no the distinction is exactly the topic. I claimed that the Popes taught error through their actions…You have mentioned the Pharisees (who also taught error)….so how does mention of the Pharisees address whether the Popes taught error through their actions?
The words of Jesus I cited earlier indicate that he saw speaking truth and living virtuously as two completely separate matters.
I’d use “used” instead of “appointed” as the latter suggests that a formality is required
Sure.
I don’t know ….obviously the command was qualified. It wouldn’t include listening to their rejection of Christ and following that teaching. Perhaps it was about listening to what they read from scripture.
Jesus never mentioned that; you are engaging in eisegesis.
In any event, under the new covenant we aren’t required to listen to the Pharisees.
Indeed. But the principle Jesus laid down remains, since he never abrogated it: to obey religious authorities
in spite of their grave sins.
Our leaders are not to conduct themselves in the same manner as did the Pharisees:
A dispute also arose among them as to which of them was considered to be greatest. Jesus said to them, “The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those who exercise authority over them call themselves Benefactors. But you are not to be like that. Instead, the greatest among you should be like the youngest, and the one who rules like the one who serves. For who is greater, the one who is at the table or the one who serves? Is it not the one who is at the table? But I am among you as one who serves.
No disagreements here. But where do Jesus, Paul, or anyone else in the New Testament command us to disobey religious leaders
on the basis of their less than virtuous lives?
Matthew 11:45-52: [45] Many of the Jews therefore, who had come with Mary and had seen what he did, believed in him;
[46] but some of them went to the Pharisees and told them what Jesus had done.
[47] So the chief priests and the Pharisees gathered the council, and said, “What are we to do? For this man performs many signs.
[48] If we let him go on thus, every one will believe in him, and the Romans will come and destroy both our holy place and our nation.”
[49] But one of them, Ca’iaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all;
[50] you do not understand that it is expedient for you that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation should not perish.”
[51] He did not say this of his own accord, but being high priest that year he prophesied that Jesus should die for the nation,
[52] and not for the nation only, but to gather into one the children of God who are scattered abroad.
The high priest, despite his denial of Christ as Messiah and Lord, speaks under divine inspiration. Even if Ca’iaphas was leading a good Jewish life, he cannot have been speaking infallibly on this point–according to your principles–given that he would stubbornly refuse to enter the New Covenant.
Acts 23:1-5: [1] And Paul, looking intently at the council, said, “Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience up to this day.”
[2] And the high priest Anani’as commanded those who stood by him to strike him on the mouth.
[3] Then Paul said to him, “God shall strike you, you whitewashed wall! Are you sitting to judge me according to the law, and yet contrary to the law you order me to be struck?”
[4] Those who stood by said, “Would you revile God’s high priest?”
[5] And Paul said, “I did not know, brethren, that he was the high priest; for it is written, `You shall not speak evil of a ruler of your people.’”
Doctrine is not at issue here, but Paul fails to inform the high priest that Caiaphas’s denial of Christ as Messiah and Lord means that he has lost his position.
again, you have missed the point…the point was that the sinful Popes taught error through their actions…
I did not miss your point; rather, I find your argument not only unscriptural but also… disingenuous.
As to your question, God can use the unrighteous to teach,
You have essentially conceded the argument right here.
but doesn’t so as a rule…
Where does Scripture teach this? Where do we see examples in the New Testament where someone loses their position for being a serious sinner. Paul in Galatians chapter two fiercely condemns Peter for the latter’s hypocrisy, but never calls for his resignation and retirement from ministry.
and the unrighteous teach w/o his authority with the unrighteousness of their actions…
See above.
#51 for example…it is about repentance
Indeed.
David’s sin was not typical of his entire time as king. David was a man after God’s own heart (was righteous) and had an episode of unrighteousness. David committed his sin in secret and then repented when confronted. There was but a brief time that his unrighteousness proclaimed: This is how a king should live.
Pure sophistry. From a university textbook for a course I am taking (pages 44-45): “when a learned man (‘alim) commits a sin before the people, they imitate him; but while he might repent his action, they continue to follow his sinful way.” --Tamim Dari (d. 661), cited in “An Introduction to Islam”, David Waines: Cambridge University Press, 2nd edition, 2003
The popes involved in their scandal-causing public sin and the hierarches who said and did nothing have had to give an account before God for the choices they made. So did Ca’iaphas, I expect, for not even giving Jesus a fair hearing. But none of this has anything to do with the question of church infallibility.
)