Infallible vs Impeccable??

[soaringasaneagle]

It is theologically sound...the Bible speaks about repentance and not walking in willful sin...it says that "those who PRACTICE such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."  You know, how the Catholic church often covers up child molesting Priests....those men practicing vile, sinful acts on dozens of boys repeatedly, willfully and intentionally??  Do you think God is pleased with that?  I don't think God is in the business of winking at sin and doesn't want His so called ministers to do so as well.

[Bonnie]

It is theologically sound...the Bible speaks about repentance and not walking in willful sin...it says that "those who PRACTICE such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."  You know, how the Catholic church often covers up child molesting Priests....those men practicing vile, sinful acts on dozens of boys repeatedly, willfully and intentionally??  Do you think God is pleased with that?  I don't think God is in the business of winking at sin and doesn't want His so called ministers to do so as well.

Great post!

[spurly]

Soaringeagle and Bonnie, you two are completely missing the point of what I am saying.  God uses flawed people who sin.  He has to do so, because that's all he has.  Yes we are to strive to live up to the righteousness in which we are dressed, but we will never completely fit into those clothes on this side of eternity.  Anyone who believes Christians don't sin, and anyone who believes that God can only use sinless vessels is blind to the truth of God's word.

You, however, are wanting to use the argument against a Pope that if he has sin in his life he could not be used of God.  That is not a theologically sound argument. 

[Bonnie]

Soaringeagle and Bonnie, you two are completely missing the point of what I am saying.  God uses flawed people who sin.  He has to do so, because that's all he has.  Yes we are to strive to live up to the righteousness in which we are dressed, but we will never completely fit into those clothes on this side of eternity.  Anyone who believes Christians don't sin, and anyone who believes that God can only use sinless vessels is blind to the truth of God's word.

You, however, are wanting to use the argument against a Pope that if he has sin in his life he could not be used of God.  That is not a theologically sound argument. 

Spurly, I know that God can use whom He will and for what purpose.
I think the argument is that the pope claims to be something that he's not - in simply words.

[kensington]

Soaringeagle and Bonnie, you two are completely missing the point of what I am saying.  God uses flawed people who sin.  He has to do so, because that's all he has.  Yes we are to strive to live up to the righteousness in which we are dressed, but we will never completely fit into those clothes on this side of eternity.  Anyone who believes Christians don't sin, and anyone who believes that God can only use sinless vessels is blind to the truth of God's word.

You, however, are wanting to use the argument against a Pope that if he has sin in his life he could not be used of God.  That is not a theologically sound argument. 

We are not debating if God can use sinners... or people who sin. We are talking about whether or not He imparts the gift of being "infallible" them.  And the answer to that is NO.  You skipped a bunch of what I actually said to get to what it is you think I said.

Paul did sin.. Paul got saved.  Paul walked uprightly with the LORD. There is NO history record that Paul EVER walked in adultery, incest, murder or any such debauchery after being saved. The Popes I have been talking about are those who do such things and still the church maintains they are "infallible"... that is not biblical.

Again, God called us to righteousness... and saying we will not be perfect and that we sin is no excuse for someone who claims to be infallible to be found in the sins listed in the History of the church concerning Popes.  Name one Apostle who did such things after meeting Jesus and being given grace and sent to make disciples.  Of the 12 .... which one plotted murder? Committed incest?  Had mistress's and children out of wedlock while living in the Vatican.

Did the LORD not say that "Those who teach will be held to a higher standard of accountability then those they teach"... I'm sorry.. but just saying "no one is perfect" doesn't cut it, not when you are speaking of the man who seats himself as leader of a Religion and is termed "infallible".  Even speaking for Christ.

You follow him... with the possibility of following him somewhere you don't want to go.  Do you knowingly sit under a teacher who is involved in incest spurly? What about murder?  What about fornication openly?  I'm not talking repented sins, under the blood. I'm talking sins, open sins of a lifestyle by a man who is the leader of a whole religion.

I was not POPE bashing... this is about his being INFALLIBLE and the total lack of that possibility being true. 

[kmv]

Thanks, Kensington.

Can you address this question:

*  Can a sinner be used to teach the truth? 

*  If so, can one who is not practicing what they preach (a hypocrite, in other words) teach the truth?  Note- not 'are they right with God?' but 'can they teach the truth?'

Thanks.

