“During the ongoing dialogue, it became readily apparent that Steve embraces nuda sciptura, rather than sola scriptura. Steve maintains that one does not need any tradition when approaching the Scriptures, but rather, one only needs a "sound" hermeneutic—but what is a "sound" hermeneutic?”
Of course, I never said that when we exegete the Bible we should disregard the history of interpretation. Indeed, I’m on record as saying that when we exegete the Bible we should take the history of interpretation into account. Give it a respectful hearing.
And that’s not limited to “Reformed” interpretations of Scripture.
But the history of interpretation is not, itself, a method of interpretation.
Waltz has forgotten the context of his own question, which had to do perspicuity and schism.
“Steve embraces the "the grammatico-historical method" and maintains that the clarity of true doctrine/s will emerge if one is armed with this hermeneutic. I then posed a question: was this the hermeneutic of Jesus and His apostles? His answer: the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant. I kid you not…”
That’s a polar misrepresentation of what I actually said.
I guess, in David’s furry brain, because he thinks that there’s a disconnected between apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis, then if I endorse grammatico-historical exegesis, I’m dismissing apostolic exegesis.
But this involves him in imputing his own assumptions to me, then deriving a conclusion which reflects his own self-projection.
If David is that deficient in critical detachment, he has no business defending his faith or attacking mine.
“Steve’s approach has been criticised by an Evangelcial scholar.”
And Peter Enns’ approach has been criticized by other Evangelical scholars:
Is David ignorant of the counterargument? Or is he aware of the counterargument, but suppresses the counterargument to give his readers a misleading impression of the actual state of the debate?