Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Godhead

The Godhead refers to the divine nature or ascribed to a in theological and philosophical traditions, embodying the abstract qualities of such as , , and . Originating from "godhed" around 1200, the term denotes the state or condition of godhood, distinct from specific divine persons or manifestations. In , it appears in translations like the King James Version to translate Greek terms for divine attributes—theion in Acts 17:29 (indicating the divine realm beyond idols), theiotēs in :20 (God's eternal power and qualities inferred from ), and theotēs in Colossians 2:9 (the fullness of embodied in Christ)—emphasizing an uncreated, self-existent reality without empirical demonstration. This concept underpins monotheistic metaphysics, where the Godhead is posited as the causal origin of existence, though interpretations vary: some equate it strictly with unitary divine essence, rejecting personal distinctions, while others integrate it into Trinitarian frameworks as the shared substance of , , and . Controversies arise from its lack of direct scriptural elaboration, leading to disputes over whether it implies modalism, , or simple monadism, with no consensus resolving via observable evidence. In broader philosophical usage, akin to notions of in Eastern thought, it symbolizes an impersonal ground of being, but Western applications prioritize theistic personhood amid critiques of . Defining characteristics include its immateriality and eternity, rendering it immune to scientific falsification yet central to causal explanations of order in theistic worldviews.

Definition and Etymology

Core Concept of Divinity

The godhead denotes the essential nature or substance of , representing the fundamental reality that constitutes as rather than a mere quality or attribute. In theological usage, it refers to the divine essence ( in patristic terms), which is eternal, self-existent, and indivisible, embodying attributes such as , , and immutability. This concept underscores a first-principles understanding of , where the godhead serves as the uncaused cause and ultimate ground of being, distinct from contingent . Biblical foundations highlight the godhead through specific Greek terms: theiotēs (divine nature) in Romans 1:20, which describes God's invisible qualities—eternal power and divine essence—made evident through creation since its inception, and theotēs (deity) in Colossians 2:9, affirming that the full essence of dwelt bodily in Christ. These usages, appearing in the texts dated to the first century , emphasize the godhead's knowability via and empirical inference from the ordered , countering claims of an unknowable or impersonal divine force. Theologically, the godhead is not partitioned among persons but shared wholly in traditions affirming one God in three persons, as articulated in creeds like the Athanasian (circa 5th-6th century CE), where the divine essence remains numerically one despite relational distinctions. This preserves monotheism while allowing for intra-divine relations, rejecting both modalism (one person in modes) and tritheism (three separate gods), based on scriptural data of distinct yet co-eternal persons. Empirical alignment comes from the universe's triadic structures—such as space (length, width, height), matter (solid, liquid, gas in classical states), and time (past, present, future)—mirroring the godhead's unity-in-diversity without implying composition in God Himself. Sources affirming this, like evangelical lexicons, prioritize textual fidelity over later philosophical accretions, noting biases in academic theology toward abstract impersonalism that dilute causal realism.

Linguistic Origins and Evolution

The English term "godhead" emerged in around 1200, formed by affixing the word "god" to the "-hede," which denoted a , , or of being. This construction paralleled "godhood," a variant appearing alongside it in early texts such as the Ancren Riwle ( 1225), both conveying the essence or divine nature of . The "-hede" (later standardized as "-head") traces to "-hād," a substantive element originally signifying ", , , , , or ," derived from Proto-Germanic roots emphasizing status or nature. In , this evolved into a common abstract noun-forming , as seen in terms like "" or "knighthood," adapting to express abstract qualities; by the 13th century, "godhead" had its first attested use in this sense, per historical dictionaries. Linguistically, "godhead" stabilized in through religious literature and , such as the King James Version (1611), where it rendered terms like theiotes (divine nature) in Romans 1:20 and Colossians 2:9, and theion () in Acts 17:29, emphasizing an abstract divine essence rather than . Over time, its usage declined in secular English by the , yielding to synonyms like "" or "" for precision, though it persisted in theological discourse to denote God's intrinsic substance ( in patristic influences). This evolution reflects a shift from concrete compounds to more abstract formations, influenced by Norman French abstract suffixes post-1066 , without altering the core Germanic root of "" from Proto-Germanic gudą.

Scriptural Foundations

References in the Hebrew Bible

The portrays the divine nature as singular, transcendent, and incomparable, emphasizing God's absolute oneness without internal division or multiplicity of persons. The foundational declaration of this unity appears in the Shema of Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O : The LORD our God, the LORD is one," which mandates exclusive devotion to YHWH and rejects rival deities, forming the core of biblical . This verse, recited daily in Jewish , underscores God's unified essence, where "one" (echad) conveys both numerical singularity and holistic indivisibility, countering any polytheistic influences in ancient Near Eastern contexts. Prophetic texts, particularly Second Isaiah (chapters 40–55, composed after the Babylonian exile around 550–539 BCE), advance this to explicit numerical by denying the existence of other gods. 44:6 states, "Thus says the , the King of and his Redeemer, the of hosts: 'I am the first and I am the last; and besides me there is no god,'" affirming God's eternal and sole . Similarly, 45:5 declares, "I am the , and there is no other; besides me there is no god," portraying the divine nature as self-sufficient creator who tolerates no ontological equals. These passages reflect a theological progression from YHWH's supremacy over subordinate "gods" (, often denoting divine beings or angels in a heavenly , as in Psalm 82:1) to their outright nullification as idols. God's self-disclosure in 3:14 as "I AM WHO I AM" (ehyeh asher ehyeh) reveals an eternal, self-existent essence unbound by time or contingency, emphasizing immutability and . Linguistic plurality, such as the term (grammatically plural yet used with singular verbs) or Gen 1:26's "Let us make man in our ," employs majestic or deliberative forms rather than indicating composite divinity; scholarly analysis views these as rhetorical devices denoting authority over a divine , not co-equal persons within . Deuteronomy 4:15–19 further describes as formless and invisible, prohibiting images to preserve the incorporeal unity of the divine nature. While early biblical strata acknowledge other entities, the thrust enforces YHWH's unparalleled uniqueness, laying groundwork for later theological elaborations without implying plurality in the Godhead itself.

