The Godhead vs. the Trinity — What the New Testament Actually Says
The Nicene Creed was written in 325 AD. The New Testament was written in the first century. They do not describe the same God.
What the Nicene Creed Claims
Read the Nicene Creed on its own terms. It declares Christ to be “God of God, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, begotten not made, being of one substance with the Father.” That phrase — one substance — is the load-bearing claim. In Greek, it is homoousios.
Here is the question every honest inquirer must ask: where does homoousios appear in the New Testament?
It does not. The word is Greek metaphysics, not Hebrew scripture. It was introduced at the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD as a philosophical resolution to the Arian controversy — a dispute about whether the Son was co-eternal with the Father or subordinate to him. The Roman Emperor Constantine convened the council. The bishops argued. The emperor wanted unity. The formula was a compromise that satisfied no one and was disputed for another fifty years.
This is the foundation of Trinitarian orthodoxy: a political settlement, not a revelation.
What the New Testament Actually Describes
Open the Gospels and read what happens at the baptism of Jesus:
“And Jesus, when he was baptized, went up straightway out of the water: and, lo, the heavens were opened unto him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove, and lighting upon him: And lo a voice from heaven, saying, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased.”
Three separate events. Three separate presences. The Son is in the water. The Spirit descends as a dove. The Father speaks from heaven. These are not metaphors. These are descriptions of what the witnesses saw and heard.
Then there is Gethsemane. Jesus prays to the Father in agony: “not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42). A being praying to himself makes no linguistic or logical sense. The text refuses the Trinitarian reading.
Then there is Stephen’s martyrdom:
“But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God, And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.”
Two distinct beings. One is God. One is standing at his right hand. Stephen was not reporting a metaphysical abstraction. He was reporting what he saw.
John 17 Destroys Substance-Unity
The Trinitarian interpretation collapses completely in John 17. Jesus prays for his disciples in his final hours:
“Neither pray I for these alone, but for them also which shall believe on me through their word; That they all may be one; as thou, Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us: that the world may believe that thou hast sent me. And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one: I in them, and thou in me, that they may be made perfect in one.”
Jesus prays that his disciples “may be one, as we are one.” Now apply the Nicene formula: if the Father and Son are “one” in substance — a metaphysical fusion of a single divine essence — then Jesus is praying that his disciples physically merge with God and with each other. That is absurd, and the text will not sustain it.
The “oneness” Jesus describes is unity of purpose, will, and love. He says so. The Nicene formula forces an interpretation the text refuses to give.
The History Nicene Defenders Would Rather Skip
Arius of Alexandria taught that the Son was a separate, subordinate being — “there was a time when the Son was not.” This was not a fringe position; it commanded wide support across the eastern churches. Constantine convened Nicaea in 325 AD not because the Holy Spirit had clarified the matter, but because political unity in the empire required theological uniformity.
The homoousios formulation was so controversial that Eusebius of Caesarea — one of the most prominent bishops who signed the creed — wrote privately to his congregation explaining his reservations. He had signed under pressure. The formula, he noted, did not appear in scripture. He was right. It does not.
The council’s decision was enforced by imperial power, not apostolic authority. Bishops who refused were exiled. This is not revelation. This is politics dressed in theological language.
Verdict
The Gospel of Jesus Christ teaches that the Godhead consists of three distinct beings — the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost — unified in purpose, will, and love. This is what the New Testament describes. This is what the witnesses saw. This is what Jesus himself taught in John 17.
The Nicene Trinity is Greek metaphysics — specifically the Neoplatonist concept of divine substance — imposed on Hebrew scripture by a Roman emperor’s committee in the fourth century. It was controversial when it was adopted. It required imperial enforcement to survive. And it requires ignoring the plain sense of Matthew 3, Acts 7, and John 17 to maintain.
The question is not whether LDS theology is biblical. The evidence above makes that answer clear. The question is whether the Nicene Creed is biblical. Ask the bishops who signed it under duress. They already admitted it was not.