, “Actually, there are three Gods working in unity.” He affirmed absolute monotheism while Himself being the second person of the Trinity. This demonstrates that Trinitarian doctrine doesn’t compromise monotheism but rather reveals the fullness of the one God’s nature.

“No God Beside Me”: The Exclusivity Passages

Throughout the Old Testament, especially in Isaiah, God declares not merely His supremacy but His exclusivity. These passages don’t leave room for other gods, whether subordinate or coordinate:

“Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD, and my servant whom I have chosen: that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me” (Isaiah 43:10, NKJV).

This passage destroys both the Mormon doctrine of God the Father having a god before him and humans becoming gods after him. God explicitly states that no God was formed before Him and none shall be formed after Him. The language is comprehensive and absolute.

“I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God” (Isaiah 44:6, NKJV).

“Is there a God beside me? yea, there is no God; I know not any” (Isaiah 44:8, NKJV).

“I am the LORD, and there is none else, there is no God beside me” (Isaiah 45:5, NKJV).

“Remember the former things of old: for I am God, and there is none else; I am God, and there is none like me” (Isaiah 46:9, NKJV).

These declarations leave no room for tritheism or polytheism of any kind. God doesn’t merely claim to be the greatest god or the only god worthy of worship—He declares that He is the only God who exists. All other supposed gods are either human inventions or demonic deceptions, but they are not gods in any true sense.

New Testament Monotheism

Some argue that the New Testament’s revelation of the Trinity modified Old Testament monotheism, opening the door to multiple gods. This is absolutely false. The New Testament writers, all of whom were monotheistic Jews (with the possible exception of Luke), maintained strict monotheism while revealing the triune nature of the one God.

Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles who most fully developed Trinitarian theology, was emphatic about God’s oneness:

“As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one” (1 Corinthians 8:4, NKJV).

“One God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all” (Ephesians 4:6, NKJV).

“For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5, NKJV).

James writes: “Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble” (James 2:19, NKJV). Even demons know there is only one God!

The Book of Revelation, while presenting glorious visions of the Father, Son, and Spirit, maintains absolute monotheism. The worship scenes in heaven don’t show three separate gods receiving separate worship, but one throne, one who sits upon it, and the Lamb who shares that singular divine glory.

One Divine Essence, Not Three

The biblical doctrine of the Trinity maintains that the three persons share one undivided divine essence. This isn’t a mathematical contradiction (1+1+1=1) but a revealed mystery about the nature of God’s being. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are not three gods agreeing to work together, nor are they three parts that together make up God. Each person is fully God, possessing the complete divine essence.

Think of it this way: In human experience, one person equals one being. Every human person is a separate being. But God’s existence transcends our creaturely limitations. In God, three persons share one being. This doesn’t mean each person has one-third of the divine essence, for the divine essence cannot be divided. The Father possesses the whole divine essence, the Son possesses the whole divine essence, and the Spirit possesses the whole divine essence, yet there is only one divine essence, not three.

This is why the ancient creeds used careful language. The Athanasian Creed states: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.” The substance (essence or being) cannot be divided into three parts or three separate substances. To do so would be to create three gods.

When we say the Father is God, the Son is God, and the Holy Spirit is God, we’re not using “God” as a generic term like “humanity” that can apply to multiple beings. We’re saying each person IS the one God, fully possessing the singular divine essence. This is why Jesus could say, “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30, NKJV)—not one person, but one in essence, one God.

How Some Evangelicals Slip Into Tritheism

While evangelicals rightly reject the explicit polytheism of Mormonism, subtle forms of tritheistic thinking can creep into our own teaching and preaching. Often this happens unintentionally, arising from imprecise language, inadequate analogies, or an overemphasis on the distinction of persons at the expense of divine unity. Recognizing these tendencies helps us guard against inadvertently teaching error.

Overemphasis on the Persons

In our proper desire to maintain the real distinction between Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we sometimes speak in ways that suggest they are separate beings rather than distinct persons sharing one essence. This happens particularly when we’re trying to explain how the persons relate to one another or when we’re emphasizing that the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, and so forth.

For example, when explaining the incarnation, some teachers say things like, “The Father stayed in heaven while the Son came to earth.” While trying to preserve the distinction between Father and Son, this language suggests spatial separation between distinct beings. The truth is more nuanced: the Son, while remaining fully divine and omnipresent in His divine nature, took on human nature and became locally present in a human body. The Father didn’t stay in a different location—He remained omnipresent as always, and the Son in His divine nature never ceased to be omnipresent either.

Similarly, when discussing prayer, some speak as if the Son needs to persuade a reluctant Father to be merciful, or as if the Spirit needs to inform the Father about our needs. This creates a picture of three separate beings with potentially different attitudes and levels of knowledge. In reality, the three persons share the same will, the same knowledge, and the same love for humanity. The Son doesn’t change the Father’s mind through intercession—rather, the Son’s intercession expresses the unified will of the Godhead for our salvation.

