Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Apostolic hermeneutic.

Well, the Olympic Games are over…back to the blog. Actually, I re-entered the blog-sphere earlier this week, and this thread will be an addendum of sorts to an ongoing dialogue between Steve Hayes and myself at Triablogue (specifically, to date, in three threads: FIRST; SECOND; and THIRD).

In the first thread, Steve opens with:

"In a typical exchange between a Catholic and a Protestant, a Catholic will say that we need a Magisterium to rescue us from the vicissitudes of private judgment—to which a Protestant will counter that a Catholic must apply his own private judgment to the interpretation of Magisterial statements."

In my first response, I directed Steve to my two recent threads on private judgment (neither of which he engages), and the debate was on. Rather than duplicate any sizable content from those three threads, I shall direct interested readers to go to the original threads for themselves.

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? 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…

Steve’s approach has been criticised by an Evangelcial scholar, who wrote:

Any contemporary investigation of apostolic hermeneutics that does not treat the NT in the context of its hermeneutical environment will at best tell only part of the story, and at worst misrepresent the issue. There is no question that this continues to raise certain doctrinal issues concerning the role of the Apostles in defining "proper hermeneutics," but these concerns cannot drive the discussion. The New Testament authors give us ample opportunity to observe their hermeneutical behavior, and it is upon these facts—the facts of Scripture understood in their historical context—that doctrine must ultimately be based, particularly if what one is after is the articulation of a doctrine of Scripture.

I would like to draw an analogy with grammatical–historical exegesis. Grammatical–historical exegesis insists that the interpretation of texts must begin with the words in front of us understood in the context in which these words were written. Even with the caveats that pure objectivity is an illusion and that the author’s intention is essentially unrecoverable (or better, recoverable only on the basis of the words in front of us, which places the modern interpreter in a hermeneutical circle), it is nevertheless a fundamental notion that meaning must be "anchored" some how in something beyond the mere will of the interpreter. Any writer (including this one) who wishes to be understood will have a deep-rooted sympathy for such a hermeneutical principle.

A problem arises, however, when we observe how the Apostles handled the OT. Despite protestations to the contrary, grammatical-historical hermeneutics does not account for the New Testament’s use of the Old. However self-evident grammatical-historical hermeneutics may be to us, and whatever very important contributions it has made and continues to make to the field of biblical studies, it must be stated clearly that the Apostles did not seem overly concerned to put this principle into practice. (Peter Enns, "APOSTOLIC HERMENEUTICS AND AN EVANGELICAL DOCTRINE OF SCRIPTURE: MOVING BEYOND A MODERNIST IMPASSE", Westminster Theological Journal, 63.3 – Fall 2003, p. 268.)

[Note: entire essay available online HERE.]

I am looking forward to my continuing dialogue with Steve, and hope interested readers will jump into the fray either here at Articuli Fidei, and/or over at Triablogue.

Grace and peace,

David

18 comments:

GeneMBridges said...

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…


You know, David, you placed this in blue for a reason. Is this what Steve actually stated? Where is the direct quote?

I've plugged that statement into all three articles and their comments and darn tootin' if I can find it, David.

Do you feel so confident of your position that you have to mislead your readers about what we've actually stated?

Please, don't tell us you are concerned for the truth, when you post such blatant falsehoods.

zaphon said...

David,

I don't intend to enter a full discussion here, but simply to make a point...Whatever hermeneutic the Apostles used, it most certainly did not yield for them The Papacy, purgatory, indulgences, a mediatorial priesthood, Marian dogmas like the Assumption, Infallability, and other such Roman religious innovations.

Others have made that point very well, better than I can, but it remains true nevertheless.

Zaphon www.thesureword.blogspot.com

David Waltz said...

Hello Gene,

You posted:

Gene:>>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…

You know, David, you placed this in blue for a reason. Is this what Steve actually stated? Where is the direct quote?>>

Me: No, it is not “what Steve actually stated”, and by this I mean it is not a direct quote—note that there are no quotation marks, nor a link, nor page number, et al. which I provide if I am directly quoting something. It is in blue because I wanted to draw attention to it—guess it worked!

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.

Yet, with all that said, if I my assessment totally missed the mark, then I apologize for the error. If you and or Steve truly believe that the apostles hermeneutic should be used an example for how we are to form our hermeneutic, then just say so and leave the dramatics out.