Usage in the New Testament

In the New Testament, the concept of the Godhead, denoting divine essence or deity, is expressed through three distinct Greek terms translated as "Godhead" in the King James Version: to theion in Acts 17:29, theiotēs in Romans 1:20, and theotēs in Colossians 2:9. These terms highlight God's transcendent nature, visibility in creation, and inherent fullness, respectively, without explicit formulation of later Trinitarian doctrine. In Acts 17:29, Paul critiques Athenian idolatry during his Areopagus discourse, asserting that "we ought not to think that the Godhead [to theion] is like unto gold, or silver, or stone, graven by and man's device" (KJV). Here, to theion, the neuter form of the theios meaning "divine" or "," refers to God's immaterial and unrepresentable essence, contrasting it with crafted images and emphasizing monotheistic over pagan . This usage aligns with Paul's quotation of Greek poets (Acts 17:28) to affirm a singular God whose defies material likeness. Romans 1:20 employs theiotēs, defined as "" or "divine nature," to argue that God's "eternal power and " are "clearly seen" through since the world's beginning, rendering inexcusable for suppressing this (KJV). Lexicons describe theiotēs as the abstract quality of divine attributes—such as power and glory—manifest in the natural order, serving Paul's against and human unrighteousness by positing of deity apart from . This term conveys observable divine qualities rather than the personal essence of God. Colossians 2:9 states that "in [Christ] dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead [theotēs] bodily" (KJV), where theotēs signifies the concrete "" or "state of being God," emphasizing the complete embodiment of divine essence in against proto-Gnostic denials of his full . Unlike theiotēs, theotēs denotes the essential, personal Godhead, as noted in patristic usage for the inherent nature of . This assertion underscores Christ's supremacy, with the term's rarity (unique to this verse) highlighting its emphatic claim to the totality of divine attributes residing incarnate.

Historical Development in Christianity

Early Patristic Formulations

The earliest patristic reflections on the Godhead emerged in the , who invoked the , , and in liturgical and confessional contexts without systematic theological elaboration. , writing around 107 AD en route to martyrdom, frequently referenced the three in doxologies, such as ascribing glory to the "with the and ," implying their co-involvement in divine worship while maintaining the 's primacy as the unbegotten source. His epistles distinguish the as "God in man" and eternally existent, yet begotten, countering docetic heresies by affirming Christ's dual nature without equating the persons' subsistences. Justin Martyr, in his mid-second-century apologies, advanced a Logos theology wherein the Son is the pre-existent divine Word begotten from the Father's substance, occupying a secondary rank yet sharing divine attributes like eternality and creative agency. In the First Apology, Justin describes the Logos as "another God and Lord under the Creator," distinct in personhood but numerically one in will and power with the Father, drawing from Johannine prologue to refute pagan polytheism and Jewish unitarianism. This formulation preserved monotheism by subordinating the Son's generation to the Father's unbegotten essence, influencing subsequent anti-Gnostic polemics. Irenaeus of Lyons, composing Against Heresies circa 180 AD, countered Valentinian by positing the Son and Spirit as the "two hands" of the one , through whom creation and recapitulation occur, ensuring divine unity against emanationist hierarchies. He affirmed the Son's eternal visibility to the Father and in divinity, rejecting any temporal origin while emphasizing economic distinctions in salvation history. Tertullian, around 213 AD in Against Praxeas, pioneered Latin terminology by defining the Godhead as Trinitas—three personae (persons or subsistences) in one substantia (substance), analogizing the unity to the sun's ray and heat as inseparable yet distinct. This countered modalism by asserting real personal distinctions within the undivided divine essence, with the Father as the whole substance's fount, the Son as eternally projected therefrom, and the Spirit as proceeding—thus formulating intra-divine relations without . Origen of Alexandria, in works like De Principiis circa 230 AD, refined eternal generation: the Son, as autotheos (God of himself), is timelessly begotten from the Father's essence, sharing full deity yet subordinated in authority to preserve the monarchy of the Father. His speculative Platonism introduced risks of Arian-like subordinationism, but affirmed the Son's co-eternality and immutability, bridging to conciliar definitions. These patristic efforts, rooted in scriptural exegesis, progressively clarified the Godhead's unity-in-diversity amid heretical pressures, prioritizing fidelity to apostolic tradition over philosophical innovation.

Ecumenical Councils and Creeds

The First at , convened in 325 AD by Emperor I and attended by approximately 300 bishops, primarily addressed the Arian , which posited that the was a created being subordinate to the Father, thereby challenging the unity of the divine essence or Godhead. The council rejected this view and affirmed the 's eternal generation from the Father, declaring in the original that Christ is "Light of Light, very God of very God, begotten, not made, consubstantial [homoousios] with the Father". This formulation emphasized the shared divine substance () between Father and , establishing a foundational Trinitarian framework for the Godhead while anathematizing Arian propositions that implied inequality within the divine nature. The itself served as a binding confessional standard, articulating belief in "one Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth" and "one Lord Jesus Christ... by whom all things were made", thereby safeguarding alongside the Son's full participation in the Godhead against subordinationist interpretations. Although the creed's treatment of the remained brief—"who spoke by the prophets"—it implicitly included the Spirit within the divine economy, setting the stage for further clarification. The council's decisions, ratified by , influenced subsequent imperial edicts enforcing orthodoxy and suppressing dissenting views, such as the exile of . The , held in 381 AD under Emperor with around 150 bishops, reaffirmed and expanded the to counter lingering and Pneumatomachian denial of the Holy Spirit's divinity. The revised creed explicitly declared the Spirit as "the Lord and Giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father, who with the Father and the Son is worshiped and glorified, who spoke by the prophets", thus completing the orthodox articulation of the Godhead as one undivided eternally existing in three coequal persons. This Trinitarian expansion condemned views reducing the Spirit to a subordinate force, affirming the of all three hypostases (persons) in the single divine . The council's creed became the normative liturgical and doctrinal touchstone in Eastern and Western churches, recited in worship to profess the Godhead's unity amid diversity. Later ecumenical councils, such as (431 AD) and (451 AD), integrated these Trinitarian principles into Christological definitions, affirming the of Christ's two natures (divine and human) without confusion or division, which presupposed the integrity of the Godhead's eternal relations. These creeds and conciliar acts, drawn from scriptural and patristic , delineated the Godhead against modalistic conflations and reductions, prioritizing the causal priority of the Father as unbegotten source while upholding the equality of essence among the persons. Empirical attendance records and surviving acts indicate broad agreement, though enforcement relied on imperial authority, reflecting the interplay of theological reasoning and political stabilization in .