Problematic Analogies Leading to Error

Every analogy for the Trinity breaks down at some point—if they didn’t, they wouldn’t be analogies but exact descriptions. However, some popular analogies are particularly dangerous because they lead directly to tritheistic thinking. Understanding why these analogies fail helps us avoid their errors.

The Family Analogy: Some describe the Trinity as a divine family—Father, Son (Jesus), and the Holy Spirit as perhaps the mother figure or another family member. This analogy immediately creates multiple beings. A human family consists of separate individuals who may be united in love and purpose but remain distinct beings. Applying this to God suggests three separate divine beings forming a family unit. This is tritheism, not Trinity.

The Three Men Analogy: Augustine warned against thinking of the Trinity like three men who share human nature. Peter, James, and John are three humans, sharing human nature but existing as three separate beings. If we think of Father, Son, and Spirit this way, we have three gods sharing divine nature—exactly what the Mormons teach. The crucial difference is that the three divine persons share numerically one essence, while three humans have three separate instances of human essence.

The Committee or Council Analogy: When we speak of the Trinity making decisions together, planning together, or working together like a committee, we imply separate beings coming to agreement. But the three persons share one will, one wisdom, one power. They don’t need to confer, vote, or reach consensus. Their distinction is real, but it doesn’t involve the kind of separation that requires communication or agreement between separate minds.

Social Trinity Models in Evangelical Theology

In recent decades, some evangelical theologians have embraced versions of the “Social Trinity” model, emphasizing the relational aspects of God’s triune nature. While there are legitimate insights here—God is inherently relational, and the persons of the Trinity do relate to one another in love—some versions push too far toward tritheism.

Theologians like Jürgen Moltmann have spoken of the Trinity as a “divine community” or “divine society.” Some go so far as to speak of three centers of consciousness, three wills, three minds in God. While trying to take seriously the genuine distinction of persons and the biblical language of the persons relating to one another, these models risk dividing the essence.

The problem intensifies when these models are used to support various social or political agendas. Some argue that because God exists as a community of persons, human society should be organized in certain ways. Others use the Trinity to support egalitarian or complementarian views of gender relations. While the Trinity may indeed have implications for human relationships, we must be careful not to project human social dynamics onto God in ways that compromise divine unity.

Divine Community Language Problems

Speaking of the Trinity as a “divine community” sounds appealing and seems to honor the relational nature of God. However, this language carries baggage that can lead to tritheistic thinking. A community, in normal usage, consists of multiple separate beings who come together. The members of a community exist independently and choose to associate.

The divine persons, however, have never existed independently and have never needed to come together. They exist eternally in perfect unity of essence. The Father has never been without the Son, the Son has never been without the Spirit, the Spirit has never been without the Father. They don’t form a community—they are one God whose manner of existence involves three eternal persons in perfect communion.

Better language might speak of the Trinity as “communion” rather than “community,” or as “three persons in eternal relation” rather than “a society of divine persons.” The key is to maintain both the real distinction of persons and the absolute unity of essence without compromising either truth.

Eastern Orthodox vs. Western Views

The Eastern Orthodox and Western (Catholic and Protestant) traditions have developed somewhat different emphases in their understanding of the Trinity, though both maintain orthodox monotheism. Understanding these differences helps us appreciate the breadth of legitimate Trinitarian theology while recognizing that neither tradition endorses tritheism. These historical perspectives also show how the church has wrestled with maintaining both unity and distinction in God.

Different Emphases Explained

The Eastern and Western traditions both affirm the same fundamental truths: one God in three persons, sharing one essence. However, they emphasize different aspects of this mystery. The East tends to start with the three persons and move toward unity, while the West tends to start with divine unity and move toward the distinction of persons. Neither approach, properly understood, leads to heresy, but each guards against different errors.

The Eastern approach begins with the biblical revelation of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as encountered in salvation history. Eastern theologians emphasize that we know God as Trinity because this is how God has revealed Himself to us—in the economy of salvation. They tend to be more comfortable with the mystery of how three persons can be one God, accepting it as a revealed truth that transcends human comprehension.

The Western approach, influenced heavily by Augustine, tends to begin with the unity of God and then seek to understand how this one God exists as three persons. Western theology has traditionally been more concerned with explaining the logical coherence of the Trinity, using philosophical categories to articulate how three can be one. This approach guards carefully against tritheism but must work to maintain real personal distinctions.

The Monarchy of the Father

Eastern Orthodox theology emphasizes what’s called the “monarchy of the Father”—the teaching that the Father is the source (arche) of the Trinity. The Son is eternally begotten from the Father, and the Spirit eternally proceeds from the Father. This doesn’t mean the Father existed before the Son and Spirit (all three are eternal) or that the Son and Spirit are inferior (all three are fully God). Rather, it describes eternal relations of origin within the Trinity.

The Cappadocian Fathers (Basil the Great, Gregory of Nazianzus, and Gregory of Nyssa) developed this understanding in the fourth century. They taught that the Father is the principle of unity in the Trinity—the Son and Spirit are one with the Father because they derive their existence from Him. As Gregory of Nazianzus wrote, “The Father is the begetter and the emitter; the Son is the begotten, and the Holy Spirit is the emission.”

