Wrong. The scriptures are active, a constitution is not.Paul did the right thing - he gave her a chance to explain herself.
Ok, I will bite...how is Scripture in and of itself active if no one reads it or interprets it?Before she could reply, someone else did:
If no one reads it? That's the wrong question.Just so. But that's really the question, isn't it? It's a question of interpretation: what does it mean for the Word of God to be living and active? We're blithely, dismissively told to ask the author. But what does that mean? How does he answer such questions? What are the means he uses to do so? Where do we get the answers that the author provides? The Protestant proposes answers to these questions I've asked, but those answers are inadequate. That's what started me down the road to Mother Church, by the grace of God.
And as for how it's living and active, I'd ask the author of Hebrews.