The Trinity, heresies, and the use of language

After yesterday's Facebook conversation about TD Jakes and his supposed heresy, I got to thinking about the Trinity and what constitutes heresy.

Before I go further, I need to be clear: What is revealed to us about God, His nature, and His plan of salvation is plain and available to us in the Scriptures. There is no lack of clarity here.

It is one thing to assert that the use of certain words or the embrace of certain ideas about doctrines might be problematic. It is an entirely different thing to question the salvation status of a person who deviates ever so slightly from our doctrine. Since none of us has perfect doctrine, indeed, since perfect doctrine is not a requirement for salvation (if such a thing were possible), we should be slow to dismiss someone who has ideas different than our own.

My first thought is that over the years I have gotten more skeptical about "systematic theology." Not that I doubt its utility, but more like, it seems to me to be a futile exercise to attempt to reduce an infinite God down to a series of precepts and definitions.

We have a western cultural mindset, which is characteristically binary. That is, we tend to reduce ideas down to an either-or situation. A lot of hand wringing has resulted from this. For example, if God is love, how can he permit suffering is a binary statement that supposedly creates an conflict. If God knows everything, then how can we have free will is another. I'm sure you can think of many of these as well.

But God is not a binary being. Therefore, there is no requirement to confine God to the dictates of our binary logic. We should not expect that an infinite being is ascertained by reason. We should not expect that our binary equations must be resolved. We should not expect that the lack of a solution to them in any way impeaches God.

The Scriptures speak of the "beyondness" of God: 

1Ti. 3:16 Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: God appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world,was taken up in glory.

Nu. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie, nor a son of man, that he should change his mind. Does he speak and then not act? Does he promise and not fulfill? 

Ro. 11:33-36 Oh, the depth of the riches of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable his judgments, and his paths beyond tracing out! 34 “Who has known the mind of the Lord? Or who has been his counselor?” [Isaiah 40:13] 35 “Who has ever given to God, that God should repay him?” [Job 41:11] 36 For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be the glory for ever! Amen.

There is sort of an implication in the western evangelical church that given enough study, education, and experience, we can attain an intellectual perfection of our theology and understanding. Thus we develop elaborate doctrinal statements and nuanced beliefs that become a benchmark for deciding heresy. Heresy, then, is any deviation from what we have learned, or more precisely, what our theologians have learned from their study.  

We should be quick to admit that we cannot ascertain the fullness of God, because we see through a glass darkly (1 Cor. 13:12). It is arrogant, therefore, to expect God to toe the line of our theology, and also that varieties of understanding regarding God are automatically heresy. 

So we come to the Trinity. Is there any doubt that the doctrine of the Trinity is inadequately explained in Scripture? Not that it's not there, but that what is there is less than satisfying? 

So while we can easily admit that the Godhead consists of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and we can identify characteristics of each person in the Godhead, the exact nature of God is less clear. Theologians have debated this for centuries.

As a result, when we discuss the Trinity we are working from a position of partial data. Because of this, I believe there should be the slightest amount of wiggle room available to us where theology fails us. We should therefore be a bit more circumspect in this area.

An example is the supposed heresy of describing the Trinity as manifestations. That is, that the Father is a manifestation of God, the Son is another manifestation of God, and the Holy Spirit is the third manifestation of God. While we certainly admit there is a line which can be crossed into heresy, we should not automatically assume the word itself is automatically heresy.

Manifestation is a broad word. Manifestation simply means to be revealed or to show. That is, something has already been there, but now we suddenly see it. This is what Paul means in Ro. 1:17: 

For in the gospel a righteousness from God is revealed, a righteousness that is by faith...

So the Gospel (righteousness that comes by faith) already existed, but it now shows forth and can be seen and acted upon.

And certainly God does manifest in different ways.

1 Timothy 3:16: And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

So there we have one "manifestation, " the Son.

1Co. 12:7 Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.

There's manifestation #2, the Holy Spirit.

Ex. 33:18 Then Moses said, “Now show me your glory.” 

There's #3, the Father. And last, we get to see a manifestation of the whole Trinity at once:

Mt. 3:16-17 As soon as Jesus was baptized, he went up out of the water. At that moment heaven was opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and lighting on him. 17 And a voice from heaven said, “This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased.”

We conclude that the use of the word "manifestation" can be perfectly within the bounds of orthodoxy, except of course for those who insist on utter conformity of language and practice.