What is theology? What is a Christian doing when he is making a theological statement? How do we define man’s position and task in light of the God-man relationship as defined in Scripture? Waves after waves of attacks from liberalism and secularism have forced many to hold a rigid view of theology and theological tradition. Nowadays, the solution many offer to the church is confessionalism and creedalism, which are often expressed as a masked traditionalism[1]. What had pushed Eastern Orthodoxy and Roman Catholicism to traditionalism is working amongst the Reformed. Against those who have no regard for historical precedents, some have drifted to the other extreme by treating creeds and confessions as something beyond questions, beyond improvements, and almost entirely inviolable. They continue to proclaim Sola Scriptura, but in practice the creeds and confessions, sometimes with treatises of prominent theologians, are ceilings of theological discussions. Any deviation is at the risk of being called heretic. The historical terms, such as “Classical”, “Magisterial Reformers”, “Puritan”, and “Westminster divines”, are used in practice as equivalents to biblical orthodoxy.
Do we have any other option here? Either going full blown rejection of creeds and confessions, or committing full support to them? Can we uphold the tradition without jumping into traditionalism? How do we understand historical statements in creeds, confessions, or any books?
Cornelius Van Til’s discussion can be helpful in guiding our thinking here. Quotes from him:
The Christian Church has, consciously or unconsciously, employed the notion of the limiting concept in the formulation of its creeds. In these creeds the church does not pretend to have enveloped the fullness of the revelation of God. the church knows itself to be dealing with the inexhaustible God. The creeds must therefore be regarded as “approximations” to the fullness of truth as it is in God. This idea of the creeds as approximations to the fullness of the truth as it is in God must be set over against the modern notion of the creeds as approximation to the abstract truth. (Common Grace and the Gospel, P&R, 2015. P.17)
God’s supernatural revelation is presupposed in all successful rational inquiry on the part of man. And all revelation of God to man is anthropomorphic. It is an adaptation by God to the limitations of the human creature. Man’s systematic interpretation of the revelation of God is never more than an approximation of the system of truth revealed in Scripture, and this system of truth as revealed in Scripture is itself anthropomorphic. But being anthropomorphic does not make it untrue. The Confessions of the Church pretend to be nothing more than frankly approximated statements of the inherently anthropomorphic revelation of God. For it is such a system that is directly involved in the idea of the self-contained God. (Christian Theory of Knowledge, chap. 3.2.)
His “limiting concept” may be considered in a separate article. Here we focus on his definition of human interpretation: man’s interpretation is an “approximation” of the fullness of truth in God. As always, Van Til is highly conscious of the Creator-creature distinction and attempts to articulate its meaning in everything he addresses. Of course, one can read this “approximation” to extreme as denying the knowability of God and of any truth[2], when approximation is treated as nothing but a vague shadow if not a faint dream. Van Til explained this approximation in the Christian context[3], which has the God-defined Creator-creature distinction as well as God-defined Creator-creature communication (“being anthropomorphic does not make it untrue”). This Christian “limiting concept” is not the non-Christian “limiting concept”. [It is easy for the other side to criticize Van Til on denying the possibility of man understanding truth, but they are attacking a strawman.]
“Approximation” does not mean we can never know surely or truly, but means we can never know exhaustively (never) or perfectly (at least now). Van Til focuses on creeds and confessions, but his analysis is true to all aspects of epistemology. In everything we approximate to God’s revelation, in both general and special realms. Perfection can only come in Christ Jesus or in the breathed-out of the Spirit. Inspired writers of Scripture spoke exactly what God intended in that context. But our understanding of their writings is never exact but approximate. In our best we fall short of the perfection of God’s revelation. We fall short of its perfect system, its perfect precision, its perfect connections, and its perfect depth and width. We can repeat a sentence or paragraph in Scripture in its original language. Then we are repeating a perfect segment of God’s revelation, but our understanding of this teaching is not perfect, upon which our articulation and application of this teaching is even further from perfect.
“Approximation” reminds us of the epistemological humility we should maintain in all our thinking and articulation of truth. We should not entirely disassociate our knowledge with God’s but we shall not entirely identify these two either. The best creed or confession, the best treatise or book, is a noble and edifying attempt of approximating God’s revelation in Scripture. But it does not equal to Scripture, nor can it ever perfectly express any doctrine taught in Scripture. In our endeavor to approximate God’s truth, it is a step or a major step forward, but not the end.
“Approximation”, if understood correctly, does not lead to despising creeds/confessions (or any other document)[4], rather it leads to a proper positioning of them before Scripture, because there are those ahead of us, sometimes way ahead of us in the journey of “approximation”. We should look to them, also beyond them, since beyond them is the Word of God (good approximations lead to Scripture). Scripture may not express a doctrine as philosophically, systematically, or even poetically as one prefers, but Scripture is God’s breathed out and is perfect in part and as a whole. Scripture is primary and others are secondary; Scripture is originative and others are derivative; Scripture is the Word and others are approximations of the Word. Scripture is final and approximations are not. Historical arguments are meaningful only because they are approximations of the biblical revelation[5].
“Approximation” also helps us to see the diversity amongst Christians and even amongst prominent theologians in the same tradition, since everyone is approximating in his way. All true Christians are united in the fundamental truth of God and of the gospel, but the unique gifts, perspectives, and flaws also manifest in everyone’s thinking. Approximation is not an exact copy. No mortal has possessed the totality of truth. This does not mean all approximations are the same. Some are better than the others, and some are significantly better than the others. Yet the best is not beyond reproof or improvement. Everyone is approximating, in his strength and weakness, in his faith and lack of faith. Everyone stands somewhere on the truth spectrum, and everyone stands somewhere on the error spectrum.
John Frame developed this concept of approximation and defined theology as “application”. Van Til and John Frame pointed out something often overlooked in history: the human understanding of God’s revelation in distinct to God’s revelation itself. This is a timely correction of the tendency that overemphasizes the identification between the two. It is always dangerous to forget the Creator-creature distinction, to level ground between Scripture and our approximation.
[1] There can be a healthy confessionalism or creedalism, but we do not see that so often.
[2] Van Til – Clark controversy.
[3] His critics are often focused on his use of non-traditional terms (terms developed or used by secular philosophers), but they do not see or sometimes refuse to see his Christianization of the terms. Again, the terms may be misused, but one should not say all use is misuse (actually, everything can be “used” in the right way, as everything glorifies God in one way or another).
[4] One should not self-righteously see errors in others (or worse, inventing errors of others). The fact everyone errs, even giants err, shall point us to Scripture, not to us.
[5] Creeds and confessions are not improvements of Scripture, on the contrary, they must be improved by Scripture.
