The Hyper-Sacramentalist Decides to Fold

Here is the latest from the hyper-sacramentalist:

By the way, just in case anyone is wondering, I do not intend to hit back at the latest wild swings of Dr. Critic. When you have presented a clear argument, and your opponent responds with something along the lines of, “I know you are, but what am I?,” what should you do? Should you respond in kind? Or should you simply chuckle, shake your head, and follow the advice of Titus 3:10-11? I choose to follow the advice of the apostle.

That's certainly convenient. Why now? Why precisely at the point at which his breezy statements against my theological views and my abilities with the Greek text--not to mention his idiosyncratic exegetical conclusions--have been shown to be utterly uninformed by the creme de la creme of NT scholarship? As anyone reading this series knows, my response has been nothing short of cogent and pithy. The hyper-sacramentalist made several unfounded claims for his own view and just as many charges against mine, and I simply allowed NT scholarship to answer him.

I will be relentlessly working through this issue until its completion, whether or not the hyper-sacramentalist decides to respond, if for no other reason than to cut off any further opportunity he may take to advance his unbiblical, hyper-sacramentalist "baptismal justification" agenda.

I might also expect a posting from Crimson Catholic titled, "Owen gets Svendsen-ed," or some other clever title like that ; )