Hi Kensington.  I was wondering if you'd had a chance to answer these.  Thanks!

[kensington]

I think I answered that overall... but teach who? 

[kensington]

kmv.... we have to remember that "grace" is not so that we can do as we please... but that we can come and fall on our knees when we have not been pleasing to Him.

Therein lies the difference in a person who has sin that God can use, and someone who just uses God and all that He provides to sin. 

[kmv]

kmv.... we have to remember that "grace" is not so that we can do as we please... but that we can come and fall on our knees when we have not been pleasing to Him.

Therein lies the difference in a person who has sin that God can use, and someone who just uses God and all that He provides to sin. 

Of course.  But my question was: Can a sinner be used to teach the truth? 

Actually, I should make that more specific- Can an unrepentant sinner, one who is willfully continuing in his sin, be used to teach the truth?

[Jimbob]

That additional specificity is important, kmv, because those two different wordings make for two completely different questions.

[mllevaleur]

What you suggest is that any Pope who lived out his life in the Vatican with women, incest, murder and all manner of debaucher, including childe molestation and the covering it up...  are "Perfect" in teaching, and will go to Heaven.

Perhaps you missed it in the mormon/catholic thread, which is understandable, but I actually stated very clearly that I do NOT believe all popes are going to heaven simply because they were popes, or simply because (I believe) they taught correctly. If they taught but did not DO, as the pharisees Jesus is speaking to, and were unrepentant, then certainly they will be in Hell. There's a quote from, I believe, St. Athanasius that says "The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops."

So no, I'm not suggesting that at all. 

By the way, to all, sorry I haven't been around to continue participating, I am suddenly very busy sewing to fulfill apron orders! I will try to contribute what I can, though, sorry if I don't get to everything.

[mllevaleur]

It's the same principle... Only the Pharisees were not making doctrine on morals as the Pope does, they were teaching the already written LAW to the letter. 

Well I understand you disagree, but this is actually exactly how we see the pope's role...he is not there to make up new doctrine, he is there to protect the "deposit of faith" given to the Church by Christ. What he does do is apply it to the modern world as it develops (with new technologies such as cloning which the bible doesn't specifically mention, so it can be confusing to know what is right or wrong.) But he's not there to just make stuff up, he's there to protect what was already given to us. 

He includes that to preach the LAW or give the doctrine and teach the peoples what you do not practice... brings a greater condemnation up you from Heaven...

I absolutely agree, see my last post to you!

[mllevaleur]

When one is not living it, how does one proclaim it?  By hypocrisy alone.

Not sure where this came from, but every preacher I know will just have to shut up. Everyone teaches the perfection of Christ. None can live up to it. Everyone sins and falls short of God's standard. I surely don't consider every preacher a hypocrite.

FTL

Like I said earlier...

So yes, we should be examples of what we teach. But the problem is, we're all sinners. How far do we take it? Can I teach a child not to yell at his siblings in anger if I have a problem with yelling at my husband in anger? I actually don't think that makes me a hypocrite...in my mind, a hypocrite is someone who teaches something but doesn't believe it himself. I DO believe I shouldn't yell, and I admit when I do I'm doing wrong, but being human and weak and a sinner, there will likely be times when I'll do it again, despite knowing it's wrong, although I pray that God gives me the grace to avoid it.

Just incidentally,

The word hypocrite has changed meaning over time.  When Jesus said it, it didn't mean quite the same thing as the way we're all using it.

Jarrod

I don't know that it has changed meaning itself, as much as people nowadays just tend to use it incorrectly (in my opinion!) Don't know if the following is what you meant, but I posted this earlier in the thread...

I'd say a hypocrite is somone who teaches something as wrong, but doesn't actually believe it's wrong and has no problem doing those things himself.  I wouldn't call someone who teaches that something is wrong, sincerely acknowledges it as wrong, but struggles with the issue himself a hypocrite, personally. I'd just say they were a fellow sinner!

[mllevaleur]

Which Pope did strive that far to walk uprightly?  I think you are missing that there is a difference in striving to walk uprightly and wallowing in debauchery and sin. 

Um...I'd say lots of them, actually. Sure there were some bad apples, but that doesn't mean they were all "wallowing in debauchery," a great many of them were good Christian examples, many were even martyrs, dying for Christ. 

