Tierney is prompting me to advise the reader just how sola Scriptura is biblically supported to be a post-Apostolic doctrine. This is a curious question because, as I have outlined in my opening statement, this is precisely the nature of our entire debate. I have advanced six reasons to favor sola Scriptura as a post-Apostolic doctrine, five of which are directly implied by the Scriptures: that Jesus' statements and Apostolic references to "It is written . . . " in deciding doctrinal issues indicate the exalted position of Scripture in the absence of new revelation, that Scripture is superior to non-biblical tradition in the absence of new revelation, that Paul admonishes the Corinthians to not go beyond what is written when no new revelation is required, and that there was a qualitative significance in grafting a written record rather than retaining an oral transmission. The sixth argument I presented was based on textual criticism. These serve as cumulative and individual signposts of what we can expect of the post-Apostolic Church in their regard to Scripture.

     Perhaps Tierney means that we should be looking for a direct statement in Scripture to vindicate this doctrine (e.g., "You are the Son of God" establishes Jesus' divine sonship). But this amounts to suggesting that all doctrines are brought about in this manner, and this of course is false. Just think of the doctrine of the Trinity. This thought of doctrine-forming is a naïve imposition of textual evidence that has never been the attitude of New Testament scholarship, yet doctrines such as the Trinity are true because of their implications found in Holy Writ. As far as the inauguration of the post-Apostolic period, the great Church historian Philip Schaff writes:

From a biblical standpoint, the Apostolic foundation was bestowed with "signs and wonders" in order to vindicate its "Oral Tradition."(2) Since we do not have the luxury of direct Apostolic or Prophetic contact for this tradition any longer, we are now left with what G.E. Lessing called the "ugly, broad ditch" which puts us out of reach of the "accidental truths of history."(3) Our most rational recourse is to utilize the best-attested and single source of doctrinal information, namely the Scriptures. Only if Tierney can successfully critique the six arguments I gave and advance a reason more plausible than mine would we have grounds for crossing Lessing's ditch.

END NOTES

1. P. Schaff, History of the Christian Church, Vol. 2, 5th ed. (Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, Inc., 1996), p. 7.

2. Acts 5:12; 14:3; Heb. 2:1-4.

3. G.E. Lessing, "On the Proof of the Spirit and of Power" in H. Chadwick (ed.), Lessing's Theological Writings (London: Stanford University Press, 1956) pp.52, 53, 55.