This emphasis on the Father as source might seem to Western ears to compromise the equality of the persons, but Eastern theology carefully maintains that all three persons are fully and equally God. The relations of origin don’t imply inequality of essence or dignity. The Father doesn’t have more of the divine essence than the Son or Spirit—all three possess the fullness of deity. The monarchy of the Father is about relational order, not ontological superiority.

Why Neither Tradition Is Tritheistic

Despite their different emphases, neither Eastern nor Western orthodox theology teaches tritheism. Both traditions firmly maintain that there is only one God, one divine essence, one divine will, one divine operation. The differences lie in how they articulate the mystery, not in the fundamental doctrine itself.

Eastern theology, despite beginning with the three persons, never divides the essence. The Cappadocians were explicit that the three persons share one essence (ousia). They used the analogy of three torches sharing one light—distinct sources but one illumination. While this analogy has limitations, it illustrates their commitment to divine unity. The persons are distinct but never separate, different but never divided.

Western theology, despite emphasizing unity, maintains real personal distinctions. Augustine, often criticized for overemphasizing unity, wrote extensively about the real relations between the persons. He insisted that the Father is truly Father to the Son, the Son is truly Son to the Father, and the Spirit is truly the Spirit of both. These relations are not mere human ways of speaking but eternal realities in God.

The Filioque controversy, where the Western church added “and the Son” to the creed’s statement about the Spirit’s procession, illustrates these different emphases. The East feared this addition compromised the Father’s monarchy and introduced two sources in the Trinity. The West saw it as clarifying the Son’s full divinity and the unity of Father and Son. While this remains a point of disagreement, both sides reject any division of the divine essence.

Finding Balance Between Unity and Distinction

Both Eastern and Western approaches offer valuable insights that help us maintain biblical balance. From the East, we learn to take seriously the genuine threeness of God, the real distinction of persons, and the importance of not reducing the Trinity to a philosophical puzzle to be solved. The Eastern comfort with mystery reminds us that God transcends our categories and comprehension.

From the West, we learn to guard carefully against any hint of tritheism, to think clearly about the implications of our language, and to maintain the absolute unity of God even as we distinguish the persons. The Western concern for logical coherence helps us avoid contradictions that would make the Trinity seem irrational rather than supra-rational.

The key is holding both truths in tension: God is genuinely three and truly one. We neither divide the essence (creating three gods) nor confuse the persons (creating one person with three modes). As the Athanasian Creed beautifully states: “We worship one God in Trinity, and Trinity in Unity; neither confounding the persons nor dividing the substance.”

The Problem of Religious Language

One of the greatest challenges in maintaining orthodox Trinitarian doctrine is the limitation of human language. We’re trying to describe the infinite God using finite words, to express the transcendent using immanent categories. This linguistic challenge has led to many misunderstandings and errors throughout church history. Understanding these limitations helps us use language more carefully and recognize why precise theological terminology matters.

Why “Persons” Confuses Modern Readers

The word “person” in Trinitarian theology doesn’t mean exactly what it means in modern English. Today, when we say “person,” we typically mean an individual center of consciousness, a separate being with their own mind, will, and existence. If we apply this modern meaning directly to the Trinity, we end up with tritheism—three separate beings who are gods.

The Latin word persona and the Greek word hypostasis (also prosopon), which we translate as “person,” had different connotations in the early church. Persona originally referred to the mask worn by actors in plays, then came to mean the role or character someone played. Hypostasis meant the underlying reality or subsistence of something. Neither word originally carried all the baggage of individual, separate existence that “person” does today.

The church fathers chose these terms carefully to indicate real distinctions in God without implying separate beings. They were trying to navigate between modalism (which denied real distinctions) and tritheism (which divided God into three). The terms were technical, philosophical language adopted and adapted for theological purposes. A “person” in the Trinity is a distinct subsistence within the one divine essence, not a separate individual being.

This linguistic evolution creates problems for modern readers. When we read that God exists as three persons, our minds naturally picture three separate individuals, like three humans in a room. But this isn’t what the doctrine means. The three persons are distinct but not separate, different but not divided. They interpenetrate one another (a doctrine called perichoresis or circumincession) in a way that separate beings cannot.

Hypostasis vs. Prosopon: Technical Distinctions

The early church wrestled with finding appropriate terms to express Trinitarian doctrine. Two Greek words became central: hypostasis and prosopon. Understanding their distinction helps us appreciate the precision of Trinitarian language.

Prosopon originally meant “face” or “mask,” and by extension, the role or character someone presented. In secular Greek, it could refer to the dramatis personae in a play—the characters, not the actors. When applied to the Trinity, it emphasized the distinct ways each person of the Godhead is manifested and relates to creation and redemption.