Gene:>> Do you feel so confident of your position that you have to mislead your readers about what we've actually stated?>>

Me: What? I urged my readers to go back and read the threads for themselves! Nice try though…


Gene:>> Please, don't tell us you are concerned for the truth, when you post such blatant falsehoods.>>

Me: 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.

In the future, it would be nice (IMHO) if you could try to be a bit more charitable and a little less accusatory.


Grace and peace,

David

Chris said...

David,

Your argument appears to be that since the Authorized Apostles™ read whatever the hell they wanted into the Old Testament, the proper heir to their trademark can and should do the same. The matter of identifying the correct church, then, is more a legal issue than a hermeneutical one. We just have to identify who the Authorized™ successors of the Apostles are.

There are two problems with this view. First of all, we have no procedure by which to determine the identity of the Authorized™ successor save either 1) the procedure proposed by the various claimants, or 2) the procedure we find in the text. The former solution is simple question-begging; the latter is circular. (I.e., we can't know the method in the text until we find the Authorized™ interpreter, and we don't know the identity of the Authorized™ interpreter until we employ the method in the text.) We are therefore doomed to a Cartesian anxiety of the worst kind.

Of course, these problems only arise if we assume that the Apostles did in fact have the Authority™ to read texts in ways that defy reason and common sense. Surely the God who gave us Reason™ and Common Sense™ didn't mean for us to discard them for the sake of a circular, arbitrary Authority™?

;)

GeneMBridges 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.

I can't help but notice, David, that this actually bears no actual resemblance to your original writing in the original article.

You said that Steve said that the hermeneutic of the Apostles is irrelevant. Neither he nor I have ever stated such a thing.

So, you lied - period, end of story. Now you're trying to wriggle out of it.

Steve did not directly respond to it, but rather, recommended a book A book that directly addresses the issue you raised.

If you and or Steve truly believe that the apostles hermeneutic should be used an example for how we are to form our hermeneutic, then just say so and leave the dramatics out.

And what dramatics would those be, David? You're mirror-reading here. You're the one who stated a patent falsehood and followed it with "no kidding," not us. Worse yet, you are here trying to justify your falsehoods.

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.

1. You're confusing an hermenuetical method with a hermeneutical principle.
2. You're not interacting with what we've stated, rather we affirm that the GHM is not at all disconnected from Apostolic exegesis.
3. You're confusing the history of interpretation with a method of interpretation.
4. Oh, and you're ignoring the responses to Enns.
5. Steve has answered this charge already:

...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.


Me: What? I urged my readers to go back and read the threads for themselves! Nice try though…


And at the same time you misrepresented the state of affairs in those threads. Sorry, David, you can't wriggle out of this one. Nice try, though.

In the future, it would be nice (IMHO) if you could try to be a bit more charitable and a little less accusatory.

I'll stop being accusatory, when you stop prevaricating and lying about what others write and then trying to wriggle out of it when caught.

David Waltz said...

Hi Gene,

Thanks for responding; you wrote:

>>I can't help but notice, David, that this actually bears no actual resemblance to your original writing in the original article.>>

Me: I disagree, and since I KNOW what I meant in the original, it is a bit presumptuous on your part to make such a statement—unless, of course, you are infallible.

>>You said that Steve said that the hermeneutic of the Apostles is irrelevant. Neither he nor I have ever stated such a thing.>>

Me: Yes you have, and so has Steve by relegating GMH above the apostles hermeneutic; my-oh-my, what am I missing here…

>>So, you lied - period, end of story. Now you're trying to wriggle out of it.>>

Me: Sigh…no Gene, I did not lie, but for your “choir” you want to make it seem so…

>>And what dramatics would those be, David? You're mirror-reading here. You're the one who stated a patent falsehood and followed it with "no kidding," not us. Worse yet, you are here trying to justify your falsehoods.>>

Me: 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.

>>1. You're confusing an hermenuetical method with a hermeneutical principle.>>

Me: Fair enough, could you explain the difference to this “lying”, Papist, buffoon?

>>2. You're not interacting with what we've stated, rather we affirm that the GHM is not at all disconnected from Apostolic exegesis.>>

Me: Really? That is your argument? Can you delineate Apostolic exegesis and demonstrate to this “lying”, Papist, buffoon that it is truly is connected to GMH? And further, if connected, should not the Apostolic exegetical method trump GMH when push comes to shove?

>>3. You're confusing the history of interpretation with a method of interpretation.>>

Me: You may be right, but some clear examples would surely help this poor “lying”, Papist, buffoon.

