There are two ongoing threads concerning Sola Scriptura. I discovered that there are two identified types of Sola Scriptura that I designated Sola-L and Sola-C, for Liberal and Conservative respectively, based on a Liberal Protestant statement noted below.
I also discovered a point of view, reproduced below, posted in another thread as to authority, that is the denial of all authority except the Bible as the basis of The Bible alone. This point of view points out that in fact there is a reliance on numerous authorities when determing the elements of a passage of Scripture as one proceeds to apply The Bible alone.
I have reproduced one passage from Hebrews, and as we all know, nowhere does Hebrews say it is written by Paul. So the question is, what does this passage mean? Does it mean the Bible? I have heard Protestants say that this is so. Can we get agreement on one Word? Is the “word” word referring to the Bible? That is the question.
12For the **word **of God is living and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
The Case of Sola-L and Sola-C Thread
Liberal author Marcus Borg comments:
“Conflict about how to see and read the Bible is the single greatest issue dividing Christians in North America today. On one side of the divide are fundamentalist and many conservative-evangelical Christians. On the other side are moderate-to-liberal Christians, mostly in mainline denominations. Separating the two groups are two very different ways of seeing three foundational questions about the Bible: questions about its origin, its authority and its interpretation.”
Re: Do Protestants really follow the Bible alone? Thread
Bible-only theology sounds fine as long as it remains an abstract principle (or slogan). The reality is much messier. At least the following authoritative layers would need to be peeled back before a strict Bible-only theological method could succeed.
Linguistic – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative translators.
Translational-Interpretational – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative interpreters.
Hermeneutical-Philosophical – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative philosophers.
Historical-Cultural – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative historians.
Applicational – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative teachers.
Mystical – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative personal views.
Textual – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative text critics.
Canonical – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative Church decisions.
Traditional – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative traditions.
Theological – to avoid having to trust non-authoritative theologians.
In the real world, reliance on extra-biblical authority is found at nearly every step of Bible study. Even if our average-Evangelical-in-America-today had the time, materials, and intellect for such an endeavor, he would still realistically have to rely on a host of extra-biblical authorities (teachers, authors, researchers, principles, etc.) to learn all that he would need to know to become a trustworthy [yet extra-biblical, and thus still fallible!] authority himself.
For clarity I repeat the question. What is the word, in this passage of Hebrews, referring to based on whatever tradition you choose?