[mllevaleur]

It is theologically sound...the Bible speaks about repentance and not walking in willful sin...it says that "those who PRACTICE such things will not inherit the kingdom of God."  You know, how the Catholic church often covers up child molesting Priests

Just for the record, no more than any other organization...no more than school districts cover up child molesting teachers, or protestant churches cover up child molesting preachers.

Not defending the awful actions, just saying it's a human problem, not just a "Catholic" one.

....those men practicing vile, sinful acts on dozens of boys repeatedly, willfully and intentionally??  Do you think God is pleased with that?  I don't think God is in the business of winking at sin and doesn't want His so called ministers to do so as well.

Of COURSE God is not pleased with that! I'm not sure why that's even in question? 

[mllevaleur]

Did the LORD not say that "Those who teach will be held to a higher standard of accountability then those they teach"... I'm sorry.. but just saying "no one is perfect" doesn't cut it, not when you are speaking of the man who seats himself as leader of a Religion and is termed "infallible".  Even speaking for Christ.

Absolutely they're held to a higher standard! Thus the "floor of hell is paved with the skulls of bishops" quote above. But their salvation is a different issue than whether or not they could still be used as a vessel through which Church teaching is protected, which is what infallibility is about.

You follow him... with the possibility of following him somewhere you don't want to go.  Do you knowingly sit under a teacher who is involved in incest spurly? What about murder?  What about fornication openly?  I'm not talking repented sins, under the blood. I'm talking sins, open sins of a lifestyle by a man who is the leader of a whole religion.

I was not POPE bashing... this is about his being INFALLIBLE and the total lack of that possibility being true. 

Ok, you're saying, if I understand, "How could you possibly trust that someone who lived in such unrepentant sin was in any way infallible/correct in their teachings?"

I'm saying, "Because that's exactly the point of infallibility...it's a trust in the supernatural, rather than merely the natural. It's a promise Jesus tied to the role of the papacy, so that even if a sinful man sits in the Chair, God will not allow false teaching to come through him. It's a protection of the Deposit of Faith handed down once and for all, guarded and handed on by the apostles and through their successors. How is it possible that this teaching is protected even through very sinful men? Well, all things are possible with God. I believe He made the promise that it would be protected, and I believe God keeps his promises, and that really has nothing to do with the men through which He accomplishes that. It's about believing God and trusting in His Power."

We believe this because of things Jesus told his apostles, that the Holy Spirit would "guide you into all the truth",  that "Whoever listens to you listens to me. Whoever rejects you rejects me. And whoever rejects me rejects the one who sent me," that the gates of hell would not prevail against his Church, that the Church is the "pillar and foundation of truth." For us, this is all or nothing...it is a promise that all things the Church teaches are guided by the Holy Spirit, regardless of the mouthpiece through which they come, and in listening to the Church we listen to Christ speaking through her. It doesn't mean individuals will be perfect, but simply that the teaching will be correct. It's a trust that despite the natural, despite the sinfulness of individuals within the Church, we trust the supernatural Power of God to protect the Church from error anyway.

I say all this to explain that I don't see this as contrary to the scriptures. But, we can agree to disagree.

As for hypocrisy among the Church hierarchy and whether or not God would allow such things, Paul himself rebuked Peter/Kephas (who we consider the first pope) in Gal 2 when his actions did not line up with his teaching and he started to try and separate himself from the Jewish converts.

11 And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong.
12 For, until some people came from James, 12 he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised.
13 And the rest of the Jews (also) acted hypocritically along with him, with the result that even Barnabas was carried away by their hypocrisy.
14 But when I saw that they were not on the right road in line with the truth of the gospel, I said to Kephas in front of all, "If you, though a Jew, are living like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you compel the Gentiles to live like Jews?" 
15 We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles,
16 (yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified.

So even the apostles had times where they struggled with actually living out what they taught (after becoming Christian). And yet, we all agree God used them and spoke through them, and gave them the special charism of inspiration to write the Bible.

Granted, their sins were not as grave as some popes, but then we get into the question of how much sin is "too much" for God to be able to work through someone. I say, God being All Powerful, there is no amount too large. That doesn't mean the person will be saved, I'm just talking about God being able to work through people, whether they are saved or not.

[kensington]

"The floor of Hell is paved with the skulls of Bishops."

And this is acceptable to your church?  This is "good nuff" gospel?  That your leaders were not men of God? 