Hypostasis literally means “that which stands under” and came to mean the underlying reality, substance, or actual existence of something. Initially, it was nearly synonymous with ousia (essence or being). This created confusion, as some theologians spoke of one hypostasis (meaning one essence) while others spoke of three hypostases (meaning three persons).

The Cappadocian Fathers clarified this terminology in the fourth century. They distinguished ousia (essence) from hypostasis (person), establishing the formula: one ousia, three hypostases. This became standard in Eastern theology. The West adopted the formula “one substance, three persons” (una substantia, tres personae), which conveyed the same truth in Latin terms.

This technical precision wasn’t merely academic wordplay. These distinctions guarded against serious heresies. Without clear terminology, it was impossible to maintain both the unity of God and the distinction of persons. The technical language provided a fence around the mystery, preventing deviation into error while acknowledging the limits of human comprehension.

Substantia vs. Essentia: The Latin Contribution

Latin theology developed its own technical vocabulary for the Trinity. Two key terms were substantia and essentia, both often translated as “substance” or “essence” in English. Understanding these terms helps us appreciate Western Trinitarian thought.

Substantia literally means “that which stands under” (like the Greek hypostasis). In Trinitarian theology, it came to refer to the one divine nature shared by the three persons. Tertullian, writing in Latin in the early third century, was among the first to use this term systematically for the Trinity. He spoke of “one substance, three persons” (una substantia, tres personae).

Essentia comes from the verb “to be” and refers to the very being or existence of something—what makes it what it is. Augustine preferred this term because it more clearly conveyed the idea of God’s being. When we say the three persons share one essence, we mean they share the very same divine being, not just the same type of being.

The distinction matters because of the analogies we might draw. Three humans share the same “substance” in the sense that they’re all human—they share human nature. But they don’t share the same numerical essence; each has their own individual human existence. The Trinity, however, shares not just the same type of divine nature but the numerically same divine essence. There is only one divine being, not three beings of the same type.

The Limits of Human Language About God

Ultimately, all human language about God is analogical and limited. We’re using created words to describe the uncreated, temporal language to express the eternal, finite concepts to grasp the infinite. This doesn’t mean our language is false—God has revealed Himself truly in Scripture using human language. But it does mean our language is accommodated to our limitations.

Gregory of Nazianzus expressed this beautifully: “No sooner do I conceive of the One than I am illumined by the splendor of the Three; no sooner do I distinguish them than I am carried back to the One. When I think of any One of the Three, I think of Him as the whole, and my eyes are filled, and the greater part of what I am thinking escapes me.”

This limitation of language should humble us. While we must be precise in our terminology to avoid heresy, we must also acknowledge that the Trinity transcends our full comprehension. The mystery isn’t a problem to be solved but a reality to be worshiped. Our language serves to fence in the mystery, to say “not this” and “not that” to various errors, while acknowledging that positive description always falls short of the full reality.

This is why the church has often defined the Trinity more by what it’s not than by what it is. We say the persons are not three gods (against tritheism), not three modes (against modalism), not created (against Arianism). These negative boundaries protect the mystery while acknowledging that the positive reality transcends our categories.

Responding to Tritheistic Arguments

Those who teach or tend toward tritheism often raise certain arguments that seem convincing on the surface. Understanding these arguments and knowing how to respond biblically is crucial for defending orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. Each of these arguments contains a grain of truth but pushes it too far, dividing what Scripture unites.

“They Talk to Each Other” – The Communication Argument

One of the most common arguments for viewing the Trinity as three separate beings is that Scripture shows them communicating with each other. Jesus prays to the Father. The Father speaks from heaven about the Son. The Spirit intercedes for us with the Father. Doesn’t this prove they are separate beings who need to communicate across the distance between them?

This argument misunderstands the nature of divine relations and the purpose of this biblical revelation. First, the communications we see in Scripture often occur in the context of the incarnation, where the Son has taken on human nature. As a true human, Jesus prays to the Father, expressing both His genuine humanity and the eternal relation between Son and Father. His prayers don’t indicate that the divine persons are separated but rather reveal the reality of personal distinctions within the Godhead.

Second, the “communication” between the persons isn’t like human communication across spatial or psychological distance. The persons are not separated by space (God is omnipresent) or by ignorance (God is omniscient). Rather, their communication expresses eternal relations of love and glory. When Jesus says, “Father, glorify me” (John 17:5), He’s not informing the Father of something the Father doesn’t know or persuading Him to do something He’s reluctant to do. He’s expressing, in time and space, the eternal relation of mutual glorification between Father and Son.

Third, much of this communication is for our benefit, revealing to us the relational nature of God. When the Father says, “This is my beloved Son” (Matthew 3:17), He’s not telling the Son something the Son doesn’t know—He’s revealing to us the eternal relationship. The prayers of Jesus teach us about the Son’s relationship to the Father and model prayer for us.

“They Have Different Wills” – The Gethsemane Argument

In Gethsemane, Jesus prayed, “Not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). Some argue this proves the Father and Son have different wills, making them different beings. If they were truly one God, wouldn’t they have the same will?

