No priests but elders, pastors, and teachers are yet given to the church and we are yet to learn from them and share all learned things with our teachers, who then will guide and correct. Many never have done this. I don't believe one can be a teacher or effective elder if they haven't gone through that learning process.
From reading a few comments here, I infer that you went through formal seminary. I don't wish to give offense, but I haven't seen that many good results from the process, and they don't always seem to result in wisdom or growth in the spirit. I have seen some bad examples. Learning is valuable, but it may be that what one learns from a formal school may be more of what the formal school wants you to learn, rather than being what the spirit and scripture would speak if one were to step forward in faith and ask for understanding. I would that forums like these were more like Malachi 3:16 rather than reenactments of the philosophers arguments on Mars Hill.
Malachi 3:16-17 KJV
(16)
Then they that feared the LORD spake often one to another: and the LORD hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the LORD, and that thought upon his name.
(17) And they shall be mine, saith the LORD of hosts, in that day when I make up my jewels; and I will spare them, as a man spareth his own son that serveth him.
The Holy Spirit will not contradict the scriptures. "If" He contradicts a creedal statement, that correction would take a great intervention from Him to correct it and I'm convinced He would do so.
Matthew 23:15 KJV
(15) Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!
for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made,
ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.
I'm not sure I heard you correctly. You are implying that the holiness of a "Creedal Statement" is so great that God would not or could not stand by and let a creed (from anyone) be in error? Surely that's not what you meant. We aren't supposed to trust statements of men like that. That doesn't sound like how we are admonished to act.
Acts 17:11 KJV
(11)
These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind,
and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so.
In practical use, creeds are a way of turning off the "searching of the scriptures" and issued of a sort of shibboleth. Say it correctly, ever so correctly, and agree exactly with the creed, or be shunned as a heretic. That Trinity creed is oft used this way, as evidenced in the 2600+ posts of this thread forum. One can trust the scripture and believe each and every passage, but if they run afowl of the creed they are condemned and attacked. Yet if one supports the Creed they can contradict scripture, evade questions, deny logic, and they are upheld by the brotherhood of the creed. I hate pulling up James White again, but he's an excellent (bad) example.
:nono: Don't know who told you this. It is incorrect.
You don't know who told me this? That God's prophets have never been popular or accepted? Did you ever read Foxes' Book of Martyrs? What about scripture itself? Matthew 23:33-37, the parable of the vineyard in Luke 20, Micaiah vs the king of Israel (1 Kings 22), Ahab and Jezebeel vs Elijah, Israel's demand for a king instead of the prophet Samuel, the whole scripture is full of this story. The prophets of God are seldom popular or accepted. You don't know who told me this? Seriously?
Matthew 23:33-37 KJV
(33) Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?
(34) Wherefore, behold, I send unto you prophets, and wise men, and scribes: and some of them ye shall kill and crucify; and some of them shall ye scourge in your synagogues, and persecute them from city to city:
(35) That upon you may come all the righteous blood shed upon the earth, from the blood of righteous Abel unto the blood of Zacharias son of Barachias, whom ye slew between the temple and the altar.
(36) Verily I say unto you, All these things shall come upon this generation.
(37) O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!
Now certainly the prophets were killed BUT there were colleges that Isaiah and his contemporaries attended. Again, "if" God has called you to be a lone-ranger, He would 1) authenticate and 2) do so in a way that would bring wayward people back to Himself.
Seems to me that we are in
an age when the plough-boy may know more scripture than the priests and bishops, when knowledge is increased and many run to and fro. The holy spirit can give wisdom and understanding to those who are unlearned, as God is championed by the weak and lowly of this world, and he is glorified in their weakness. Am I denigrating knowledge or study? Far from it, but it should not be something that is trusted in by itself lest it become a false assurance, a replacement for faith, or an idol.
How many priests of Baal stood against Elijah? Quite a few, I remember. The majority is not the deciding factor of truth. Yes, there was a great sign there as to whom God was supporting in that showdown, but that is not always the case. Right now Islam is widespread along the globe, and it has its own creeds. What special sign was invoked to oppose that creed? For some signs we must be patient. The ultimate sign is Christ's return, when the Rock strikes the image at its feet. In the meantime, what are we told?
Revelation 22:11-12 KJV
(11) He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still.
(12) And, behold, I come quickly; and my reward is with me, to give every man according as his work shall be.
Frankly, most cultists have the exact same lone-ranger 'private interpretation' messages that are incredibly 'self' serving rather than God or church serving. They will also serve scripture revelation and never go against it. That person would have to be divinely enabled and, in the office exercised: nearly infallible in doctrine and life.
Using David as a guide, a prophet and a man after God's own heart, I don't think that "infallible in doctrine and life" is necessarily the best measure. On the other side of the spectrum we have Jonah who was a prophet of God, and what we see of his life is far from infallible in doctrine and life. His message was true, but his heart had problems. Yet Jonah was only going along with the established majority view concerning the Gentiles. He would have been in agreement with the elders and the teachers. Apparently, God was not.
Luke 9:49-50 KJV
(49) And John answered and said,
Master, we saw one casting out devils in thy name; and we forbad him, because he followeth not with us.
(50) And Jesus said unto him,
Forbid him not: for he that is not against us is for us.
When God himself responds like that, does it really seem that his intention was for everyone to play a game of follow the leader, cite the creed, sign the prepared statement of beliefs? In that instance, Jesus and John had different reactions. Between the two, I think we would do better to follow the heart of Jesus. I think that was the decision that John ultimately made as well.
We know from the Samaritan woman that their contention was prideful and arrogant and against scripture. Jesus, though loving her, told her she needed to accept truth and place importance on it "salvation is of the Jews." That didn't give her ANY wiggle-room. The time is coming and is now here when those who worship the Father must do so in Spirit and Truth. There is no compromise or apology for His statement. He didn't say "Good girl." He raised her acceptable worship bar and made it clear which hoops she necessarily had to jump through.
Question? The "Samaritan woman was ... against scripture?" That doesn't make any sense. That wasn't part of their discussion.
Question? "Salvation is of the Jews." From the way you say that, I am not sure what you think that means? Salvation is of the Jews. Jesus was of the Jews, Jesus is their salvation, salvation is of the Jews and was born in Bethlehem. But did you consider the implication of the rest of that passage?
John 4:20-24 KJV
(20) Our fathers worshipped in this mountain;
and ye say, that in Jerusalem is the place where men ought to worship.
(21) Jesus saith unto her, Woman, believe me, the hour cometh,
when ye shall neither in this mountain, nor yet at Jerusalem, worship the Father.
(22) Ye worship ye know not what: we know what we worship: for salvation is of the Jews.
(23) But the hour cometh, and now is,
when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him.
(24) God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
We are no longer called to come to a mountain or travel to Jerusalem. "Spirit and truth" are the requirements, not "Creed and Council." Is it not written, that the just shall live by faith? Would you put a yoke around our necks and bind us to man-made laws and "fences" like that of the Pharisees, whom "neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?" If we are to live by faith, it must be by genuine understanding in alignment with the spirit and word, not memorized words or signing on to the popular creeds without question.
One is by faith, the other is devised by men.
Romans 14:23 KJV
(23) ... for whatsoever is not of faith is sin.
But, according to you, you don't need me or another to teach you, right? You'd know all this already, correct?
I am not sure we see eye to eye yet. You described "shall worship in spirit and truth" as "hoops she necessarily had to jump through?"