I'm sorry, but if that is the bottom line for any church or religion, then we have only ourselves to blame when there is the monstrous acts that have played out in the History of the Catholic Church. 

I have to wonder...  Why?  Just Why?  Why would any church live out such mockery before the LORD and even be shocked when someone questioned the influences and doctrines decreed by the men who lead, and then go to Hell. 

Why? When Jesus who was perfect said that HE would lead you into all truth through His Holy Spirit.  Just as He led the Apostle's.  He never told us to submit to the authority of such.  He said to obey the Law that was already written.  You have Bibles, you have the truth. To excuse and explain how it is that most of your hierarchy is in Hell... just does not make Christian sense. But, whatever.

I have nothing else to say to anything you responded. This one statement is more than enough to speak to the bottom line of all of this. Sadly... it is the testament of the Catholic Church.

[kmv]

kmv.... we have to remember that "grace" is not so that we can do as we please... but that we can come and fall on our knees when we have not been pleasing to Him.

Therein lies the difference in a person who has sin that God can use, and someone who just uses God and all that He provides to sin. 

Of course.  But my question was: Can a sinner be used to teach the truth? 

Actually, I should make that more specific- Can an unrepentant sinner, one who is willfully continuing in his sin, be used to teach the truth?

Hi, Kensington.  Have you had a chance to consider this yet?

[kensington]

KMV... do you mean like this....

I have a brother, who is a drug addict, who has been one since he was in his early twenties... He has been to prison. He has been homeless, He has a drug addicted girl friend he lives with and is not married to...  He is unrepentant, a sinner who is not saved..  He does not work or do any thing for any reason except to get high.  If he is awake, he is looking to get high.

Can God use Him to teach the truth of the word to me? To speak it to me, to minister to my spirit?   NO.  He speaks no truth, He lies... even if it doesn't matter, he lies.

The Bible says that He gives gifts to teachers, pastors, evangelists, Apostles... these are who teach the word of the LORD to His children.  Saved people who understand and walk in ..  the truth...   "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."  (Matthew 5:48)

And ...

"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. " (2 Timothy 2:19) 

Not someone who is Hellbent and has no idea what the word is or that there is even such a thing... they may have been told there was a bible a time or two, and that Jesus Loves them... but to teach is by the Holy Spirit. To have the Holy Spirit is to be a saved, repentant sinner saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  Not men who claim the name of Christ and reject His word and the command to be living what they teach.  Men who live the lie, tell the lie... have no part in Jesus. 

Unless I misunderstood your question. The answer is No. 

[kmv]

KMV... do you mean like this....

I have a brother, who is a drug addict, who has been one since he was in his early twenties... He has been to prison. He has been homeless, He has a drug addicted girl friend he lives with and is not married to...  He is unrepentant, a sinner who is not saved..  He does not work or do any thing for any reason except to get high.  If he is awake, he is looking to get high.

Can God use Him to teach the truth of the word to me? To speak it to me, to minister to my spirit?   NO.  He speaks no truth, He lies... even if it doesn't matter, he lies.

The Bible says that He gives gifts to teachers, pastors, evangelists, Apostles... these are who teach the word of the LORD to His children.  Saved people who understand and walk in ..  the truth...   "Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect."  (Matthew 5:48)

And ...

"Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity. " (2 Timothy 2:19) 

Not someone who is Hellbent and has no idea what the word is or that there is even such a thing... they may have been told there was a bible a time or two, and that Jesus Loves them... but to teach is by the Holy Spirit. To have the Holy Spirit is to be a saved, repentant sinner saved by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.  Not men who claim the name of Christ and reject His word and the command to be living what they teach.  Men who live the lie, tell the lie... have no part in Jesus. 

Unless I misunderstood your question. The answer is No. 

But this contradicts the Scriptures.  In Matthew 23, Jesus says explicitly that the Pharisees are willfully unrepentant sinners - in fact, He spends the whole chapter condemning the Pharisees for their willfull, unrepentant sin. 

Yet, he also explicitly tells the crowds to obey the Pharisees' teachings.

So, according to the Bible-to the very words of Christ Himself, hypocritical, hell-bent, wicked, sons-of-Hell sinners can be used to teach the truth.

How do you reconcile this scripture with your teaching?

[kensington]

"Yet, he also explicitly tells the crowds to obey the Pharisees' teachings."

No, No He didn't. The Pharisees were teaching the LAW... the written law of God. It had already been inspired and written by GOD Himself and they were teaching it from scrolls in the temples.  GOD WORD.