Reformation-Era Refinements and Disputes

The , including and , largely reaffirmed the patristic and conciliar formulations of the Godhead as the singular divine essence subsisting in three coequal, coeternal persons—Father, Son, and —while prioritizing scriptural warrant over medieval scholastic elaborations. Luther's Small Catechism (1529) explicitly confessed faith in "one divine essence" manifested in these persons, grounding the doctrine in biblical texts such as Matthew 28:19, and rejected speculative philosophy as insufficient for comprehending divine mysteries. Calvin, in his (first edition 1536, expanded through 1559), refined the presentation by emphasizing the unity of the Godhead's essence against perceived Catholic over-reliance on Aristotelian categories, arguing from passages like Colossians 2:9 that "in [Christ] dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily," while underscoring the persons' relational distinctions as eternally subsisting modes of the one . These refinements aligned with , insisting that the Godhead's incomprehensibility precluded exhaustive rational definition yet demanded confessional clarity to counter perceived ecclesiastical corruptions, such as indulgences that obscured divine sovereignty. However, the era also saw disputes erupt with radical reformers who challenged Trinitarian orthodoxy, reviving subordinationist or views under rationalist influences. (1511–1553), a physician and theologian, rejected the of the Son with the Father, positing Christ as a divinely inspired from conception but not eternally begotten of the Godhead's essence; his Christianismi Restitutio (1553) critiqued Nicene terminology as unbiblical . Calvin corresponded with Servetus from 1546, denouncing his views as heretical distortions that undermined Christ's and , yet Servetus persisted, leading to his upon arriving uninvited in in 1553. The Genevan , influenced by Calvin's theological testimony, convicted Servetus of denying the and , sentencing him to death by fire on October 27, 1553—an act defended by Calvin as necessary to preserve doctrinal purity amid Reformation vulnerabilities to heresy, though it drew criticism for its severity from figures like . Parallel developments fueled further disputes, as —named after (1539–1604), who systematized earlier Italian anti-Trinitarian ideas—emerged in Poland-Lithuania by the late , denying the Godhead's triune nature in favor of strict , with Christ as a prophetic subordinate rather than sharing divine essence. Orthodox Protestants, via confessions like the (1563), condemned such views as reviving Arian errors, reinforcing the Godhead's unity-in-diversity as essential to salvation, while Socinians' rational demurrals highlighted tensions between scriptural fidelity and emerging precursors in thought. These conflicts underscored the era's commitment to Trinitarian boundaries, even as they exposed fractures within between magisterial reformers and radicals.

Variations Across Religious Traditions

In Judaism

In Judaism, the conception of the Godhead centers on the absolute unity and indivisibility of , as articulated in the Shema prayer from Deuteronomy 6:4: "Hear, O : The Lord our , the Lord is one." This declaration, central to Jewish liturgy and theology since at least the Second Temple period (c. 516 BCE–70 CE), rejects any plurality or composition within the divine essence, emphasizing and . Rabbinic literature, such as the (compiled c. 200 CE), reinforces this by prohibiting anthropomorphic interpretations of , viewing the divine as incorporeal and beyond human categories. Philosophical formulations, notably by (1138–1204 CE) in his Guide for the Perplexed and Thirteen Principles of Faith, define the Godhead as a perfect, non-composite unlike any created oneness, devoid of parts, multiplicity, or attributes that imply . argues that God's essence is simple and eternal, with any biblical descriptions of divine "forms" or "attributes" serving pedagogical purposes rather than literal , thus safeguarding against pagan influences prevalent in medieval Islamic and Christian contexts. This view aligns with earlier thinkers like (882–942 CE), who integrated Aristotelian logic to affirm God's as the foundational principle against dualistic or trinitarian alternatives. In Kabbalistic traditions emerging in 12th–13th century and , the Godhead is conceptualized as ("Without End"), denoting the infinite, unknowable divine essence preceding creation and any manifestation. represents boundless potentiality, from which the ten (divine emanations) unfold as structured aspects of divine will for interacting with the finite world, yet without compromising the underlying unity of the essence. This esoteric framework, systematized in works like the (c. ), maintains that the are not separate hypostases but dynamic expressions within the singular Godhead, preserving the Shema's while allowing for mystical contemplation of divine processes. Orthodox interpretations, such as those in (16th century), further describe (divine contraction) as enabling creation without implying division in itself.

In Islam

In Islamic theology, the Godhead is understood through the principle of tawhid, denoting the absolute, indivisible oneness of Allah, who possesses no partners, equals, or internal multiplicity. This doctrine rejects any composition or division in the divine essence (dhāt Allāh), affirming Allah as the singular, eternal, self-subsistent reality beyond human comprehension or analogy. Tawhid encompasses belief in Allah's uniqueness in lordship (rubūbiyyah), divinity (ulūhiyyah), and names and attributes (asmā' wa ṣifāt), negating anthropomorphism or incarnation. The Qur'an articulates this in Al-Ikhlas (112:1-4), declaring: "Say, He is , [who is] One; , the Eternal Refuge. He neither begets nor is born, nor is there to Him any equivalent." This , revealed in around 610-615 , underscores Allah's (tanzīh) and refutes or trinitarian concepts as forms of (shirk). Theological traditions, including Ash'ari and Maturidi schools formalized between the 9th and 10th centuries , maintain that Allah's essential attributes—such as , , , will, speech, and vision—are neither wholly identical to nor entirely distinct from the divine , preserving without implying parts or change. These attributes of essence (ṣifāt al-dhāt) are eternal and necessary, co-eternal with Allah's being, while attributes of action (ṣifāt al-fi'l), like creation or provision, relate to His will and occur in time without altering the essence. Early Muslim scholars, drawing from prophetic traditions (ḥadīth), such as those compiled in (d. 870 CE), emphasized affirming these attributes as stated in revelation without speculative inquiry (ta'wīl or ta'tīl), as excessive rationalization risks anthropomorphic error or negation. This framework, evident in creeds like the Aqidah Tahawiyyah (c. 933 CE), prioritizes scriptural fidelity over philosophical constructs, viewing the Godhead as utterly simple and incomparable.

In Eastern Religions and Philosophies

In , represents the ultimate reality or essence analogous to the Godhead, conceived as an impersonal, infinite, and non-dual ground of being that subsumes all phenomena. As expounded in by (c. 788–820 CE), is sat-chit-ananda—pure existence (sat), consciousness (chit), and bliss (ananda)—transcending attributes, forms, and the illusory distinctions of maya, with personal deities like , , and regarded as provisional manifestations rather than the absolute essence. This view draws from the (c. 800–200 BCE), where is the unchanging reality (tattvam) underlying the cosmos, realized through discriminative knowledge (jnana) that identifies the individual self () with . In Buddhism, the Dharmakaya serves as the closest equivalent, denoting the "truth body" or absolute dimension of enlightenment, which embodies the empty (shunyata), interdependent nature of all dharmas (phenomena) without positing a or substantial entity. Developed in texts such as the Avatamsaka (c. 1st–3rd centuries ), Dharmakaya is the unconditioned, luminous reality beyond , from which the Sambhogakaya (enjoyment body) and Nirmanakaya (emanation body) of Buddhas arise, emphasizing realization of non-self (anatman) over theistic . traditions, by contrast, eschew such a unified ultimate, prioritizing nirvana as cessation rather than an ontological ground. Taoism posits the Tao as the foundational principle akin to a divine essence, an eternal, ineffable process generating and harmonizing the cosmos without personal agency or intervention. In the Tao Te Ching (c. 6th century BCE, attributed to Laozi), the Tao is "the mother of ten thousand things," preceding named existence and duality (e.g., yin-yang), accessible via effortless alignment (wu wei) rather than worship, as it defies anthropomorphic depiction and operates through natural spontaneity (ziran). Later Daoist developments, such as in the Zhuangzi (c. 4th–3rd centuries BCE), reinforce this as a unifying way beyond moral dualism, influencing cosmology but not ritual theism.

