@fredsbend are both Christ and Scripture the Word of God or are they differ? Does that help?

Maybe not. I included that because I mentioned Enns' book.

I think it's unclear what kind of answer you're looking for. On at least one level, the differences are self-evident based on the definitions you provided. Or is your question more along the lines of, "Are they referring to the same 'word'?"

I think my question is clear, I referred to that in my last sentence. I asked if both are the Word of God why Christians don't worship the Bible?

Actually, I don't think it was at all clear that that was your question. I've just edited and will likely retract my close vote. But I strongly suspect that you once again know exactly what answer you're looking for, and that it would be best for you to self-answer.

Just retracted my vote. Others are voting as "primarily opinion-based" and "too broad," but I don't see that. It's clear you're looking for the perspective of trinitarians who worship Christ and don't worship the Bible, which is basically all trinitarians. I doubt any group would have significantly different rationales for it either, although if you want a specifically Catholic perspective or something there shouldn't be any problem with that. However, if you don't self-answer, I think it would be good to provide more guidance for what kinds of sources you'd accept as credible in answers.

Thanks for the edit.

Not sure what you are after? It seems you often ask roundabout questions to prove something. The answer is obvious. Christians only worship God, refer to the first commandment.

@fredsbend the question isn't about why Christians didn't worship the word of the prophets. Because not all of their words are the Word of God. Even the conversation between Eve and the Snake is recorded as the Word of God not that Satan's exhortation to dispbey God is truthful but it's recorded by God as His Word for us to learn to obey Him instead of being deceived by Satan. I need to ask this question because later on I'll refer to this question. It will become clear later why I asked this. If Christ and Scripture is the same Logos why Scripture His written Logos not worshipped?

@fredsbend the question stand alone is clear. Let me ask you a simple question. Scripture is the Word of God? Yes or no. Second, what differentiate Scripture as the Word of God and Christ as the Word of God? Let me know if the question is still unclear.

@fredsbend you can start answering my question that there is an explicit different in nature between the Logos incarnate and the Logos inscripturate. If there is such distinction you also need to explain how many Logoi are there? If both are the same Logos then you need to explain why one is worshiped and other don't.

@fredsbend I don't need to prove that some Christians believe that there is no difference between Christ and Bible because there is no such belief. What I'm asking is how then Christians distinguish the two? Let me make an example, this is like asking How do Trinitarians distinguish the three divine persons in the Trinity? The question is proper and valid.

@AdithiaKusno Now we're getting somewhere (in reference to the 6th revision). However, as you know there are many kinds of Christians, so you cannot address this to just "Christians". You mentioned in chat that the question is for EO. You should address it to them. Then the question would be perfect and might get some interesting answers (we don't have many EO experts though, unfortunately). Or maybe you meant that you want EO's to read it, but you want a Catholic answer. That's fine to. I've removed my downvote, but my close vote remains, at the moment.

@fredsbend there are many Christians. but no one worship the bible. so what differentiate them?

@AdithiaKusno I would argue that some Christians--those who believe in a strong form of inerrancy--do worship the Bible, even if they don't acknowledge it. But even they would make a distinction between the written word and the incarnate word.

Furthermore, most of the time the New Testament uses the phrase "word of God" it is talking about the spoken word, not the written word or the incarnate word. So there's a further distinction to make.

@AdithiaKusno Also, if you're using this question to build a case for something, you should either answer it yourself and move on, or take it somewhere else. Stack Exchange is not an advocacy site.

@BruceAlderman In what ways are their actions "worship"? IOW, what are some specific actions that they do that you would call "worship"?

I do think that many Christians regard the Bible more than they should, but I do not believe I've ever seen any act in a mode of worship toward it.

@BruceAlderman There's also the underlying theme that God's word creates and brings life. He spoke creation into existence in Genesis.

I hope this isn't too broad:

@BruceAlderman I never said Protestants don't distinguish the Word of God metaphorically. It's one think to distinguish the Word of God functionally and completely another by distinguish it metaphysically.

The written, spoken, and incarnate Logos are one and the same in nature.

They differ in function. Gresham Machen and Princetonian theologians defend this practice. At that time Princeton was beginning to become liberal. To defend the Word of God they argue correctly that Scripture and Word incarnate in nature one and the same. This way they maintained the inerrancy of Scripture.