>>4. Oh, and you're ignoring the responses to Enns.>>

Me: I can only ignore what I have read.

>>5. Steve has answered this charge already:

...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.>>

Me: No quotation marks, no links, no page references…is this your assessment of Steve’s thoughts, or a direct quotation?

>>But this involves him in imputing his own assumptions to me, then deriving a conclusion which reflects his own self-projection.>>

Me: Sounds like “lying” if I were to accept what seems to be your definition.


>>Me: What? I urged my readers to go back and read the threads for themselves! Nice try though…

And at the same time you misrepresented the state of affairs in those threads. Sorry, David, you can't wriggle out of this one. Nice try, though.>>

Me: Not trying to “wriggle” out of anything. If I was wrong in my assessment of Steve’s actual position, I will be the first to proclaim that I was in error—but for the record, 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)].

>> I'll stop being accusatory, when you stop prevaricating and lying about what others write and then trying to wriggle out of it when caught.>>

Me: I may be guilty of prevaricating (though I do not think this is the case), but I KNOW for a fact I am not guilty of lying—your “choir” would be better served by you stating that I have woefully misunderstood your CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS posts.

For the record, I do not think either you or Steve have been CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS. In the future, I will be more direct in my questions and will not proceed until they have been directly answered.

Hopefully, this will eliminate rhetoric and misunderstandings.


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Chris,

Nice to “see” you again! You posted:

>> Your argument appears to be that since the Authorized Apostles™ read whatever the hell they wanted into the Old Testament, the proper heir to their trademark can and should do the same. The matter of identifying the correct church, then, is more a legal issue than a hermeneutical one. We just have to identify who the Authorized™ successors of the Apostles are.>>

Me: I would state it a bit differently: since the AAs were inspired by God, their exegetical and hermeneutical methods/principles should serve as primary examples for future exegetes/interpreters. As for the succession issue, I believe it is more historical than hermeneutical.

>>There are two problems with this view. First of all, we have no procedure by which to determine the identity of the Authorized™ successor save either 1) the procedure proposed by the various claimants, or 2) the procedure we find in the text. The former solution is simple question-begging; the latter is circular. (I.e., we can't know the method in the text until we find the Authorized™ interpreter, and we don't know the identity of the Authorized™ interpreter until we employ the method in the text.) We are therefore doomed to a Cartesian anxiety of the worst kind.>>

Me: Unless one embraces some form of a “total apostasy” theory, one can appeal to apostolic, episcopal succession—apostolic in the sense that there were churches founded by apostles and/or their lieutenants, and the first bishops/elders in those churches were appointed/ordained by them.

>>Of course, these problems only arise if we assume that the Apostles did in fact have the Authority™ to read texts in ways that defy reason and common sense. Surely the God who gave us Reason™ and Common Sense™ didn't mean for us to discard them for the sake of a circular, arbitrary Authority™?>>

Me: If that were the case, I would choose Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Kierkegaard, et. al. as my “apostles” over Peter, James, John…and ultimately, Sophia Perennis over Christianity.


Grace and peace,

David

Chris said...

>>Unless one embraces some form of a “total apostasy” theory, one can appeal to apostolic, episcopal succession—apostolic in the sense that there were churches founded by apostles and/or their lieutenants, and the first bishops/elders in those churches were appointed/ordained by them.

No need to embrace a "total apostasy" theory. Rather, one simply has to reject the Apostolic succession model in favor of some other model of authorization. There certainly are good reasons to do so, given the rotten "fruits" that some of the Authorized Successors (i.e. Popes) have produced! A Pentecostal/charismatic model of authorization, for example, would do nicely. So on what authority do you choose the apostolic succession model over that of another group? This is where that circularity and question-begging stuff come in.

>>If that were the case, I would choose Plato, Aristotle, Plotinus, Kant, Kierkegaard, et. al. as my “apostles” over Peter, James, John...

I can think of more than one thinker who would suggest that you can have both. ;)

GeneMBridges said...

I disagree, and since I KNOW what I meant in the original, it is a bit presumptuous on your part to make such a statement

I respond to what people write when they write it, David. In the original, you wrote that Steve said Apostolic Hermeneutics was "irrelevant."

Then, when caught, you changed your tune to (in summary): it's a reflection upon what we said, and, now, it's a "charge."

So, we've moved from what Steve (and I) actually said to it being a summary based upon your reflection, to it being a "charge."

It's a pity you can't keep track of your own argument. I guess I'll have to do it for you.

If this is what you "meant" all along, then here's a thought: Say what you mean and mean what you say.