Key Doctrinal Controversies

Trinitarianism versus

Trinitarianism posits that the Godhead consists of one divine essence subsisting in three distinct, co-equal, and co-eternal persons: the , the ( Christ), and the , each fully God yet not three gods but one God. This doctrine was formally articulated against subordinationist views at the in 325 AD, where approximately 318 bishops convened under Emperor Constantine to address teachings that the was created or inferior to the . The resulting affirmed Christ's homoousios (same substance) with the , stating: "We believe in one God, the Almighty... and in one Lord Christ, the only-begotten , begotten of the before all worlds, God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten, not made, being of one substance with the ." Unitarianism, in contrast, maintains a strict unitarian wherein exists as a single person or entity, typically identifying the Father alone as the one true , with the as a subordinate, non-divine figure—either a created being, human, or moral exemplar without eternal pre-existence or full divinity. Early challenges to Trinitarianism included , propagated by around 318 AD, which argued the was a created ("There was a time when he was not"), denying co-eternality and to preserve absolute divine unity. gained traction among some Eastern bishops and Germanic tribes but was anathematized at , though it persisted until the Council of in 381 AD further clarified the Spirit's divinity. During the Protestant Reformation, views re-emerged in , developed by Italian reformers Laelius and Faustus Socinus in the late 16th century, emphasizing rational interpretation of Scripture over creedal tradition and rejecting the as unbiblical or logical contradiction. Socinians, centered in and with up to 300 congregations by the early 17th century, denied Christ's , vicarious , and miracles as , viewing him instead as a prophet empowered by God. This rationalist strain influenced later English and American , which prioritized ethical monotheism over metaphysical claims. Scriptural foundations diverge sharply: Trinitarians invoke passages implying plurality within unity, such as Matthew 28:19's baptismal formula in the name (singular) of , Son, and ; John 1:1's declaration that the Word (Christ) was God; and 2 Corinthians 13:14's apostolic benediction equating the three. They argue these, combined with Christ's divine attributes (e.g., forgiving sins in Mark 2:5-7, accepted worship in John 20:28), necessitate coherence despite not using the term "Trinity," which emerged from patristic synthesis. Unitarians counter with (Deuteronomy 6:4) affirming "the Lord is one" and instances of ' subordination (e.g., :28, "the is greater than I"; 1 Corinthians 15:28, where the Son subjects himself to the ), interpreting divine titles for Christ as functional or honorific rather than ontological equality. They contend imports extra-biblical , risking or modal confusion, while Unitarianism aligns with Jewish and ' own prayers to the (e.g., :3). The debate underscores tensions between scriptural literalism and theological inference: Trinitarianism prevailed as orthodox in most Christian traditions post-381 AD, shaping creeds and confessions, but Unitarian variants persist in groups like Biblical Unitarians and , often critiqued by for undermining Christ's essential to (John 8:24). From a first-principles standpoint, offers parsimony in avoiding apparent numerical paradoxes (three-in-one), yet Trinitarians maintain empirical alignment with data on Christ's actions and Spirit's personhood, rejecting reductionism that demotes the Son below what texts attribute. Historical dominance of Trinitarianism reflects conciliar consensus over minority rationalist challenges, though source biases in patristic records—favoring victors—warrant scrutiny against primary scriptural texts.

Modalism, Subordinationism, and Other Challenges

, also known as or , posits that the Father, Son, and are not distinct persons but successive or temporary modes of of a single divine person. This view emerged in the early third century, prominently associated with Sabellius, a Libyan theologian active around 220 AD, who emphasized God's unipersonal oneness to preserve against perceived polytheistic risks in emerging formulations. It challenges orthodox by denying eternal, interpersonal distinctions within the , rendering scenes like Jesus' —where the Father speaks, the Son is baptized, and the Spirit descends simultaneously—logically incoherent under a unipersonal framework. refuted modalism in his treatise Adversus Praxean (c. 213 AD), arguing for real distinctions among the persons while maintaining unity of substance, coining terms like "" and "persons" to articulate economic relations without modal succession. The doctrine was formally anathematized at the Council of in 381 AD, which condemned Sabellians alongside Arians for undermining the distinct hypostases of the . Subordinationism asserts a hierarchical ordering within the Godhead, with the (and often the ) ontologically or economically inferior to the , deriving divinity secondarily rather than sharing equal essence. This perspective appeared in second- and third-century thinkers, notably of (c. 186–255 AD), who described the as the unbegotten source, the as eternally generated but subordinate in authority and being, and the Spirit as yet lower, drawing on hierarchies to explain divine unity amid multiplicity. 's framework, while affirming the Son's divinity, implied degrees of godhead that risked diminishing the Son's co-equality, influencing later debates but diverging from Nicene (homoousios). culminated in , propounded by (c. 250–336 AD), who taught the as a created being ("there was a time when he was not"), directly challenging eternal co-divinity and prompting the in 325 AD to affirm the 's homoousios with the and exile . Other challenges include , which posits three ontologically independent divine beings sharing attributes, thus eroding by treating persons as separate gods rather than one in three hypostases. , a modalistic variant, claimed the suffered on the , blurring personhood and implying the impassible experienced passion, rejected by early fathers for conflating divine immutability with incarnational events. These positions, like , were scrutinized at ecumenical councils for failing first-principles coherence: modalism collapses distinctions into succession, risking a mutable , while and fracture unity or equality, both empirically ungrounded in scriptural depictions of divine interactions (e.g., John 17:5's shared glory) and causal relations among persons. Constantinople I (381 AD) further suppressed such views, consolidating pro-Nicene orthodoxy against both modalistic collapse and hierarchical fragmentation.