He was telling them to obey the word they spoke, because it was His word that He had spoke into place.

They were not teaching doctrine or concerning morals. God's word was true already.  They were not teaching anything.. they were repeating what HE had already said. Of course that is perfect... but He went on to say... they seated themselves there, He did not put them there, and that they were hell bent.

But, they were not teaching anything. They were repeating God's teachings.  And that is what He told them to obey.  I already answered this back many posts ago...  Why are you asking the same again? 

I told you to read the rest of Matthew 23... I guess you didn't. 

Jesus never called them teachers or told the people to learn from them. He told them to obey the word they were speaking. But, He also said, "No man come to the father except the Holy Spirit draw them"... so it was by the drawing of the Holy Spirit that people learned. Not the sinful men who spoke the prewritten word of God.

[kensington]

KMV... I thought I would put this here again... since you must not have seen it the first time I posted it on page 5. Post # 69"... When I stated the FIRST time, the Pharisees were not teaching doctrine or morals, the were reading in the Temple what GOD HAD ALREADY TAUGHT.

HIS WORD... not their teachings. And I made the comment too... God did away with that part of the Church when Jesus became the High Priest. There were no more Pharisees seated... or reading anything.  He did not put any one on that Seat again.

But... Here is the post...

KVM and Mellevar...  Maybe you should have read all of it... not just the 1-3 verses ...

It says... "The scribes and the Pharisees have "seated themselves" in the chair of moses. (It doesn't say God appointed it to them divinely)  And He went on to say they "add on heavy weights upon the people, while not doing it themselves..

Which is the VERY point I made... They do all they do to be noticed by men. They love the place of honor, they wear the robes, and being called teacher by men.

BUT... DO NOT be called "Rabbi" by men... For the ONE is your teacher (Jesus), and you are all brothers... notice the denouncing of these religious leaders who spoke the law to the people but did not obey it?  He tells them... HE is the one teacher. And in the same passage goes on to say "Do NOT call any man Father".... that would include "Holy Father" a title given to the POPE.  For, He teaches, there is but one Father, the ONE in Heaven.

Then notice He indeed goes on to tell the Pharisees and scribes... WOE TO YOU... HYPOCRITES because you have shut off the Kingdom of heaven from men. For you DO NOT ENTER YOURSELVES nor do you allow those who follow you to go in.  ( He is saying that they religious leaders are leading the people so far astray, they are keeping them from walking with God. )

Woe to you scribes and Pharisees... Hypocrites, therefore you shall receives greater condemnation.

If you are going to read Matthew 23 and the part where Jesus tells the people to follow the law... the law was already written.  He was not giving those Pharisees infallibility.... He was giving the LAW infallibility and saying that the Pharisees preach it, and demand it from others while not obeying.

It's the same principle... Only the Pharisees were not making doctrine on morals as the Pope does, they were teaching the already written LAW to the letter.

And Jesus went on to say that the men who lived as they did, and as many Popes have, are not infallible, it is the Law that is infallible. No man is.. He includes that to preach the LAW or give the doctrine and teach the peoples what you do not practice... brings a greater condemnation up you from Heaven...

It's an interesting read... ALL of it.. Matthew 23:1-29.   Wow... you miss so much when you stop at vs 3!!  Especially if you are trying to use it to defend the infallible arguement. Of course the LAW was infallible... but the men were not. They were in fact, facing judgment!

[kmv]

"Yet, he also explicitly tells the crowds to obey the Pharisees' teachings."

No, No He didn't. The Pharisees were teaching the LAW... the written law of God. It had already been inspired and written by GOD Himself and they were teaching it from scrolls in the temples.  GOD WORD.

He was telling them to obey the word they spoke, because it was His word that He had spoke into place.

They were not teaching doctrine or concerning morals. God's word was true already.  They were not teaching anything.. they were repeating what HE had already said. Of course that is perfect... but He went on to say... they seated themselves there, He did not put them there, and that they were hell bent.

But, they were not teaching anything. They were repeating God's teachings.  And that is what He told them to obey.  I already answered this back many posts ago...  Why are you asking the same again? 

I told you to read the rest of Matthew 23... I guess you didn't. 

