Closely related to theology as “approximation” of God’s revelation, is Van Til’s idea of “limiting concepts”. Van Til talked about this in multiple publications, including Common Grace and The Gospel (P&R, 2015, p. xlviii-xlix; also a paper published under Common Grace in WTJ), An Introduction to Systematic Theology (P&R, 2007, p.50, 68, 138, 171, 261-262, 303), A Survey of Christian Epistemology (available online)[1]. As always, some criticize Van Til for using a term from non-Christian philosophy, Kant here. But if this is a legitimate point, Apostle John would be criticized for using the term Logos, and Apostle Paul for citing pagan literature. Van Til clearly spoke of two types of limiting concepts: Christian and non-Christian. Kant represented the latter and Van Til endeavored to articulate the former. [Quotes in red]
If we hold to a theology of the apparently paradoxical we must also hold, by consequence, to the Christian notion of a limiting concept. The non-Christian notion of the limiting concept has been developed on the basis of the non-Christian conception of mystery. By contrast we may think of the Christian notion of the limiting concept as based upon the Christian conception of mystery. The non-Christian notion of the limiting concept is the product of would-be autonomous man who seeks to legislate for all reality, but bows before the irrational as that which he has not yet rationalized. The Christian notion of the limiting concept is the product of the creature who seeks to set forth in systematic form something of the revelation of the Creator. (Common Grace, WTJ)
Christian epistemology shall be conscious of the “limiting” nature of facts. One fact is limited by other facts, and one concept by other concepts.
His [Christian] thinking is always and only an attempt to integrate the various aspects of biblical teaching. In doing so he is deeply conscious of the fact that every “concept” he employs must be limited by every other “concept” he employs, and that therefore his “system” is an effort to restate in his confession the truth as it is in Jesus. (A Survey of Christian Epistemology)
The limiting concepts are within a system of Scripture or the whole revelation:
When man makes a “system” for himself of the content of revelation given him in Scripture, this system is subject to, not independent, of Scripture. Thus the idea of system employed by the Christian is quite different from the idea of system as employed in modern philosophy. (Common Grace and The Gospel)
Revelation in nature is but a limiting concept, a concept incomplete without its correlative as found in supernatural communication. (An Introduction to Systematic Theology, p. 171)
The “limiting concepts” are immediately related to man as creature, who is limited by his nature. This is true and important, but there is something more fundamental. Limiting concepts are rooted in the unity of God and unity of God’s revelation in the world. This basically means existence is what God defines and our understanding must follow what God reveals. Limiting is contrary to open, free, and absolute. There are limits because there is a unity, a system of unity. This system by definition determines that everything within is limited by the system. Nothing can or shall break this system. Nothing exists outside this system. This is true to God, to creation, to revelation, and to Christian life.
To apply “limiting concepts” to God appears, on the first glimpse, rather impious. How could you say God is limited? Again, we are not speaking of God or the limits in the non-Christian fashion. When we say God is limited, we are saying that God is God, and God cannot be any being other than God, God’s nature cannot be anything other than God’s nature. God is not an “open” being; when He reveals He is God and we confess He is God, He is not any being but God. God’s nature is not an openly absolute nature, as many have constructed. God’s nature is united in His being and a particulate attribute is coterminous with other divine attributes. All divine attributes are mutually defined and mutually supportive. We shall not understand one attribute of God outside the unity of God and the perfection of God. It is in this sense we speak of limiting concepts when we think about God. In one word, God is limited by Himself. God is free, but not in the non-Christian sense; God is absolute, but not in the non-Christian sense. God cannot not be God; God cannot deny Himself. Can God do absolutely anything? No, God cannot do anything that is not consistent with His nature and God does not will anything that is not consistent with His will.
We tend to think of reality in fragments out a system, in bits isolated from unity. For example, people talk about one attribute of God as if all other attributes do not exist or do not matter; some try to emphasize one attribute or work of God while rejecting its complicated relationship with the rest. This happens to all teachings in Scripture, and all revelation of God, such as God’s transcendence and immanence, God’s love and holiness, God’s simplicity and complexity, the revealed and the mystery, the image of God remained and fallen, the common grace and special grace, the general revelation and special revelation, the divinity and humanity of Christ, the unity and distinction of Christ’s natures, God’s sovereignty and human responsibility, faith and regeneration, etc. We only speak of pairs, but the reality is multi-dimensional and all factors are inter-woven. Every fact, every concept is in a system of infinite complexity under the unity of God and His will. The clarity of any fact or concept does not negate this system nor its complexity; on the contrary, it is only clear within this system and its complexity.
This again highlights the task of Christian mind is to “approximate” the revelation of God. Why only an approximation? Because we cannot duplicate the wholeness and complexity of this system. When we understand or attempt to understand something, we approximate in part and in a simplified form. We can try our best to grasp the limiting concepts behind a fact, but even that is still partial and simplified. We are humbled by the system of facts and the mystery of God beyond that. A more biblical, mature theology is based on a more developed understanding of the system. But even the best theology of man is short of the systemic perfection of God’s revelation. Our conceptualization and articulation always have something to be improved. No one has exhausted God’s revelation at any point. There is always more to the creeds, confessions, and treaties, not to say there may be errors in them.
This also provides us a right perspective on truth and error. Error is much closer to truth than what we normally acknowledge. Truth and error are not the opposites on a long spectrum; they differ not primarily in concept but in system. An error is a “free” truth or “freed” truth, not controlled by God’s system, disregarding limiting concepts. All errors are distorted and radicalized truth when there is no God-ordained system to prevent such distortion and radicalization. We often think truth and error differ in statements. The reality could be so, but not necessarily so. Truth and error can be the same statement explained in two systems: one in Christian system and the other non-Christian. The key is not what you say, but in which, by which, and for which, you say that. The Christian mind is in Christ, by Christ, and for Christ. The non-Christian mind is in man, by man, and for man. Error is a fact stripped of its limiting concepts and then manipulated by man. De-systemizing is to shift the authority of truth from God to man. Our task in discerning truth and error is more arduous because we need to look beyond the statements to examine his system and his consistency with the system. An error is a masked truth.
Arianism is not wrong in saying God is one, but their understanding of the oneness of God is outside the unity of Scripture. Similarly, Arminianism is not wrong in saying one should believe in order to be saved, but their understanding of faith is not consistent with the totality of Scripture. This does not mean anyone using the terms of Trinity, sovereignty of God, Augustinianism, and Calvinism, is automatically right. They may also define the terms outside biblical revelation, just like many who call “Lord, Lord” are not saved. The right terms alone are not standards of truth nor saving grace. This also warns us that we can error in a thousand ways, even when one is well trained and versed in orthodox theology, because you can be inconsistent with the biblical system in a thousand ways. You may easily fall short of or overstep, without realizing it. On the other hand, some others you criticize may have not erred, and your criticism is just out of your misunderstanding of the Scripture or of others’ standing. Not so simple.
[1] John Frame discussed it in Cornelius Van Til: An Analysis of His Thought (P&R, 1995, p. 165-169), and K. Scott Oliphint in Common Grace and The Gospel (P&R, 2015, p. xxxvi-xliii).