Mormon and Non-Trinitarian Christian Perspectives

In the doctrine of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, the Godhead consists of three separate and distinct beings—God the Eternal Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Ghost—who are united perfectly in purpose, will, and the administration of of but differ in substance and form. The Father and the Son possess glorified bodies of flesh and bone, as revealed in 130:22, while the Holy Ghost is a personage of without a physical body, enabling his ubiquitous influence. This view rejects the Trinitarian notion of one essence shared by three persons, emphasizing instead literal anthropomorphic embodiment for the Father and Son, informed by Joseph Smith's in spring , during which he reported seeing two personages whose brightness exceeded the sun, one introducing the other as His Beloved Son. Latter-day Saint theology holds that these revelations restored primitive Christianity's understanding of the Godhead, obscured by post-apostolic creeds, with the Father as the supreme creator and object of worship, the Son as the Redeemer and Jehovah of the Old Testament, and the Holy Ghost as the third Comforter testifying of the Father and Son. Official teachings stress that unity among the Godhead members arises from voluntary harmony rather than ontological identity, as articulated in Articles of Faith 1:1, which affirms belief in "God the Eternal Father, and in His Son, Jesus Christ, and in the Holy Ghost." Among other non-Trinitarian Christians, conceive of divine authority as centered solely on Jehovah God the Father as the uncreated, almighty sovereign, with Jesus Christ as His first creation—a subordinate spirit being, identified preincarnately as the archangel Michael—and the as God's impersonal active force rather than a conscious entity. This framework denies any co-equality or co-eternality, interpreting biblical references to the spirit as denoting power or operation, not personality, and views the Son's role as delegated rather than inherent . Oneness Pentecostals, emerging prominently in the early from the 1913 Arroyo Seco , assert that the Godhead is a singular, indivisible divine manifesting successively as in creation, Son in redemption, and [Holy Spirit](/page/Holy Spirit) in regeneration, rejecting distinct personal subsistences as polytheistic. They identify Jesus Christ as the full, exclusive incarnation of this one God, requiring in Jesus' name alone for salvation, and regard Trinitarian formulas as later corruptions uninformed by apostolic practice. Unitarian Christians, tracing to 16th-century figures like and Faustus Socinus, maintain that exists as one unitary person—the Father—without internal plurality, portraying as a human moral exemplar and prophet empowered by but not preexistent or divine, and the as divine influence or attribute rather than a hypostasis. This position prioritizes strict derived from (Deuteronomy 6:4), critiquing Trinitarianism as Hellenistic philosophical accretion incompatible with scriptural literalism.

Philosophical and Rational Critiques

Ontological Coherence and First-Principles Analysis

The concept of the Godhead, particularly in its Trinitarian formulation as one divine subsisting in three distinct persons, raises questions of ontological coherence when scrutinized from foundational principles of being and . Ontological analysis begins with the observation that the consists of contingent entities—beings whose existence depends on external causes—and thus requires a necessary, uncaused first cause to avoid an , as articulated in cosmological arguments deriving from Aristotelian and refined by thinkers like in the 13th century. This necessary being must possess pure actuality, lacking potentiality or composition, to serve as the ultimate ground of existence without itself requiring explanation, aligning with the principle of sufficient reason that demands every fact have an adequate cause or is self-explanatory. Divine simplicity emerges as a core implication of this first-principles : the necessary being cannot be metaphysically composite, as parts would imply dependency or divisibility, contradicting its necessity and unity. In , 's essence is identical to His existence and attributes, such that "all that is in God is God," preventing any real distinction that could introduce multiplicity at the level of substance. Trinitarian proponents reconcile this with the Godhead's plurality by positing the three persons—, , and —as subsistent relations within the simple divine essence, rather than separate substances or accidental properties; for instance, the Father-Son relation is eternally generative but does not divide the essence, preserving coherence by treating relational distinctions as logically prior to composition. This view, defended in medieval and echoed in modern analytic , maintains that the persons share numerical identity in essence while differing in relational origination, avoiding both (multiple gods) and modalism (sequential modes). Critiques from philosophical first principles highlight potential incoherence, particularly the tension between real personal distinctions and simplicity's prohibition on parts. If the persons possess distinct centers of consciousness or wills—as implied by biblical depictions of intra-Trinitarian relations like the Son's submission to the Father (:4)—this introduces ontological plurality that undermines the essence's indivisibility, potentially reducing God to a composite of relations akin to a society of minds rather than a unity. philosophers argue that such distinctions violate , as one cannot coherently be three without on "one" or "three," and empirical analogies from created triads (e.g., space-time or H2O states) fail to capture eternal, aseity-grounding without collapsing into illustration rather than . Moreover, deriving Trinitarian structure purely from causal first principles yields only a singular necessary cause, with plurality requiring non-rational appeals to , which treats as extraneous to 's demand for self-evident or deductively necessary truths. Theological defenses often prioritize scriptural authority over strict rational , acknowledging that full comprehension of divine exceeds finite reason, yet this concession underscores the doctrine's reliance on rather than autonomous first-principles derivation.

Empirical and Materialist Objections

Materialist perspectives reject the Godhead as an immaterial divine essence on the grounds that all observable phenomena can be explained through physical processes and natural laws, without requiring causation. Proponents argue that the principle in physics—that every event has a physical cause—leaves no room for non-physical interventions from a divine source, as no empirical anomalies in particle interactions or quantum events have been detected that necessitate such explanations. Victor Stenger posits that treating the existence of a as a scientific yields falsified predictions, such as the absence of for divine in cosmic fine-tuning or biological , where naturalistic models like inflationary and suffice. Empirical studies further undermine claims of integral to conceptions of an active Godhead. A of intercessory trials involving over 7,600 patients found no statistically significant health benefits attributable to remote , with outcomes aligning with effects or standard medical care rather than efficacy. Similarly, investigations into purported , such as those examined by medical committees at sites like , have verified only a handful of cases after rigorous scrutiny, none conclusively demonstrating violation of natural laws when alternative explanations like are considered. These findings align with broader that apparent divine actions correlate with probabilistic natural events rather than reliable, testable divine agency. Neuroscience provides materialist objections to any divine essence underlying consciousness or soul, positing that mental states emerge from brain activity without immaterial components. Experiments showing that targeted brain stimulation alters beliefs, memories, and self-perception—such as inducing out-of-body experiences—indicate that cognition is substrate-dependent on neural structures, contradicting dualistic views of a separable . traces moral intuitions and religious experiences to adaptive cognitive modules shaped by , reducing the Godhead to a of pattern-seeking rather than an objective reality.

