david waltz said...
Now, I do believe that it reflects Steve thoughts on post-apostolic hermeneutics (and yours), and say this because of his firm emphasis on what he terms “the grammatico-historical method”, and the fact that to date in our dialogue he has proposed no other valid hermeneutic. And further, since I sense that you and Steve hold similar views on this issue, I also gave some weight to your response to the question I posed to Steve (“And the primary hermeneutic of Jesus and the Apostles was?”), for Steve did not directly respond to it, but rather, recommended a book. So right or wrong, that helped to form my assessment.
If Steve does not believe that GMH is THE hermeneutical principle by which one is to approach the Scriptures, but rather, that it is the Apostles hermeneutical principle which should take precedence, then he (and you) sure have a funny way of saying so.
Yes you have, and so has Steve by relegating GMH above the apostles hermeneutic; my-oh-my, what am I missing here…
Really? You (nor Steve) have directly answered my questions concerning your governing hermeneutic method and that of the apostles—specifically, once again (man this is getting old) does the hermeneutic method of the apostles establish a governing method for your (or Steve’s) hermeneutic? If it does not then I stand by my charge of irrelevancy…if not, I submit you (nor Steve) have not said so in the past—i.e. your charge “you lied” is pure sophistry.
Neither you, nor Steve, have given me cause to change my original assessment, for you both continue to avoid answering my question directly; here it is again: is Apostolic exegesis/hermeneutic your governing principle in your approach to interpreting the Scriptures? [If it is not, and you embrace GMH instead, then the Apostles hermeneutic is “irrelevant” to your prime governing principle (and by irrelevant, I mean as a presupposition—but, I sense you already knew this)].
Several more problems:
1.On the one hand, Waltz says I espouse the grammatico-historical method. On the other hand, Waltz says I haven’t stated my governing hermeneutical method.
Of course, this is incoherent. If I espouse the grammatico-historical method, then that is my governing hermeneutical method. Waltz both attributes a hermeutical position to me while simultaneously denying that he knows what my hermeneutical position is.
And if he doesn’t know my governing hermeneutic, then he’s in no position to put words in my mouth.
2.He then indulges in fallacious reasoning. Let’s recast his accusation in syllogistic terms:
a) Steve espouses the grammatico-historical method
b) The grammatical-historical method is contrary to apostolic exegesis
c) Ergo: Steve thinks the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant
Now, the major premise is correct. The problem begins with the minor premise. Waltz is imputing his own evaluation of the grammatico-historical method to me. Waltz is the one who drives a wedge between apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis, not me.
I don’t share his evaluation, and I’ve said nothing to indicate that I share his evaluation. Indeed, I’ve indicated that I do not share his evaluation.
As a result, the conclusion is false since his conclusion derives from a false premise. He imputes his own position to me (in the minor premise)—a position I repudiate.
As I said before, someone that lacking in critical detachment is incompetent to attack my position.
3.Waltz justifies his own position by referring the reader to an article by Peter Enns. An article posted at Peter Enns’ own blog.
But this raises another question: how could you spend any amount of time at Enns’ blog and be unaware of the fact that there is another side to the argument? The raison d’etre of his blog is to respond to his critics.
Indeed, you’d have to be Rip Van Winkle to be unaware of the firestorm which Peter Enns ignited. Negatives reviews by Beale, Carson, Currid, Frame, &c. A book edited by Beale and Carson in response to Enns et al. Another book by Beale, due out this Fall, in response to Enns et al. The fact that he was terminated by his employer (WTS).
4.That’s why I referred Waltz to a book in answer to his question. If he’s a genuine seeker of the truth, then he’s duty-bound to acquaint himself with both sides of the argument.
5.I’ve already posted on the relation between apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis:
6.BTW, I didn’t “distance” myself from Calvin’s view of private judgment. Rather, I took no position on that question one way or the other. I’m not going to get sidetracked into exegeting Calvin, then comparing my view with his view. That framework is irrelevant to my post.