Jesus never called them teachers or told the people to learn from them. He told them to obey the word they were speaking. But, He also said, "No man come to the father except the Holy Spirit draw them"... so it was by the drawing of the Holy Spirit that people learned. Not the sinful men who spoke the prewritten word of God.

Of course Jesus told the people to learn from the Pharisees.  He told them to do what the Pharisees taught.

What do you mean when you say they weren't teaching, they were repeating what God had already said?  What other kind of teaching is there, but to tell what God has said??

I'm sorry, but it seems that you are claiming that what Jesus said is somehow not true?

[kensington]

He did not say they were teaching.

He said do what they tell you to do.  God gave the word.  Not the Pharisees... it was God's teaching. The Pharisess were just ordering people around, making religious demands. No where did Jesus say they were teaching.

He NEVER used the word "TEACH" when speaking this passage. He said to do what they tell you to do, but don't walk in their steps... as even to say, don't learn from them, or do what they do. But, do what they tell you to do. 

Jesus told the slaves the same thing... obey those in authority over you. That doesn't imply teaching.  That is just doing as you are told.  You have to remember that is what the Pharisees did... They demanded that it was the "LETTER OF THE LAW" that was to be obeyed.  But, the LAW was handed down from God, already given. It was sound, it was good. To do it was not wrong.  They were not teaching anything... they were only repeating in demand what GOD had taught in the written LAW down from Moses to the day.

The LAW had not changed. The Pharisees were not teaching anything new.  GOD'S LAW. ... and Jesus changed the LAW part to Grace.  He took the WORD out of the Pharisees hands and put it in the hands of common folk who taught it to one another.  Disciples, who went into all the word and made disciples.

No more Pharisees did there be.  No need for a Pope. 

[Bon Voyage]

Matthew 23

1Then Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples: 2"The teachers of the law and the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat. 3So you must obey them and do everything they tell you. But do not do what they do, for they do not practice what they preach. 4They tie up heavy loads and put them on men's shoulders, but they themselves are not willing to lift a finger to move them.

What do teachers do?  Don't they TEACH?

[kensington]

kmv..

IF Jesus told the people to "do what they tell you to do"...

And the Pharisees were demanding the letter of the LAW, and by doing what they said, they obeyed what Jesus had just taught them... "WHO ACTUALLY JUST TAUGHT THE PEOPLE".... was it Jesus, or the Pharisees?

Here am I walking away from that conversation with Jesus.... "I can't stand those Pharisees, they are such liars! Then demand I live up to the LAW but they break it... But, Jesus just taught me... "Go ahead and do what they say, for me, I am LORD, they are heaping condemnation on their heads".... "So, I will do what Jesus taught is right, and obey"... "I don't want to be like them"....

Who did I learn from... Jesus ... or  the Pharisee?  Who taught me what?

Think about it.

[kmv]

He did not say they were teaching.

He said do what they tell you to do.  God gave the word.  Not the Pharisees... it was God's teaching. The Pharisess were just ordering people around, making religious demands. No where did Jesus say they were teaching.

He NEVER used the word "TEACH" when speaking this passage. He said to do what they tell you to do, but don't walk in their steps... as even to say, don't learn from them, or do what they do. But, do what they tell you to do. 

Jesus told the slaves the same thing... obey those in authority over you. That doesn't imply teaching.  That is just doing as you are told.  You have to remember that is what the Pharisees did... They demanded that it was the "LETTER OF THE LAW" that was to be obeyed.  But, the LAW was handed down from God, already given. It was sound, it was good. To do it was not wrong.  They were not teaching anything... they were only repeating in demand what GOD had taught in the written LAW down from Moses to the day.

The LAW had not changed. The Pharisees were not teaching anything new.  GOD LAW. ... and Jesus changed the LAW part to Grace.  He took the WORD out of the Pharisees hands and put it in the hands of common folk who taught it to one another.  Disciples, who went into all the word and made disciples.

No more Pharisees did there be.  No need for a Pope. 

Kensington, apparently you're asserting that even though Jesus told the crowds to do what the Pharisees said, the Pharisees were not being used to teach the truth, because the Pharisees were not teaching, but were instead somehow telling what God says without teaching.

It appears that there's some sort of logical disconnect that we're just not gonna bridge.

[Bon Voyage]

kmv..

IF Jesus told the people to "do what they tell you to do"...

And the Pharisees were demanding the letter of the LAW, and by doing what they said, they obeyed what Jesus had just taught them... "WHO ACTUALLY JUST TAUGHT THE PEOPLE".... was it Jesus, or the Pharisees?