References

  1. [1]
    Godhead - Etymology, Origin & Meaning
    Originating c. 1200 from "god" + Middle English suffix -hede, godhead means divine nature or deity, reflecting the state of being a god.
  2. [2]
    GODHEAD Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster
    Sep 6, 2025 · Middle English godhed, from god + -hed -hood; akin to Middle English -hod -hood. First Known Use. 13th century, in the meaning defined at sense ...
  3. [3]
    godhead, n. meanings, etymology and more
    OED's earliest evidence for godhead is from around 1225, in Ancrene Riwle. godhead is formed within English, by derivation.
  4. [4]
    Understanding the Word, "Godhead" - As It Reads
    Jun 17, 2018 · The word “Godhead” simply means “Divinity,” “Deity,” or “divine nature” according to the Bible. With this meaning all the verses make perfect sense.Missing: philosophy | Show results with:philosophy
  5. [5]
    What is the Godhead? | GotQuestions.org
    Mar 25, 2024 · In summary, the Godhead is the essence of the Divine Being; the Godhead is the one and only Deity. Jesus, the incarnate Godhead, entered our ...
  6. [6]
    The Biblical Doctrine of the Godhead | Christian Courier
    When it is said, therefore, that there is but one God, the meaning is: there is but one divine nature. There is a unified set of traits or characteristics that ...Missing: philosophy | Show results with:philosophy
  7. [7]
    The Godhead | The Institute for Creation Research
    Apr 23, 2022 · It essentially means the nature, or “structure,” of God, as He has revealed Himself in His Word. The first occurrence is in Acts 17:29: “We ...
  8. [8]
    Godhead: Significance and symbolism
    Sep 29, 2025 · In Hinduism, Godhead encompasses the ultimate divine entity distinguished by attributes such as love, spiritual authority, and ultimate reality.
  9. [9]
    Theotetos: Meaning at Colossians 2:9 - Alpha and Omega Ministries
    Jan 1, 1988 · One cannot translate theotes as a simple quality or attribute – it refers instead to the actual essence of deity, not simply to its attributes.<|separator|>
  10. [10]
    The Godhead | The Institute for Creation Research
    ... Godhead” (Romans 1:20). His tri-universe (space, matter, and time, with each component unique in definition and function, yet permeating and comprising the ...
  11. [11]
    https://biblehub.com/greek/2320.htm
  12. [12]
    Godhead | B. B. Warfield
    <god'-hed>: The word “Godhead” is a simple doublet of the less frequently occurring “Godhood.” Both forms stand side by side in the Ancren Riwle (about 1225 ...Missing: linguistic | Show results with:linguistic
  13. [13]
    Godhead - International Standard Bible Encyclopedia Online
    The Anglo-Saxon word "was originally a distinct substantive, meaning `person, personality, sex, condition, quality, rank' " (Bradley, in A New English Dict.
  14. [14]
    [PDF] What Does The Term “Godhead” Mean? - Pacific Church of God
    Even the English definition of the word “Godhead” is “divine nature”. (New Oxford American Dictionary). The word does not mean two (or three) beings in one ...
  15. [15]
    When Did the Bible Become Monotheistic? - TheTorah.com
    Sep 26, 2019 · No word in the Hebrew Bible can be rendered as monotheism. In fact, “monotheism,” derived from the Greek mono (one) + theism (belief in God) ...
  16. [16]
    Deuteronomy 6:4--The Shema - My Jewish Learning
    The Shema has been seen as a declaration of absolute monotheism, it has other meanings in its biblical and liturgical contexts.
  17. [17]
    Monotheism in the Hebrew Bible - Bible Odyssey
    Jul 22, 2015 · The Hebrew Bible provides ample evidence that many Israelites believed in the existence of multiple deities. This is the case for polytheistic ...
  18. [18]
    [PDF] MONOTHEISM AND THE LANGUAGE OF DIVINE PLURALITY IN ...
    Most Hebrew Bible scholars believe that Israelite religion evolved from polytheism to monotheism, an evolution in which the biblical writers participated.
  19. [19]
    https://www.crossway.org/articles/what-does-exodus-314-mean/
  20. [20]
    Exodus 3:14 Commentaries: God said to Moses, "I AM WHO I AM"
    “I am that which I am.” My nature, i.e., cannot be declared in words, cannot be conceived of by human thought. I exist in such sort that my whole inscrutable ...
  21. [21]
    Strong's Greek: 2305. θειότης (theiotés) -- Divinity, Divine Nature
    The term appears once in the New Testament, Romans 1:20, where Paul writes, “For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—His eternal power and ...
  22. [22]
    2320. θεότης (theotés) -- Deity, Godhead, Divine Nature - Bible Hub
    The single New Testament use of θεότης (theotēs) concentrates the entire biblical witness to Jesus Christ as the complete and personal embodiment of true God.
  23. [23]
    Godhead - Trench's Synonyms of the New Testament - StudyLight.org
    The Greek fathers never used theiotes but always theotes as the only word to adequately express the essential Godhead of the three separate persons in the Holy ...
  24. [24]
    Ignatius of Antioch's View of the Trinity | Orthocath - WordPress.com
    Sep 30, 2010 · He is 'His only Son' (Rom. inscr.), 'generate and ingenerate, God in man . . . son of Mary and Son of God . . . Jesus Christ our Lord' (Eph. 7.2) ...
  25. [25]
    CHURCH FATHERS: The First Apology (St. Justin Martyr)
    For he gives the second place to the Logos which is with God, who he said was placed crosswise in the universe; and the third place to the Spirit who was said ...<|separator|>
  26. [26]
    Justin Martyr On The Logos | Michael Bird - Patheos
    Jan 4, 2021 · Justin argues that the Logos is “another God and Lord under the Creator of all things, who is also called an Angel.Missing: godhead | Show results with:godhead
  27. [27]
    Against Heresies (St. Irenaeus) - CHURCH FATHERS - New Advent
    Heresies are of recent formation, and cannot trace their origin up to the apostles. Chapter 5 Christ and his apostles, without any fraud, deception, or ...Chapter 6 · Chapter 1 · Chapter 3 · Chapter 10
  28. [28]
    Irenaeus and the Watchtower on the Trinity | carm.org
    May 11, 2016 · In fact, this is what Irenaeus himself believed. In his primary work, “Against Heresies,” Irenaeus wrote: “There is one God, the Creator—He who ...
  29. [29]
    Trinity > History of Trinitarian Doctrines (Stanford Encyclopedia of ...
    3.1. 2 Tertullian. Since he uses the word trinitas and says that the Father, Son, and Spirit share a divine substantia (substance), Tertullian (ca. 160–225) is ...
  30. [30]
    https://www.scielo.org.za/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2074-77052021000100066
  31. [31]
    The Eternal Generation of the Son - Austin Stevenson, PhD
    Jan 22, 2025 · The doctrine of the eternal generation served for both earlier (Origen) and later (Nicaea) Christology as the biblically ordained language.
  32. [32]
    Origen and Calvin: Christological Smackdown! | A Bagful of insights
    Feb 2, 2016 · Origen, whilst plainly adhering to the Son's deity, holds to a model of eternal begetting that encompasses the totality of the Son's being. His ...
  33. [33]
    Trinitarianism in the Early Church - The Gospel Coalition
    This essay will survey the developing understanding of the Christian doctrine of the Trinity in the first centuries of the Christian church.
  34. [34]
    325 The First Council of Nicea | Christian History Magazine
    Jul 4, 2025 · The First Council of Nicea, called by Constantine, aimed to address Arianism and create a definition of Jesus Christ, resulting in a creed.