This argument fails to account for the incarnation and the two natures of Christ. Jesus Christ is one person with two natures—divine and human. As God, He shares the one divine will with the Father and Spirit. As human, He has a genuine human will. In Gethsemane, we see His human will, which naturally recoiled from suffering and death, submitting to the divine will.

This actually demonstrates the perfection of Christ’s humanity, not a division in the Trinity. A human without a human will wouldn’t be truly human. Jesus had to have a genuine human will to be our representative and substitute. His submission of that human will to the divine will shows us how humanity should relate to God and accomplishes what Adam failed to do—perfect human obedience.

The divine will is always one. The Father, Son, and Spirit never disagree, never have conflicting purposes, never work at cross purposes. When Scripture speaks of the Father willing something and the Son accomplishing it, this isn’t two separate wills finally agreeing, but one will expressed in the distinct personal relations and economic roles of Father and Son.

“The Father Sent the Son” – The Sending Argument

Scripture frequently speaks of the Father sending the Son and both Father and Son sending the Spirit. Doesn’t sending require the sender and the sent to be in different locations, proving they are separate beings?

This argument misunderstands the nature of divine sending. When the Father sends the Son, it’s not like a human dispatching another human to a distant location. The divine “sending” refers to the Son taking on human nature and entering into creation while remaining fully divine. The Son doesn’t leave the Father’s presence (impossible for omnipresent deity) but rather takes on an additional mode of presence—local, physical presence in human nature.

Consider Jesus’ own words: “No man hath ascended up to heaven, but he that came down from heaven, even the Son of man which is in heaven” (John 3:13, NKJV). While speaking on earth, Jesus says the Son of Man is in heaven. This shows that the incarnation didn’t involve the Son leaving heaven but rather heaven coming to earth in the person of the Son.

The sending language expresses eternal relations and economic roles. The Father is the sender, the Son is the sent one, the Spirit is sent by both—but this doesn’t imply separation or distance. It reveals the order of operations in God’s work of redemption and the eternal relations that ground that work. The Son’s being sent reveals His eternal generation from the Father; the Spirit’s being sent reveals His eternal procession.

Maintaining Unity and Distinction

The key to responding to tritheistic arguments is maintaining both truths that Scripture reveals: genuine distinction of persons and absolute unity of essence. We don’t solve the tension by denying either truth but by holding both in biblical balance.

The persons are genuinely distinct. The Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Spirit, the Spirit is not the Father. These distinctions are eternal, necessary, and real. They’re not just different ways we perceive God or different roles God plays. The Father is eternally Father, the Son is eternally Son, the Spirit is eternally Spirit.

Yet this distinction never becomes division. The persons interpenetrate one another in what theology calls perichoresis—a mutual indwelling where each person contains the others while remaining distinct. Jesus expresses this: “Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me?” (John 14:10, NKJV). This isn’t mere spatial location but a unity of being that preserves personal distinction.

The unity is a unity of essence, not merely purpose. While three humans might be united in purpose, they remain three beings. The Trinity’s unity goes deeper—they share the numerically same divine essence. There is one “what” (the divine essence) and three “whos” (the divine persons). The persons are distinguished by their relations to one another, not by possessing separate essences.

Why One God Matters

The distinction between one God and multiple gods isn’t merely academic theology—it strikes at the heart of worship, salvation, and the very nature of reality. When we compromise on God’s oneness, we don’t just adjust our doctrine; we fundamentally alter our faith, our worship, and our understanding of everything else. The implications are enormous and eternal.

Worship and Idolatry

The first and greatest commandment is to love the Lord our God with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength (Mark 12:30). But which God? If there are three gods, do we divide our worship among them? Do we love each one with one-third of our heart? The very idea reveals the absurdity of polytheism.

Scripture is adamant that worship belongs to God alone. “Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve” (Matthew 4:10, NKJV). The “only” here is absolute—worship is for God alone, not gods alone. When we worship Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, we’re not worshiping three gods but one God who exists as three persons.

If the Trinity were three gods, then worshiping all three would be idolatry for at least two of them. God declares: “I am the LORD: that is my name: and my glory will I not give to another, neither my praise to graven images” (Isaiah 42:8, NKJV). If the Son and Spirit were separate gods from the Father, then the Father would be sinning by sharing His glory with them, and we would be idolaters for worshiping them.

But Scripture commands us to worship the Son: “And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him” (Hebrews 1:6, NKJV). The Spirit too is worthy of worship as fully God. This is only possible without idolatry if the three persons are one God, not three gods.

The Jealousy of God

God describes Himself as jealous for His glory and His people’s exclusive devotion. “For thou shalt worship no other god: for the LORD, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God” (Exodus 34:14, NKJV). This jealousy isn’t petty human envy but the proper claim of the only true God to exclusive worship.

If there were multiple gods, this jealousy would be unreasonable. Why should one god among many demand exclusive worship? It would be like one human among many demanding that everyone serve only them. But because there is only one God, His claim to exclusive worship is entirely reasonable and right. He alone is God; therefore, He alone deserves worship.