What Gresham Machen and Princetonian theologians failed to show is how they distinguish the two?

@BruceAlderman I'll answer my own question but I want to see other people's answer first. Because I want to answer it within the frame work of what other understood to be intelligible. If I answered right away people wouldn't be able to understand it.

@fredsbend without realizing Protestants do worship the bible because God is subject to their reading of Scripture not the other way around because revelation has cease according to them.

You can read this in J I Packer's article I linked on my question

But on my question I'm not accusing Protestant for Bibliolatry because that is a truth question.

That's why I need to take a scenic route by asking how they differentiate Christ and Scripture.

I can't directly ask a truth question here

But by answering my question Protestants will come to realization that their view of formal sufficiency of scripture is identical to bibliolatry. Catholic and Orthodox accept material sufficiency of scripture. The later is subject to God's revelation in the life of saints.

Catholic and Orthodox don't close the canon, EO to this day use 3rd and 4th Maccabees. Ethiopian Catholic use Book of Enoch. This is why Nicene is infallible because God spoke through the fallible Fathers infallibly.

Now you can understand my frustration why I need to ask an obscure question because I can't ask a direct truth question :)

@AdithiaKusno No they won't.

@AdithiaKusno I think your views of Protestantism are warped and uninformed. At least on this topic.

@fredsbend no I'm not. I was Protestant. As I said it's completely and utterly unintelligible for Protestant when they hear they're accused by Catholics and Orthodox for bilbiolatry. Because when I was a Calvinist I never pray to Bible or bow down to it. But that's beside the point. Worshiping the bible doesn't need to be direct.

I'll just quote Bruce Alderman "I would argue that some Christians--those who believe in a strong form of inerrancy--do worship the Bible, even if they don't acknowledge it."

I concede to you that it doesn't make sense at all from Protestants view point. Even if you're an agnostic once you were a Protestant, so the way you perceive thing is viewed through that context even though now you disagree with Protestantism

We're holding different worldview

From Catholic and Orthodox, bilbiolatry doesn't mean someone worship the Bible directly

Formal sufficiency of Scripture is bibliolatry for us.

Because God is subject to Scripture and Scripture is subject to human's interpretations.

For Catholic and Orthodox our reading of Scripture is subject to God' revelation in the lives of our saints

We read Scripture through that lens.

We believe revelation hasn't cease because we never close the canon of scripture not even Trent

ex-Catholics are not uninformed when they say Catholics worship Mary

When they became Protestants their presupposition shifted. From Protestants view point they see devotion to Theotokos is Mariolatry

Similar with ex-Calvinists like myself. My paradigm shifted. I now able to see why Protestant historically accused by Catholics and Orthodox for bibliolatry even though as a former Calvinist I never remember when the last time I worship the bible :)

But as C.SE can't handle the truth I can't ask a direct truth question. That's why I took the pain for asking a scenic route question like I did

To be fair with you I'll ask Protestant's questions regarding Catholicism one day.

For example: How do Catholics and Orthodox differentiate worship to God vs devotion to Theotokos?

But I'll ask that later

@AdithiaKusno Allow me to put that back on the Catholics. They don't think they worship Mary, but they do. Worshiping Mary doesn't have to be direct.

Exactly

You got my point

We're holding two contradicting presuppositions. Dead lock. That's why I left Vantillianism.

besides, having been Protestant means exactly nothing about your knowledge of it. I know many Christians that can't even define Protestant.

Protestantism is not a definition per se it's amovement

You don't need to define Protestantism to know it

God can't be defined

@AdithiaKusno Are you telling me we've been agreeing this whole time? Because it doesn't look like it to me.

Do you agree that my question regarding Protestants committing Bibliolatry can be asked back to Catholics for committing Mariolatry?

Then we're in an agreement

Yes.

@AdithiaKusno The point is it's not "completely and utterly unintelligible" for a Protestant to hear they worship the Bible. Protestants can understand the accusation pretty easily, and just not agree with it.

@Mr.Bultitude you're absolutely correct

@AdithiaKusno I'm not sure what you keep talking about then because it sounds like you were disagreeing with me.

We can't discuss the truth because our commitment to the standard of truth differ

I can't get wrapped up into this, atm. gtg. Lots of work. We'll talk later.

