Let me just comment on the tenor of the Question & Answer sessions we are entertaining here. The purpose of these exchanges is to investigate definitions and terminologies that are otherwise superfluous to the primary debate. And, it may comes as surprise to Mr. Tierney, I do not believe that he shoulders any burden of proof in the matter of merely denying sola Scriptura. In this sense it doesn't matter if Tierney is a Catholic or a Mormon so long as he can successfully deflect my arguments. Having said this, I do not argue either explicitly or implicitly that I must merely prove him wrong. This is why I presented a positive case listing six arguments in favor of sola Scriptura -- none of which depend on a disproof of Catholic Tradition. All I can say is that Tierney and I are on the same page here and I honestly do not know where he is deriving the statement "I don’t have to prove myself right; I just have to prove YOU wrong!"

    Needless to say, not much in Tierney's response addresses the question about what constitutes an extra-biblically authentic, post-Apostolic source of theopneustos material for doctrinal information. Instead, Tierney chose to address how canonicity can be established. What I think is relevant to the question I posed is quite enlightening . . . and may I say quite Protestantistic. Tierney, when addressing his criteria of authenticating any tradition whether oral or written, admits that

This is an interesting statement because it entails that any extra-biblical claim to be a source of doctrinal information is authenticated on the basis of previous revelation, whether written or oral. Since we do not have the oral material available to us today or a living Apostle to vindicate it, and that the important and best-preserved oral information has been inscripturated, I can find no other conclusion from this except that only the Scriptures will determine what is doctrinally sound or authentically divine (e.g. sola Scriptura is true). The only escape for Tierney here is to define "the Word of God" as including post-Apostolic, extra-biblical material. And this will necessarily require him to retreat to the initial question I asked -- How would we recognize such material to be theopneustos if it exists?