Tierney's objection here is twofold: (i) That Scripture in its entirety as divinely inspired cannot be self-authenticating, and (ii) Contemporary criticism casts doubt on the authenticity of Matthew and Philemon. But are his objections any good?

     Concerning (i), I think that Tierney fails to appreciate how human beings can have a justified true belief wholly apart from evidence. Tierney questions how one can come to know what appears as Scripture on the basis that some others find that task difficult. There is no doubt that certain circumstances can make it difficult for some to come to a conclusion everytime on every matter. Nonetheless, this does not disconfirm that I know that the 27 books of the New Testament are authentic. In order for Tierney to refute this, he would have to present a case against sola Scriptura more convincing than my believing in it. And this is what he has been attempting to do, albeit to his arguments' demise. But for Tierney to dismiss sola Scriptura on the basis that other people find it difficult to believe it is far from conclusive. Consider other justified true beliefs. My belief that the external world is real or that I exist escape any evidential validation or falsification since it is difficult to transcend the senses in order to prove such things. However, the Pyrrhonic skeptics denied that there exists an external world, and the Solipsists denied that anybody but themselves existed. Nonetheless, I am warranted in believing in the external world and that I exist apart from an evidential case for them. As this applies to sola Scriptura, it seems that the confirmation of the Holy Spirit to me (the immediate experience I have) about the Scriptures is warranted in the absence of reasons to reject it in the same way that I can believe in God apart from evidence. Curiously, Tierney admits that a "Catholic Bishop" was the "first person to receive God’s self authenticating word." But if Tierney's objection is to be taken seriously, it certainly must be universal and, hence, apply to the noted Bishop himself. When is self-authentication valid for Tierney -- only when it applies to Catholics?

     Lest this appear fideistic, I shall relieve the evidentialists of their insecurity about my objection to (i) by addressing (ii). The standard of historical criticism assumed in Tierney's objection in (ii) is not that Matthew and Philemon are inauthentic but that he does not know for certain what is authentic apart from being told that they are. I have two responses here. First, it fairs no better than my reasons for rejecting (i) in that he must rely on the testimony of another. If a Catholic Bishop demands that Matthew and Philemon be canonical then the Bishop falls prey to Tierney's uncomfortable (and inconsistent) criterion. Secondly, I offered several reasons why Matthew and Philemon are to be considered authentic. Unfortunately, Tierney did not respond to a single argument I made regarding this. Instead, he just surmised that I made Matthew and Philemon authentic on the basis that each "agrees with previous revelation." But the reader will search in vain for this statement in my answer to Question 4. Therefore, I am unconvinced by Tierney's alternatives.