No quotation marks, no links, no page references…is this your assessment of Steve’s thoughts, or a direct quotation?
Considering, David, that is precisely what the argument btw Enns and his critics is about, and you referred us to Enns to support your views, then what, exactly do you expect us to think?


In order to say that my charge that you lied is "pure sophistry" you need to show that we have denied that Apostolic Hermeneutics and the GHM are at odds - but to that you have to impute your own position to us. It's not for us to prove that we believe what you believe. You're the one who drives a wedge between the GHM and Apostolic exegesis, not us.

You haven't begun to demonstrate that we affirm that AH and the GHM are at odds. It's not for us to disprove something you think we believe. Rather, it's up to you to prove that we believe what you think we believe by way of argument, not assertion or assumption. You have a perverse idea of who has the burden of proof here.

Indeed, we both referred you to sources that addressed that issue and therefore our position. So, David, you can sit there and say we haven't answered you - but that too is a false charge, for, when we read that you are "sincere seeker of the truth" and that you are a "bibliophile," we have every reason to believe we are answering you on your own grounds.

You'd have to be monumentally ignorant that Enns has garnered a number of contrary responses. Remember, you chose to justify yourself by pointing us to an article, so, how exactly is it a failure to answer you to point you to the contrary position?

You, David, got yourself caught in a lie. You can't get yourself out of this one. You misrepresented what we said by imputing your own evaluation to us and then informing your readers that this is what we stated - which wasn't at all the case. That, sir, is a lie, plain and simple.

So, yes, David, you're lying, and trying to cover up one lie with another, and another. Good show, David.

Anonymous said...

Here is what I know is true.

#1 David Waltz is not lying.
#2 Reformed Baptists think he is lying.

Here is what I believe is true.

#1 David has connected some dots from comments made by Reformed Baptists that logically imply that they do not think it is necessary to submit their hermeneutical method to biblical scrutiny.

#2 Reformed Baptists do not concede this. In fact they are outraged that David could draw such a conclusion. Only a liar could do this. In fact, only by being a liar can one avoid being a Reformed Baptist!

Here is what I think. I am not lying. This is truly my opinion:

There is no point in dialogue between Catholics and 99% of Reformed Baptists. When one party is a liar or when the other party accuses the other of lying...what is the point of discussion? Everything is poisoned with bad will.

The internet exacerbates our differences anyway. But with the exception of Reformed Baptists, who seem to hate everybody else in the real world too, no one would think David Waltz a mere liar. Crazy perhaps. Just a liar? Never. They trulu can't conceive that anyone can honestly disagree with them. Combine this Reformed Baptist arrogance with the internet, and you find a formula for malice that seems impervious to the best intentions.

GeneMBridges said...

#1 David has connected some dots from comments made by Reformed Baptists that logically imply that they do not think it is necessary to submit their hermeneutical method to biblical scrutiny.

1. Steve is not a Reformed Baptist. Thanks for telling us more about what you think about Reformed Baptists than anything else.

2. We have never said our hermeneutical method is not subject to biblical scrutiny.

3. We've replied to Waltz own support (Enns) by referring him to the contrary position. Enns lost his position at WTS over this. Does Waltz not know the contrary position? Why does he not refer his readers to it?

I guess I'll have to refer to Steve for Anonymous:

http://triablogue.blogspot.com/2008/08/fuzz-brain.html


#2 Reformed Baptists do not concede this. In fact they are outraged that David could draw such a conclusion. Only a liar could do this.

Wrong.

A. I've merely followed David's own words: They began with:

"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…"

Then, when confronted, he said that was a conclusion based upon reflection upon our statements...

In other words, he then added a caveat not in the original. In the original statement, he stated "His answer: the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant."

Now, we've moved from a reflection to a "charge."

David keeps building in these face-saving distinctions not in the original - and that's what makes him a liar. He keeps trying to make the first statement means something it did not originally state.

B. David's logic is fallacious: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 us. Waltz is the one who drives a wedge between apostolic exegesis and grammatico-historical exegesis, not us.

In fact, we've gone out of the way to state we do not share his evaluation.

In fact, only by being a liar can one avoid being a Reformed Baptist!

Yeah, right, and that's why this particular RB attends a PCA church.

Anonymous said...

Hello Mister,

I knew PCA's were nasty too. I honestly thought of saying something about you guys but didn't. Sorry. I can see you are working hard at meeting the standards set by those other people.

Congratulations.