  35. [35]
    The Doctrine of the Trinity at Nicaea and Chalcedon - Stand to Reason
    Apr 5, 2013 · An in-depth look on how the early church took both the Bible and rationality seriously and used the Bible as the authority and source of doctrine.Missing: godhead | Show results with:godhead<|separator|>
  36. [36]
    Early Church Councils: The Trinity - Catholic Resources
    Sep 27, 2001 · The Church, of course, answered that all ad extra acts of the Blessed Trinity are common to all three Persons as to one sole Principle of action.
  37. [37]
    What happened at the Council of Constantinople? | GotQuestions.org
    Dec 19, 2024 · While not as memorable as the Council of Nicea, the council dealt a fatal blow to Arianism, clarified the language used to describe the Trinity, ...
  38. [38]
    The Trinity in the Protestant Reformation: continuity within discontinuity
    This principle solidified the normative authority of the Bible for all things theological and liturgical in the life of the church. The power of the Word was ...
  39. [39]
    Basics of the Reformed Faith: The Holy Trinity
    The three persons of the Godhead are revealed as equal in divinity, glory, and majesty. Each of the three persons are expressly called “God” in the New ...
  40. [40]
    https://www.crossway.org/articles/2-essential-doctrines-of-the-reformation/
  41. [41]
    Socinianism, Metaphysics, and Scripture - Modern Reformation
    Apr 30, 2021 · The Socinians were driven to their heresy by their inability to understand the biblical text, a fault which stemmed from their poor grasp of the fundamental ...
  42. [42]
    Why did John Calvin have Michael Servetus burned at the stake for ...
    Feb 3, 2023 · In his denial of the Trinity, Servetus was seen as a heretic by Catholics and Protestants alike. John Calvin briefly corresponded with Servetus ...
  43. [43]
    Michael Servetus and the Denial of the Trinity (1)
    Servetus not only attempted to defend his views on the Trinity and the doctrine of Christ, but also began to question other articles of the Christian faith.
  44. [44]
    The Servetus Affair | Desiring God
    Sep 26, 2009 · In 1545, Servetus contacted Calvin again, luring him into correspondence by asking for help in understanding three difficult theological points.
  45. [45]
    Calvin and Servetus - The Gospel Coalition
    Jun 22, 2007 · The anti-Trinitarian campaigner Servetus was burned at Geneva in 1553, and this is often seen as a blot on Calvin's reputation.
  46. [46]
    Q&A: Did Calvin murder Servetus? - Third Millennium Ministries
    John Calvin did not murder Michael Servetus. The government of Geneva executed Servetus in 1553 for what it considered capital crimes.<|separator|>
  47. [47]
    What is Socinianism? | GotQuestions.org
    Jan 4, 2022 · Socinianism is an unorthodox form of non-trinitarianism that was developed around the same time as the Protestant Reformation (1517-1648)
  48. [48]
    CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Socinianism - New Advent
    The body of doctrine held by one of the numerous Antitrinitarian sects to which the Reformation gave birth. The Socinians derive their name from two natives ...
  49. [49]
    The Origin Of Socinianism – Purely Presbyterian
    Dec 4, 2023 · Papists allege that Socinianism was one of the consequences of the Reformation—of the unrestrained and licentious speculations upon ...
  50. [50]
    The Thirteen Principles of Jewish Faith - Chabad.org
    A summary of Maimonides' "Thirteen Principles," widely accepted as the authoritative articulation of the fundamentals of the Jewish Faith.
  51. [51]
    Maimonides' Conception of God - My Jewish Learning
    He argues that God is a perfect unity, not admitting of any plurality. God does not have parts, either literally or figuratively–no arms or legs, no back or ...
  52. [52]
    Maimonides #2 - God's Unity - Aish.com
    The second principle of the Rambam is to believe that this Primal Cause [God] is One, to appreciate the unit of Him who is the only source of power.
  53. [53]
    Unity of God - Judaism's Answer
    Although both Saadiah Gaon and Maimonides were correct in their beliefs about G-d's essence being one, their explanations of it, based on Greek philosophical ...
  54. [54]
    Basics in Kabbalah and Chassidut: Ein Sof - GalEinai
    Jul 28, 2014 · Ein Sof refers to God's infinite light, before the beginning of the creative process. Ein Sof = 207 = Or ("light").
  55. [55]
    Ein Sof (Kabbalah) | Texts & Source Sheets from Torah, Talmud and ...
    Ein Sof, or the Infinite One, has two meanings. One is the initial stage of creation, what is referred to as the Creator's intent for creation.
  56. [56]
    The Mystical Theology of Kabbalah: From God to Godhead (Chapter 8)
    Dec 3, 2020 · In this essay I survey the development of the Kabbalistic Godhead; exploring sources from the Hebrew Bible, through rabbinic literature and medieval Jewish ...
  57. [57]
    What Is the Meaning of Tawhid? - Islam Question & Answer
    Mar 31, 2010 · Tawhid means believing in Allah Alone as God and Lord and attributing to Him Aِlone all the attributes of Lordship and divinity.
  58. [58]
    Oneness Of God - Tawhid | Fundamentals of Islam
    Tawhid means belief in God's absolute oneness, negating limitations, physical descriptions, and that He is not composite or divisible.
  59. [59]
    Categories of the Attributes (Sifāt) of Allāh - Abu Khadeejah
    Oct 14, 2018 · Dhāt: The Self of Allah. The categorisation of the Attributes of Allah is based on whether the Attributes are intrinsically bound to the Self ( ...
  60. [60]
    What Are the Attributes of Allah (Sifat al-Dhat vs. Sifat al-Fi'l)?
    Feb 7, 2025 · Sifat al-Dhat (Attributes of Essence): These are inherent qualities of Allah that define His being and existence.
  61. [61]
    Śaṅkara - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Oct 4, 2021 · According to Advaita Vedāntins, the Upaniṣads reveal a fundamental principle of nonduality termed “brahman,” which is the reality of all things.Missing: godhead | Show results with:godhead
  62. [62]
    Advaita Vedanta - Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    For classical Advaita Vedānta, Brahman is the fundamental reality underlying all objects and experiences. Brahman is explained as pure existence, pure ...History of Advaita Vedānta · Metaphysics and Philosophy · Epistemology
  63. [63]
    Ultimate reality, God and gods in Buddhism – Denise Cush
    However, the ultimate form of the Buddha is the Dharmakaya, or true form, which is the ultimate reality behind everything.
  64. [64]
    on dharmakaya as ultimate reality prolegomenon for a buddhist ...
    Buddhism used to designate ultimate reality, as a prolegomenon for further dialogue. BACKGROUND OF THE TERM DHARMAKAYA. In Pili texts, the inseparable ...
  65. [65]
    Taoism - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
    Taoism is based on the idea that behind all material things and all the change in the world lies one fundamental, universal principle: the way of Tao.
  66. [66]
    Taoism | Religious Studies Center
    Lin Yutang says this about the Tao. The Tao of the Taoist is the divine intelligence of the universe, the source of things, the life-giving principle; it ...
  67. [67]
    Understanding Nicene Trinitarianism | Christian Research Institute