The Trinity doesn’t compromise this divine jealousy because the three persons are one God. The Father isn’t jealous of worship given to the Son, nor the Son of worship given to the Spirit, because they are one God receiving the worship that is Their due. The divine jealousy is directed toward false gods, idols, and any created thing that receives the worship due to the Creator alone.

Creation and Sovereignty

Scripture attributes creation to God alone: “In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth” (Genesis 1:1, NKJV). Isaiah emphasizes God’s solitary role in creation: “I am the LORD that maketh all things; that stretcheth forth the heavens alone; that spreadeth abroad the earth by myself” (Isaiah 44:24, NKJV). Notice the words “alone” and “by myself”—creation is the work of one God, not a committee of gods.

Yet Scripture also attributes creation to the Son: “All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made” (John 1:3, NKJV). And to the Spirit: “By his spirit he hath garnished the heavens” (Job 26:13, NKJV). This is only coherent if the Father, Son, and Spirit are one God working in creation, not three gods working together.

If there were three gods, which one would be sovereign? Could they have conflicting purposes for creation? Might they disagree about how to govern the universe? The biblical picture of absolute divine sovereignty requires one God with one will, one purpose, one plan for creation. The three persons execute this one divine plan in their distinct personal ways, but the plan itself is one because God is one.

The Simplicity of God

Classical theology speaks of divine simplicity—the doctrine that God is not composed of parts but is absolutely unified in His being. This doesn’t mean God is simple in the sense of being uncomplicated (the Trinity itself shows the profound depth of God’s being), but that God’s essence cannot be divided or separated into components.

If there were three gods, divine simplicity would be impossible. Each god would be a separate being, and together they would form a composite group. But Scripture presents God as absolutely one, without division or composition in His essence. “Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God is one LORD” (Deuteronomy 6:4, NKJV)—not a composite of three gods, but one unified divine essence.

The Trinity doesn’t violate divine simplicity because the three persons don’t divide the essence into parts. Each person possesses the whole divine essence, not a third of it. The distinction of persons doesn’t introduce composition into God’s being but reveals the richness of that simple, unified essence. God is one “what” (essence) and three “whos” (persons), but the “what” remains absolutely simple and undivided.

This matters because a composite god could be decomposed. If God were made up of parts (like three separate gods working together), those parts could theoretically be separated. The unity could be broken. But the God of Scripture cannot be divided or decomposed—His unity is absolute, eternal, and necessary. The three persons have never been and could never be separated because they share one indivisible essence.

Common Questions About Tritheism and the Unity of God

“How is Trinity different from three gods?”

This is perhaps the most fundamental question people ask when trying to understand the Trinity. The difference lies in the distinction between person and essence. Three gods would be three separate beings, each with his own divine essence or nature. Like three humans are three separate beings with three instances of human nature, three gods would have three separate instances of divine nature.

The Trinity, however, is three persons sharing one divine essence. There is only one instance of divine nature, possessed fully and equally by three distinct persons. The Father doesn’t have His own separate divine essence, nor does the Son or Spirit. All three possess the numerically same divine essence. They are three “whos” but one “what,” three persons but one being.

Think of it this way: In humans, every person is also a separate being. You are one person and one being. I am one person and one being. We can’t imagine a scenario where multiple persons share one being because in our created experience, person and being always correspond one-to-one. But God’s existence transcends our creaturely limitations. In God, three persons share one being. This isn’t a contradiction—it’s a revealed truth about God’s unique manner of existence that transcends our experience but doesn’t violate logic.

“Don’t three persons = three beings?”

In human experience, yes—three persons always equals three beings. Every human person is a distinct being. But we can’t project our creaturely limitations onto God. God’s manner of existence transcends ours. The fact that created persons are always separate beings doesn’t mean uncreated divine persons must be separate beings.

The error here is assuming that God must exist exactly as we do, only bigger and more powerful. But God is not just a supersized creature. He is the Creator, existing in a fundamentally different way than creation. Just as God is eternal (outside time) while we are temporal, just as God is infinite while we are finite, so God exists as three persons in one being while we exist as one person in one being.

The church fathers recognized this distinction. They understood that the terms “person” and “being” don’t relate to God exactly as they relate to creatures. When we say God is three persons, we’re using human language analogically, pointing to a reality that transcends our experience but is nonetheless real and revealed in Scripture.

“What about ‘Let us make man’—doesn’t that imply multiple gods?”

The plural language in Genesis 1:26 (“Let us make man in our image”) and similar passages has generated much discussion. Some argue it proves multiple gods were involved in creation. However, this interpretation contradicts the rest of Scripture’s clear monotheism and even the immediate context of Genesis.

Several interpretations have been offered for the plural language:

First, it could be a “plural of majesty,” similar to how kings might use “we” in royal proclamations. While this usage is debated in ancient Hebrew, it remains a possibility.

Second, it could be God addressing the heavenly court of angels. While angels didn’t participate in creating humans, God might be including them as witnesses to this climactic act of creation.

