Hermeneutics? Or dogma?

The authority of Paul’s statements is derived not from his hermeneutics but from his apostolic inspiration. Today, we are obligated to use hermeneutical principles to validate our interpretations because we are not inspired. Paul’s authority derived from his apostolic status, but in our case whatever authority we have derives from the integrity of our method. Sound hermeneutical principles are essential to place necessary restrictions on us as interpreters because we do not have authority. If we were all inspired, we would not need hermeneutics. What makes the New Testament authors different from us is that they are inspired; we are not. Consequently, we should never conclude that we could reproduce their methodology; the authority of their message is vouchsafed from their inspiration no matter how sound their methodology may or may not be.—Walton and Walton, The Lost World of the Torah, 131

<idle musing>
OK. This is a bit much! I don't buy it. It sounds to me like an attempt to justify their version of hermeneutics as opposed to the style of hermeneutics used by the NT authors (and other interpreters at the time). Again: NO! I could go on, but I'll spare you…
</idle musing>