    Dec 21, 2020 · Nicene Trinitarianism teaches the Trinity is three hypostases and one ousia, terms often translated as three persons and one essence, substance, or being.
  68. [68]
    The Orthodox Formulas 1: The Council of Nicea (325) - Trinities
    Jun 23, 2015 · The council of Nicea (325 CE) was the first major step on the way to traditional trinitarianism. Here's some of the document that council produced.
  69. [69]
    The Nicene Creed's incarnational Trinitarian roots
    To affirm this belief, the council wrote the Nicene Creed, which declares that Jesus Christ is, "God of God, light of light, true God of true God, begotten, not ...
  70. [70]
    Trinity > Unitarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
    Both the Trinity and the doctrine of two natures in Christ are argued to be both incoherent and unsupported by the Bible. It is argued that Christ is a human ...Missing: basis | Show results with:basis
  71. [71]
    Why did Arius reject the concept of the Trinity? - Quora
    Nov 24, 2022 · Arius teachings lead to the idea that God the Father was greater than God the Son. The Council of Nicaea was called in 325 to resolve the ...
  72. [72]
    Socinianism: Unitarianism in 16th-17th Century Poland and Its ...
    The most brilliant period of the Socinian movement in Poland was 1585-1638. At the height of the movement there were 300 Socinian churches.
  73. [73]
    Is Jesus God? Or merely "a god"? (Unitarian vs Trinitarian)
    Feb 22, 2018 · Unitarians believe there is only one God (The Father) but He does not exist in three persons. They believe that Jesus is not eternal like the ...Understanding the Trinity · Unitarian Arguments · Trinity ArgumentsMissing: Godhead | Show results with:Godhead
  74. [74]
    What is the Biblical basis for unitarianism?
    Sep 11, 2011 · My understanding of Unitarianism is that, in this view of God, only the Father (as referenced by Christ) is called God. Christ is just a man, created by God.Do Biblical Unitarianism and the orthodox Trinity doctrine differ ...According to Biblical Unitarianism does belief in the Trinity disqualify ...More results from christianity.stackexchange.com
  75. [75]
    podcast 328 – 13 bad reasons to switch from trinitarian to unitarian
    May 18, 2021 · Trinitarians simply confuse together Jesus and God. “The Trinity” amounts to three gods. Unitarian Christian theology is the only Christian way ...Missing: Godhead | Show results with:Godhead
  76. [76]
    Trinitarianism vs Unitarianism Part One | Podcast - Reasonable Faith
    Jan 15, 2024 · So this is an important debate that we're engaged in in this book. Now, the second book is on the historical Adam. This is a Four Views book ...
  77. [77]
    My Conversion from Unitarianism to the Trinity - Beginning of Wisdom
    Apr 9, 2018 · 1. There is only one God. 2. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct Persons. 3. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are each affirmed to be God.
  78. [78]
    Trinity - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Jul 23, 2009 · A Trinity doctrine is commonly expressed as the statement that the one God exists as or in three equally divine “Persons”, the Father, the Son, and the Holy ...History of Trinitarian Doctrines · Unitarianism · Judaic and Islamic Objections
  79. [79]
    CHURCH FATHERS: Against Praxeas (Tertullian) - New Advent
    Chapter 2. The Catholic Doctrine of the Trinity and Unity, Sometimes Called the Divine Economy, or Dispensation of the Personal Relations of the Godhead.
  80. [80]
    Modalism, Oneness, and T. D. Jakes - The Cripplegate
    Sep 29, 2011 · Modalism is a heretical view that denies the individual persons of the Trinity. It views biblical terminology of God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit ...
  81. [81]
    Origen: the Son is not the Father - Trinities
    Sep 22, 2019 · Origen should be described as a subordinationist unitarian. Yes, he believes in a divine triad, but God is one of them! The same holds for all ...
  82. [82]
    Godhead - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    God the Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost make up the Godhead. They preside over this world and all other creations of our Father in Heaven.
  83. [83]
    First Vision - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    Joseph Smith was chosen to be the Lord's prophet in the latter days. Over time, the Lord restored His authority and Church through Joseph Smith. God's children ...
  84. [84]
    God, Godhead - The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints
    There are three separate persons in the Godhead: God, the Eternal Father; His Son, Jesus Christ; and the Holy Ghost. We believe in each of Them (A of F 1:1).
  85. [85]
    Oneness Pentecostalism - Apologetics
    Mar 30, 2016 · Oneness Pentecostals declare that the Godhead consists of only one Person and deny the traditional doctrine of the Trinity. They maintain ...
  86. [86]
    christology - How do nontrinitarians view Jesus? (overview)
    Mar 15, 2016 · While not ignoring his humanity, Oneness Pentecostals believe Jesus is the one and only indivisible God (cf. · Jehovah's Witnesses believe he is ...
  87. [87]
    What are the beliefs of Jesus only / oneness Pentecostals?
    Jan 4, 2022 · The "Jesus Only" movement, also known as Oneness Pentecostalism or oneness theology, teaches that there is only one God, but denies the tri-unity of God.
  88. [88]
    This Week in AG History -- Sept. 6, 1919 - Assemblies of God
    Sep 6, 2018 · In 1913, a doctrinal view that later fractured the young Pentecostal movement found its roots in a camp meeting In Los Angeles.
  89. [89]
    Unitarianism: God - Religions - BBC
    Sep 21, 2009 · Unitarians believe God is one being, either Father or Mother, not the Trinity. They see God as a principle uniting all things, and a loving ...
  90. [90]
    Divine Simplicity | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    Divine simplicity is central to the classical Western concept of God. Simplicity denies any physical or metaphysical composition in the divine being.
  91. [91]
    Identity and the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity - Reasonable Faith
    Feb 4, 2024 · His model anticipates William Hasker's view that the persons of the Trinity are consubstantial in the sense that the divine persons are all ...
  92. [92]
    The Harmony of Trinity and Divine Simplicity Revisited - RobertDryer
    Sep 23, 2023 · The goal is to coherently articulate that God is One in His simplicity and essence, Three in His subsistent relational Persons, and dynamic in ...
  93. [93]
    On Three Problems of Divine Simplicity - Alexander Pruss
    For according to the doctrine of divine simplicity when God has attributes A and B, then God's being A is ontologically identical with God's being B. The ...<|separator|>
  94. [94]
    God: The Failed Hypothesis - Globe Pequot
    God: The Failed Hypothesis. How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist. by ... hypothesis, physicist Stenger examines all of the claims made for God's existence.
  95. [95]
    [PDF] THE MANY PROBLEMS OF SPECIAL DIVINE ACTION - PhilArchive
    There is no scientific evidence, however, for any kind of divine intervention in the actual world. As Papineau (2002: 253) argues, 'detailed modern research has ...
  96. [96]
    Divine intervention? A Cochrane review on intercessory prayer gone ...
    A Cochrane review of ten randomised trials (7646 patients) of intercessory prayer concludes that the evidence justifies further trials.