David Waltz said...

Hey Gene,

I responded to Steve’s syllogism in the combox of his thread HERE.

This is what I said:

>>If the abvoe syllogism was going through my mind when I said: His answer: the hermeneutic of Jesus and the His apostles is irrelevant., then I am in total agreement with your assessment. However, the above syllogism was NOT on my mind (actually, my fuzzy-brain was not thinking in terms of a syllogism at that moment); but, if I were to frame my thoughts on the matter into a syllogism it would be as follows:

a) Steve’s governing hermeneutic when approaching the Scriptures is the GHM
b) The GHM was not the governing hermeneutic used by Jesus and His apostles.
c) Ergo: By using a different governing hermeneutic than Jesus and His apostles Steve has [in essence] demoted the governing hermeneutic of Jesus and His apostles to a position of irrelevancy [pragmatically speaking].>>

Steve’s syllogism is not accurate; it is not what I was thinking, so it is fallicious: does that make him a liar too?


Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Rory,

Oooops…I used your name my old, former Baptist minister, friend and brother in Christ—the cat is out of the bag! [GRIN] (BTW, you really need to sign up for a Google account someday.)

One thing you forgot to mention is that Reformed polemicists are masters at using double-standards. Gene gets to call me a former Mormon (which I have never been) and a former Evangelical (which, strictly speaking, I never was), but for a Catholic to make a mistake…LOOK OUT, they will use it as a club to beat you to within an inch of your life…LOOK OUT, next you will be called a Catholic serial killer


Thanks much for your comments.


God bless,

David (or is it Fuzz-brain, or Michael...I am getting confused! [GRIN]).

Chris said...

Wow, David. You're quite the celebrity over there. Almost all of the recent posts have been directed against you personally, and they seem to be increasing in vehemence.

Interlocutor said...

David,
I have to say this crusade by Gene to expose you as a liar that must admit it is getting ridiculous. And, no, Steve's not a liar because he qualified it saying he was only "recasting" your accusation, obviously :) What does it really matter anyhow when Mormonism, Arianism, Islam, RCism, Eoxy only share a hairsbreadth of difference between them (sorry Gene, the context really doesn't help there - it's really not a big deal to say you could've made a point better, but I won't charge you as a liar for clarifying your statement that corrected my original interpretation of it). Anyways, Steve has been making some interesting points so I hope you continue interacting with him (and Gene as well once he stops pouncing on every exchange with liar charges since he's often a very sharp guy).

David Waltz said...

Hi Chris,

You said:

>>Wow, David. You're quite the celebrity over there. Almost all of the recent posts have been directed against you personally, and they seem to be increasing in vehemence.>>

Me: After being called a “liar”, “fuzz-brain”, and “Catholic serial killer”, one has to wonder what is next…perhaps “The Anti-Christ” !!!

Moving on to more sober issues, you posted:

>>No need to embrace a "total apostasy" theory. Rather, one simply has to reject the Apostolic succession model in favor of some other model of authorization. There certainly are good reasons to do so, given the rotten "fruits" that some of the Authorized Successors (i.e. Popes) have produced! A Pentecostal/charismatic model of authorization, for example, would do nicely.>>

Me: I think it was Harnack who made this view popular (I believed he called the charismatic leadership ‘pneumatics’ – but I may be wrong on this…). Tertullian’s conversion to the Montanists is one of the most interesting events of the early Church; and the rise of modern Pentecostalism is a movement of the Holy Spirit that is certainly not easily dismissed…

Chris:>> So on what authority do you choose the apostolic succession model over that of another group? This is where that circularity and question-begging stuff come in.>>

Me: I am currently reading a book recommended by Kepha a few weeks back, Bishop Lists, which presents solid evidence of an Apostolic foundation for both apostolic succession and monoepiscopacy - check it out when you get a chance...

Grace and peace,

David

David Waltz said...

Hi Interlocutor,

Boy, it is so nice to see another level-head showing up; I sincerely appreciate your comments…

You posted:

>> Anyways, Steve has been making some interesting points so I hope you continue interacting with him>>

I agree. I have not forgotten some of our previous discussions that touch on the issue of “private judgment” and the clarity of Magisterial pronouncements. Hopefully, the rhetoric will die down, and some serious dialogue can begin.

If it becomes apparent that the gang at Triablogue is unwilling to stop beating that poor ‘dead-horse’, I will probably start a thread here to discuss some of the salient points that were raised in between the harsh rhetoric.

God bless,

David