Here am I walking away from that conversation with Jesus.... "I can't stand those Pharisees, they are such liars! Then demand I live up to the LAW but they break it... But, Jesus just taught me... "Go ahead and do what they say, for me, I am LORD, they are heaping condemnation on their heads".... "So, I will do what Jesus taught is right, and obey"... "I don't want to be like them"....

Who did I learn from... Jesus ... or  the Pharisee?  Who taught me what?

Think about it.

Back to Matthew 23 again,  what do the "teachers of the law" do?  Don't they as teachers, teach?

[kensington]

Gary... what version did you get that word "teachers" from... it's not in the King James or the NASB... 

[Bon Voyage]

Gary... what version did you get that word "teachers" from... it's not in the King James or the NASB... 

Scribes = teachers.  I used the NIV.  The King James uses "scribes."  More importantly, the pharisees and the scribes were in the seat of Moses, which is a seat of teaching and authority.

[kensington]

According to what I have found, they had "put themselves" in the seat of Moses.  Which was the "authority to teach"... not only did God not put them there, by His own words.

He was going to pluck out what they taught in their own authority. It was worthless to Him. 

What Jesus said that day... was to obey those in authority. But, He taught it...  He did not say they were teachers, He said they put themselves in the seat of teachers. And that it was going to cause them damnation. 

He told them HE is the ONE teacher in the same Chapter... are you saying, when they put themselves in the seat of Moses, and took the authority for themselves, that gave them more say than Jesus, when He said He was the ONE teacher?

He said it all at once, "obey the authority, even though they are not mine,  I teach you this, and I am the ONE teacher"... (Kensingtons condensed version).

Who was teaching who?  Who was the teacher here?

 

[kensington]

I find this very interesting....

"According to Matthew's Jesus, the religious leaders teach commandments of men which make void the commandments of God (15:6). Their teachings are plants which will be uprooted (15:13) since they were not planted by God, but by an enemy (13:37-39). Their teachings placed emphasis on human ordinances which affected the outer man while leaving the inner man untouched (23:25-28). Their teachings miss the deeper spiritual truth which Moses intended; they 'strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel' (23:24). Jesus considered the teachings of these leaders to be leaven, which left unchallenged, would leaven the whole (16:11-12). The leaders erred, because they 'knew not the Scriptures' (22:29). Their traditions had led them away from true loyalty, truth, and faithfulness-the weightier matters of the Torah (23:23)."

Evidently, wrong teachers teach wrong things... According to Jesus. 

And that He is the ONLY infallible teacher.  Jesus alone.

[Bon Voyage]

According to what I have found, they had "put themselves" in the seat of Moses.  Which was the "authority to teach"... not only did God not put them there, by His own words.

He was going to pluck out what they taught in their own authority. It was worthless to Him. 

What Jesus said that day... was to obey those in authority. But, He taught it...  He did not say they were teachers, He said they put themselves in the seat of teachers. And that it was going to cause them damnation. 

He told them HE is the ONE teacher in the same Chapter... are you saying, when they put themselves in the seat of Moses, and took the authority for themselves, that gave them more say than this that Jesus said when He Hiself said He was the ONE teacher?

He said it all at once, "obey the authority, even though they are not mine,  I teach you this, and I am the ONE teacher"... (Kensingtons condensed version).

 

I am not playing the "so you are saying" game. 

They were in a position of authority and teaching (the seat of Moses) in Judaism.  Matthew 23 states this.  Period.

Further, in God's Word, it is clear God is in control, even of those who "put themselves" in a position of authority.

Proverbs 21

1 The king's heart is in the hand of the LORD;
       he directs it like a watercourse wherever he pleases.
30 There is no wisdom, no insight, no plan
       that can succeed against the LORD.

I am not advocating anything about the pope one way or the other, but making a point that is wrong to advocate the truth, is still a wrong point, and it does a disservice to the truth.

[Bon Voyage]

And that He is the ONLY infallible teacher.  Jesus alone.

And who said otherwise?

[kensington]

And that He is the ONLY infallible teacher.  Jesus alone.

And who said otherwise?

That would be the point of this topic Gary. The Catholic Church says the Pope is infallible.  And I said... give me a break. Jesus is the ONLY infallible teacher.

What topic did you think you were in?