Third, and most likely from a Christian perspective, it’s an early hint of plurality within the Godhead—the Trinity. The one God who exists as three persons speaks within Himself, the persons addressing one another in united purpose for creation. This isn’t three gods conferring but one God whose triune existence is reflected even in the internal divine counsel.

Importantly, the very next verse uses singular language: “So God created man in his own image” (Genesis 1:27). The plural “us” of verse 26 becomes the singular “his” of verse 27. This pattern—plural persons, singular essence—appears throughout Scripture and points to Trinity, not tritheism.

“If God is absolutely one, how can He be relational?”

Some argue that for God to be love, He must have an eternal object of love, which requires multiple gods. A solitary God, they say, couldn’t be inherently relational or loving without creation to love. This argument seems to support either tritheism or the eternal necessity of creation.

The Trinity provides the perfect answer to this dilemma. God is one being but three persons in eternal relationship. The Father eternally loves the Son, the Son eternally loves the Father, and the Spirit is the bond of love between them (in Augustine’s formulation). God doesn’t need creation to be loving because love exists eternally within the Trinity.

This isn’t three gods loving each other across the divide of separate existence. It’s one God whose very being is relational, whose essence is love, whose unity includes distinction without division. The three persons don’t come together in love—they exist eternally in perfect love, a love so perfect it constitutes one being, not three.

This is why John can say “God is love” (1 John 4:8)—not merely that God has love or shows love, but that love is essential to His very being. This is only possible because God’s one being exists as three persons in eternal communion of love.

Key Points: Why God Is One, Not Three

• Scripture explicitly declares there is only one God – Isaiah 43-46, Deuteronomy 6:4, 1 Corinthians 8:4
• Three gods would make Christianity polytheistic – No different from paganism, just with fewer deities
• The persons share ONE divine essence – Not three beings with similar natures, but three persons with one nature
• Worship belongs to God alone – If there were three gods, worshiping all three would be idolatry
• Creation is the work of one God – Scripture says God created “alone” and “by myself”
• Divine attributes require absolute unity – Infinity, omnipresence, omniscience require one God, not three
• The Trinity is three “whos” but one “what” – Three persons, one essence/being
• Tritheism naturally leads to full polytheism – If three gods, why not millions?

Warning: Subtle Forms of Tritheism to Avoid

Be alert for these tritheistic errors in teaching, songs, or devotional materials:

• “The three gods who are one in purpose” – This is Mormonism, not Christianity
• “The Trinity voted to create humans” – God doesn’t vote; He has one will
• “The Father stayed in heaven while the Son came to earth” – Divides God spatially
• “Each member of the Trinity has His own role” – True but needs careful qualification
• “The divine family” – Implies separate beings in relationship
• “Three centers of consciousness” – Without maintaining unity of essence, this is tritheism
• “The Father convinced the Son to die for us” – Implies separate wills needing agreement
• Any analogy using three separate beings – Three humans, three angels, three anythings

Remember: Distinguish the persons, but never divide the essence!

Practical Application: Worshiping the One True God

In Personal Devotion

Understanding that God is one, not three, transforms our worship and prayer life. We don’t need to divide our attention between three deities or worry about neglecting one person of the Trinity. When we worship the Father through the Son by the Spirit, we’re worshiping the one God, not managing relationships with three gods.

• Pray with Trinitarian awareness: Address the Father, through the mediation of the Son, by the power of the Spirit, knowing you’re communing with one God.
• Worship without division: When you sing praise to Jesus, you’re praising God. When you thank the Spirit, you’re thanking God. The persons are distinct but the God is one.
• Rest in divine unity: The persons of the Trinity never disagree about you. There’s one divine will for your salvation, one divine love toward you, one divine purpose for your life.

In Corporate Worship

Churches must carefully guard their worship against tritheistic tendencies:

• Choose hymns and songs carefully: Avoid songs that divide the Trinity into three separate beings
• Craft prayers thoughtfully: Model biblical patterns of Trinitarian prayer
• Teach precisely: Use clear language that maintains both unity and distinction
• Celebrate the mystery: Don’t try to explain away the Trinity’s transcendence

In Evangelism and Apologetics

When discussing the Trinity with non-Christians or those from polytheistic backgrounds:

• Start with monotheism: Establish that Christians believe in one God, not three
• Explain the distinction: Three persons, not three gods
• Use Scripture: Let the Bible’s own language guide the discussion
• Acknowledge mystery: Don’t pretend to fully comprehend what transcends comprehension
• Connect to the gospel: Show how the Trinity makes salvation possible

A 30-Day Trinity Devotional Focus

Week 1: Focus on the oneness of God. Read Isaiah 40-48, emphasizing God’s uniqueness.

Week 2: Study the three persons in Scripture. See how they relate while remaining one God.

Week 3: Examine false views of God. Understand why tritheism and modalism are errors.

Week 4: Worship the Triune God. Use Trinitarian prayers and hymns, celebrating both unity and distinction.