I would commend to you these words:

> @AdithiaKusno Then ask a question like "What is the basis Catholics use to claim Protestants worship the Bible?"

@Mr.Bultitude How do you make link?

This whole "scenic route" strategy is just getting people frustrated. It's not going to accomplish what you want it to.

I can't make a link in here

@AdithiaKusno [link text](http://url.example)

thanks

I tried to ask that earlier I got 3 vote down

I changed my question to be more neutral

@AdithiaKusno Ouch. Where did you ask?

On the same question

I've revised it 8 times

No one like truth question

Right, but the one suggested by CuriousD isn't a truth question.

People perceived it as a truth question

Probably because it was revised 8 times. It had baggage.

Check my question

the question isn't a truth question yet got three vote down because they think I'm an Arian :D

I think the DVs on that question are more because you've amassed a reputation as someone who asks questions that aren't always what they seem.

Well people shouldn't vote down a question based on presumption

Is that question legitimate? Are you looking to be informed? Or will you take on a posture more like a schoolteacher grading papers to the answerers?

Why that question not legitimate?

I'm asking if it is.

Yes legitimate. I want to learn more. Nope I'm here to learn.

@AdithiaKusno Would you say the same about your prior questions?

the same

Remember my questions about persecutions in EO church?

I remember. As I recall, you had an agenda for it.

is that acting like a school teacher? no. why it get closed? people can't accept controversial questions

That's not why it was closed. It was closed because it was too broad. You basically asked for a historical overview of religious persecution in Eastern Orthodoxy. That's looking for a book.

having an agenda is legitimate. if i want i can hide my own agenda but i don't i make it plain. people read my profile and they know what am i here for

i've changed it to be direct and narrow asking just for the first incident of such persecution

i even asked twice

That's pretty subjective.

one to revise it

could you give me an advice how to ask an objective question on that subject?

@AdithiaKusno Depends. What do you want to learn? Not "what do you want other people to learn?" but what do you hope to learn by asking the question?

That wasn't rhetorical.

@Mr.Bultitude so that both learn. I went to WTS in 2011 under Carl Trueman. I learned it the hard way when I was a Calvinist. I assumed Catholics were unlearned and uninformed about their pagan corruptions. Becoming a Catholic is a humbling experience. I learn everything from scratch. My attitude towards Protestants is with respect. I don't want to caricature any religious beliefs despite of my disagreement with their beliefs. I want to represent their beliefs correctly just as how they believed it.

You can see an example in my question (which you edited, thanks) Was Calvin a Nestorian.

@AdithiaKusno You didn't answer my question. I'm asking about the EO persecution question, and I want to know what it is you want to learn (specifically). You asked for advice for asking a better question about it, and I don't know how to give you such advice without you telling me what you hope to learn.

I want to learn why they were persecuted. I know the outlines but not the details. Tartars didn't impose taxes so many nobilities became married priests and preserve their lands without taxes. Because of that the Church and the State became one entity. The sectarian groups want to purge EO church from infiltration from nobilities. Because of this they were killed.

@AdithiaKusno This still sounds like you're looking for a book.

People can answer my question by giving a few outlines

Some of the questions here are also like mine. I can simply refer them to J N D Kelly or Jaroslav Pelikan, but I didn't, I answer them briefly. Because not many people have access to book. By having someone outlining it here people can use it as a reference instead of reading the whole book.

@AdithiaKusno I don't remember seeing any question that asked for the basis for claiming Protestants worship the Bible.

@AdithiaKusno If you narrow it to a specific century (and probably more specific than century) and a specific group, you might be able to ask what the political and doctrinal motivations of the EO clergy were, and for key dates and people. But if you're able to narrow the question enough to ask for those things, you're probably able to find the answer yourself.

That may be a limitation in the SE format, but it is what it is. Either way, you probably are better equipped looking for a good book on the subject that you can summarize for your blog.

So on the words of God/gnostic question, perhaps what you could do is ask why X thought that it was essential that Jesus and the Bible have one nature. I don't know who X is though because I've never heard of that idea before yesterday.

@AdithiaKusno For definitional questions, such summaries are useful and good. For historical outlines of movements that spanned centuries, not so much.

And I'm bowing out for now. Ttyl

@curiousdannii I'll try my best to reword my question. Thanks for the suggestion. We're all still learning.