Replies

It sounds to me like the "Bible-Only" moniker is a caricature of the belief that one can come to saving faith through the scripture without recourse to the so-called sacred tradition.

Except that without that (Sneer!) sacred tradition, you wouldn't know which books belong in the Bible and which ones don't, now would you? Or are you, perhaps, relying on some other authority to tell you which books other than (Sneer!) sacred tradition?

***Except that without that (Sneer!) sacred tradition, you wouldn't know which books belong in the Bible and which ones don't, now would you? Or are you, perhaps, relying on some other authority to tell you which books other than (Sneer!) sacred tradition?***

I use the term "So-called" sacred tradition because by it you mean all the theological developments of the past 2,000 years, some of which, in all good conscious, I can not call call holy or sacred.

I am indebted to my Christian forefathers. I am indebted to Irenaus, Polycarp, Clement, Origen, Eusebius, Athanasius and so many others.

I want to hug the neck of the author of the Didache when I see him!

They are my brothers in Christ.

But they are not my masters!

I have but one master, and that is Christ. And he has told me that if I hear his words and put them into practice, my house will be built on the rock and I will whether the furious storm of the Last Judgement.