Like the great Biblical tradition of baptising babies?
Well, yes, actually. Scripture doesn't limit who may or may not receive Baptism, it's for everyone, as St. Peter mentions, "This is for you
and your children, and to all those who are far off, whomever the Lord our God will call." and also the mentioning of entire households being baptized. There simply isn't a good reason to restrict Baptism to persons of a certain age. God's gift of new life is for everybody, God loves everyone. As we can also recall, Jesus Himself said, "Do not prohibit the children from coming to me, for to such as these belongs the kingdom of heaven". Rather than barring certain people from Baptism, our job is to "make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, Son and the Holy Spirit, instructing them in all that I have taught".
Or that faith alone in Jesus alone isn't enough for eternal salvation?
What is sufficient is God's grace.
Shall we ignore the NT then? Of course not. Paul had the Spirit guiding him and watching over him, he still taught and spread Christ's story and message, did he not? Not too sure what you're getting at here mate?
Montalban's point is simply the historical narrative of how we have received the Bible. The Canon of the Bible came together through the consensus of the Church over the course of many centuries, thus the fact that you or I even have a Bible, bound cover to cover, is because of our Christian fore-bearers receiving, reading, collecting and agreeing that this collection of books constitute Sacred Scripture. It comes to us from the ancient and received tradition of the Christian Church.
If it didn't then either:
A) There should exist some self-evident divinely-inspired table of contents saying, "This is the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus ... Jude, Revelation." However, such a thing does not exist.
B) We must individually discern for ourselves what constitutes our own individual Bible. That, however, is chaos and completely undermines the whole concept of a Canon of Scripture in the first place making the Bible nothing more than personal preference.
The only sensible, and historically viable position is that you and I have received down from generation to generation that collection of books which we regard as Sacred Scripture, and therefore call "The Bible".
This doesn't mean Sola Scriptura is wrong, but it does mean that Sola Scriptura must be understood appropriately and as it was originally intended; not as a rejection of the Church's received Tradition, but as universally agreed upon final court of appeal. If, when or where the Church or those of us in the Church may err, our ultimate appeal is to the written word of Scripture.
-CryptoLutheran