Final Two Days: Reflect on the mystery and majesty of our Triune God who is beyond comprehension yet revealed for our salvation.

Prayer and Reflection: Embracing the Mystery

As we conclude this examination of tritheism and polytheism, we must humble ourselves before the mystery of the Triune God. We’ve seen the error of dividing God into three gods, understood why this destroys Christian faith, and learned to maintain both the unity of essence and the distinction of persons. But ultimately, we stand before a reality that transcends our full comprehension.

The mystery of the Trinity is not a problem to be solved but a reality to be worshiped. We don’t worship a God we’ve fully figured out, reduced to our categories, and explained exhaustively. We worship the God who has revealed Himself as one God in three persons, who is both knowable and incomprehensible, both revealed and hidden, both near to us and infinitely beyond us.

Let us pray:

Almighty and everlasting God, who has revealed Yourself as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, three persons yet one God: We worship You in the mystery of Your Triune being. Forgive us when we have divided what You have united or confused what You have distinguished. Forgive us when we have spoken of You as if You were three gods rather than one God in three persons.

Grant us wisdom to speak of You truly, though we cannot speak of You fully. Help us to maintain the faith once delivered to the saints, neither adding to nor subtracting from what You have revealed. Guard our hearts and minds from the error of tritheism that would make You into multiple gods, and from every other error that would distort Your nature.

We thank You that You are not three gods requiring divided loyalty, but one God deserving our whole heart, soul, mind, and strength. We rejoice that the Father, Son, and Spirit are united in one purpose for our salvation, one will for our good, one love that will never fail.

May our worship reflect Your unity, may our teaching preserve Your distinction, and may our lives glorify You—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—one God, now and forever. Amen.

As you continue in your faith journey, remember that the doctrine of the Trinity is not merely academic theology but the foundation of Christian worship and life. The God we serve is not a committee of deities but one God whose richness of being surpasses our imagination. In maintaining that God is one, not three, we preserve the biblical faith, protect the uniqueness of Christianity, and worship the God who alone deserves all glory, honor, and praise.

May you grow ever deeper in your knowledge and love of the Triune God, always maintaining the biblical balance between unity and distinction, always ready to give an answer for the hope that is in you, and always worshiping in spirit and in truth the one God who exists eternally as Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

Bibliography

Augustine. De Trinitate (On the Trinity). Translated by Edmund Hill. New York: New City Press, 1991.

Ayres, Lewis. Nicaea and Its Legacy: An Approach to Fourth-Century Trinitarian Theology. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Bray, Gerald. The Doctrine of God. Contours of Christian Theology. Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1993.

Calvin, John. Institutes of the Christian Religion. Edited by John T. McNeill. Translated by Ford Lewis Battles. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1960.

Dake, Finis Jennings. Dake Annotated Reference Bible. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Bible Sales, 1963.

———. God’s Plan for Man. Lawrenceville, GA: Dake Publishing, 1949.

Gunton, Colin E. The Promise of Trinitarian Theology. 2nd ed. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1997.

Gregory of Nazianzus. “The Five Theological Orations.” In Christology of the Later Fathers, edited by Edward R. Hardy. Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1954.

Holmes, Stephen R. The Quest for the Trinity: The Doctrine of God in Scripture, History and Modernity. Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2012.

Letham, Robert. The Holy Trinity: In Scripture, History, Theology, and Worship. Rev. and expanded ed. Phillipsburg, NJ: P&R Publishing, 2019.

McConkie, Bruce R. Mormon Doctrine. 2nd ed. Salt Lake City: Bookcraft, 1966.

Moltmann, Jürgen. The Trinity and the Kingdom. Translated by Margaret Kohl. San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1981.

Owen, John. Communion with the Triune God. Edited by Kelly M. Kapic and Justin Taylor. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2007.

Sanders, Fred. The Deep Things of God: How the Trinity Changes Everything. 2nd ed. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017.

———. The Triune God. New Studies in Dogmatics. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2016.

Smith, Joseph, Jr. “The King Follett Discourse.” In Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, compiled by Joseph Fielding Smith. Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, 1976.

———. The Pearl of Great Price. Salt Lake City: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, 1981.

Tanner, Jerald, and Sandra Tanner. The Changing World of Mormonism. Chicago: Moody Press, 1980.

Torrance, Thomas F. The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

———. The Trinitarian Faith: The Evangelical Theology of the Ancient Catholic Church. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.

Volf, Miroslav. After Our Likeness: The Church as the Image of the Trinity. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998.

Ware, Bruce A. Father, Son, and Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles, and Relevance. Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2005.

Webster, John. God Without Measure: Working Papers in Christian Theology. Vol. 1, God and the Works of God. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark, 2016.

White, James R. The Forgotten Trinity: Recovering the Heart of Christian Belief. Minneapolis: Bethany House, 1998.

Zizioulas, John D. Being as Communion: Studies in Personhood and the Church. Crestwood, NY: St. Vladimir’s Seminary Press, 1985.