Again, with all due respect, I think you´re wrong on a number of different counts, even in spite of your mastery of Latin and years of study. John Frame writes: Notice, if Frame is correct, and I have no reason to think otherwise having read VT, Christianity is not a deductive system and, for VT, "œthere is no "œmaster concept" from which the whole of Christian doctrine may be logically deduced." Yet, this is precisely what the Westminster Confession and the Scriptures affirm when they assert all the parts of Scriptures "œconsent," that is, agree with one another. Jesus put it this way: "œThe Scriptures cannot be broken." It is the consent of the whole (for the meaning of God´s word is not manifold, but one) which provides evidence, through the power and work of the Holy Spirit, to convict men that God´s Word is true. If one rejects the notion that Christianity is a logically deductive system, as Van Til and his many followers have done, then there can be no "œconsent of the parts." While no one denies that sinful men are fallible and often err in both exegesis and when drawing inferences from Scripture, the error of the Vantilians and the Neo-orthodox is to impute error to logic itself. In additon, Van Til and Frame miss even the very heart of the Christian system; the "œmaster concept" is actually a master proposition, the axiom of Christianity itself: The Bible alone is the Word of God. Again, you repeatedly confuse the *how* with the *what* of knowing and end up obfuscating, if not completely missing, the issue at hand. The fact that God´s knowledge of the relationship between every proposition revealed in His word -- and every possible valid inference from Scripture -- is as exhaustive as it is immutable, has no bearing on whether or not, by the help of the Holy Spirit who promises to lead us into "œall truth," we can also come to a right and harmonious understanding of any set of biblical propositions, especially those that may appear to us as "œapparently contradictory." Truth is characterized by the logical and harmonious relationship of propositions, not by "œapparent contradictions," antinomies, or insoluble and inscrutable paradoxes. Dr. McMahon is exactly right when he said; That would be honest, but the tragedy is that is not what Van Til or his many followers say. The tell us that we must embrace "“ and embrace with passion "“ these seeming contradictions. They plead "œmystery" with reverence and joy in their eyes like some charismatic mystic. They do not plead ignorance, nor do they answer the real life questions and difficulties even those raised by the recent post by Heidi "œmere housewife" Zartman on this thread: Yet, in face of such difficulties (some easier to overcome than others), the Van Tilian makes ignorance a mark of Christian piety and the height of humility as they attribute their own ignorance to the Creator/creature distinction and command the rest of us to submit our minds to contradictory notions and half-truths. Their anwer to a person like Heidi is; just believe and know that for God there is no contradiction. I´m sorry I don´t buy it. To me this is a proscription for complete ecclesiastic authoritarianism, something you would think all P&R men would be very sensitive and wary of. I guess as the singer said; these times are a changin' -- but at least in this case, we know why.