In my response to the question, I reminded Mr. Tierney that there are six arguments available to him for critical analysis, which collectively point to the formal, not merely material, solitariness of Scripture. Tierney chose to direct the reader to his criticisms of my arguments (keep in mind that I have not yet had the opportunity to address his second rebuttal, but I shall do so here). First, Tierney complains that 2 Tim. 3:16's construction is somewhat identical to 2 Tim. 2:19-21 and James 1:21(?). The problem is that the key terms utilized to denote "sufficient" are exartizo and artios which are conspicuously absent from 2 Tim. 2 and James 1. In fact, 2 Timothy 2:21 uses euchrestos which simply denotes "profitable." And James doesn't use those terms of sufficiency either. So much for the parallel! Concerning the second leg of the argument (1)(b), that no extra-biblical, theopneustos oral tradition exists, he has offered a tradition referred by Jude 14-15. But nothing in Enoch's prophecy entails any new doctrine not already explicated by the eschatological passages of the Old and New Testaments. Keep in mind that not all matters are recorded for doctrinal information even if they have historical value (cf. John 21:25), especially since repetitive declarations of God would not add anything. And this is not idle speculation. Think of Jonah's encounter with the Ninevites. Now, the speech Jonah gives is not enumerated to the reader and this is perhaps due to the fact that it mirrors previous declarations (cf. Jeremiah 18:7-8). But, at best, Tierney's objection only proves that confirmatory anecdotes of previously inscribed doctrines are not included in Scripture, not that there exists an extra-biblical source of doctrinal material.

    With respect to the pattern of biblical importance to inscribe doctrinal matters, not to mention those situations where both Jesus and the Apostles utilize the written over the oral, Tierney has only argued that Paul must refer to the 27 New Testament books. And this, of course, is not the issue. The argument concerns appealing to Scripture in the absence of need for further revelation. In the case of Paul (cf. 1 Cor. 3:18-4:5), the Law in Deut. 29:29 speaks to the present issue with the Corinthians thereby precluding the need for further revelation. Tierney's argument about the New Testament canon misses the point.

    As far as the sixth argument, that the most trustworthy source material is the material closest to the events represented, Tierney said that this pattern would lead us to adopt the Didache or other apocryphal works. The problem here is that this textual principle is still a factor but is outweighed by other textual principles such as matters of content. Since the Didache was probably written in Egypt, it is perhaps geographically removed from being a candidate for Apostolic authorship. Moreoever, its seemingly exclusive dependence on Matthew makes it even more dubious as having Apostolic connection. To parallel Tierney's objection, we would have to find an historically oral tradition on a doctrinal matter that would fair better critically than the earliest written traditions of the New Testament on the same doctrine. And this has not been accomplished.