This morning I was looking for some reference information and ran across an interesting article that took me way off track. It included the information below. This wasn't a key part of the article and I disagreed with the article's premises, but I completely agreed with these statements.
The article contained a definition of "sola Scriptura", which is Latin for "only the Bible". (I like quoting Latin, it makes me feel important". It said:
"Some Christians chafe at the discussion because there is no Bible verse (on subject of your choice). This charge is especially relevant to a Protestant such as this author (and this author), who believes in the Reformation principle of sola Scriptura.
"But sola Scriptura does not mean that Scripture is the only authority to which one should listen, but that Scripture is the final and non-negotiable authority, the norm that norms all other norms. I look to (my favorite mapping tool), not to Leviticus, to find my way from Louisville to Chicago, but if (my favorite mapping tool)—or the Third Vatican Council or the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention—tells me there was never a City of Jericho, I submit to the authority of Scripture over theirs.
"Moreover, sola Scriptura has never meant merely a concordance approach to the Bible (Where’s a verse on sex reassignment surgery? Not one? Then it’s fine? Well, no). There is a comprehensive storyline to Scripture, against which we must judge our actions, especially the actions of our churches as we testify to the reality of the gospel."
Ok, it's not ground breaking theology, but it expains a lot of how I feel. And since I couldn't find the information I was looking for, this serves two purposes: 1) it gives me something to put here and 2) it will help remind me of a basic tenant of my belief.
If anyone's interested, the full article on a totally separate subject is here. I'm very interested in any comments on this statement...