Addressing the Filioque Debate Based on OUR Common Sense Hermeneutics

I do not presume at all to have the answer to this perpetual debate which has not been solved till today although the Roman church was willing to compromise (not concede) since Pope John Paul. However, I would like to propose how our hermeneutic principles may be able to solve this with some degree of confidence in the Holy Spirit (and also because we try to use common-sense communication practice).

Our common sense hermeneutics can be summarize as follows:

1. There is NO MYSTERY in the languages of Scripture (Hebrew, Aramaic, Greek). These were the common languages of their day. No secret codes to uncover. These are plain HUMAN languages used and empowered by the Holy Spirit ONLY in the proper spiritual context of the reader. The mystery or mysticism, if you will, is in the work of the Holy Spirit in the Bible student's heart and life when the plain language is understood correctly.
2. The Old Testament (Tanakh) is the undisputed Word of God. This was explicitly authenticated by the Lord Jesus Christ Himself in Matthew 5:18-20 and mind you, "righteousness that exceeds" was added by Christ in the context of a HIGH VIEW OF SCRIPTURE, not Tradition. 
3. The Gospels main job as exemplified by Christ is to explain the Old Testament. However, since the principles come from the Logos, we tacitly assume that it is the Word of God. Furthermore, Christ Himself declared that his word were the word of God in Matthew 24:35. However, in order for God NOT to contradict Himself, NO statement of the Christ can contradict the Tanakh, but only interpret it correctly.
4. The Epistles (not at all authenticated by Christ but hinted through the ministry of the Holy Spirit, hence largely inferential) main role is to interpret the gospels and the Old Testament where necessary. Any new doctrine or practice that does not explain anything previously revealed in either the Old Testament or the New Testament is considered cultural, descriptive and NOT at all prescriptive
5. [added December 10, 2020] For those of Eastern Orthodox persuasions: We have to differentiate the first century church (mostly Jewish based) Tradition from the 3rd generation of Christian Tradition (mostly Gentile and many non-Greek). We may strictly follow the first century tradition which produced the Scriptures but we have to be a bit more critical with the Gentile-sourced traditions which were mostly interpretations (unfortunately, mostly allegorical and inferential too) of Scripture already completed. The Filioque is a Gentile era issue.
6. Explicitly declared principles should take precedence over allegorical or inferential interpretations  (Numbers 12). The clear should interpret the unclear. (Common sense in normal human conversations or even when determining truth by the Supreme Court).  We pay attention to the SHOUTS of God (preponderance of declared statements) and pay little attention to whispers of God (e.g. predestination).
7. Interpretations should have no contradictions within Scripture. (Most allegorical or inferential interpretations will find contradictions). NO COUNCIL MAY CONTRADICT THE CLEAR DECLARATIONS OF SCRIPTURE NO MATTER HOW GOOD THE INTENTION.
8. God reveals progressively (Hebrews 1:1-3). No new revelation in progressive revelation should contradict any previous revelation (or else, God contradicts himself!)
9. Our exegetical method uses the Wesleyan (Outler) Quadrilateral. Scripture is the final authority because it is the FORMAL product of first century church tradition. Hence, any succeeding tradition after the New Testament was completed as written (despite scribal or pseudo-scribal errors) SHOULD NEVER CONTRADICT Scripture. ALL the seven Ecumenical Councils cannot contradict Scripture or its intent. We use Tradition (that does not contradict Scripture) to enhance our understanding of the written Word. Then we use Reason to synthesize Scripture and Tradition. Finally we rely on the Experience of the Holy Spirit (Who does not speak to us clearly when we are not pure in heart) to again "inspire" us, meaning, move us to understand, be convicted and obey or abide by what God says, in much the same way he moved men to write it.

Definition and background of Filioque

The "filioque" debate is what caused the Great Schism of 1054 AD. The Schism separated what is now the Eastern Orthodox from what is now the Roman Catholic Church. Protestants came out of the Roman Catholic branch when it became too apostate. 

When the Nicene Creed was written it did not have the "filioque" in the statement of the personality of the Holy Spirit.

"The original wording of the Creed ran, "and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father"..., the Latin insertion changed it to read, "and in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father and the Son" (https://saintandrew.net/article/A+History+of+the+Orthodox+Church)

The phrase, "and the Son" is core of the filioque debate.  

Orthodox objected to this insertion on two grounds: 1) the Ecumenical Councils had expressly forbidden any changes to be introduced into the Creed, and 2) this insertion disturbed the balance between the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, leading to a false understanding of the work of the Holy Spirit in the world." (https://saintandrew.net/article/A+History+of+the+Orthodox+Church)

Outline of facts:

1. The filioque was not part of the Nicene Creed nor was it part of some versions of the Pseudo-Athanasian Creed.
2. The New Testament was written and understood originally in Greek and the Greek or Eastern Church never bothered to question it and therefore, tacitly assumed its verity and conformity to the Apostle doctrine
3. The filioque was assumed and stated by the Latin churches as early as 600 years before the Great Schism. This could mean that this is how the Latin churches understood the Nicene creed. However, the creed was written in Greek and using the language of the New Testament Greek. This give credence to mis-translation of the Greek to Latin or the misunderstanding by the Latin churches of the Greek.
4. It was a unilateral decision of the Latin church and later pope to include the filioque in their version of the Nicene Creed. This means that they edited the Nicene Creed without the wisdom of an Ecumenical Church Council. The Eastern Church disapproved of this. History does confirm that once the Pope can make unilateral decisions without that wisdom, many other heresies and apostasies ensue because the ecclesiastical rules have changed. Interestingly, Sola Scriptura has made little "popes" like Martin Luther and John Calvin as well as Zwingli which has broken the universal church even worse than the first schisms. The latest Pew Survey counts 30,000 protestant denominations in the USA alone.
5. All these debates involve Gentile churches or non-Jewish churches. This is a timeline issue similar to progressive revelation and should follow our principles above. This principle is important in supporting iconoclasm and rejecting the veneration of saints due to the danger of idolatry. This would put the 3rd council and the 7th council in question but Scripture CANNOT be contradicted. We obey God rather than man when it comes to a choice.
6. Most council issues after the 4th Ecumenical Council were debated based mostly on allegorical or inferential interpretations of Scripture. Furthermore, most issues were peripheral matters and did not affect cardinal doctrine. Essentially, the councils should have been convened only to address attacks on cardinal doctrines (heresies) and the later councils exceeded their mandate and tradition.
7. Protestants today cherry picked what to include in their denominational beliefs, many times contradicting first century tradition. They championed Sola Scriptura and divided the church further. Majority championed justification by faith and lost the essence of the New Testament which is freedom from bondage to sin. Most protestants today accept the filioque without question ignoring the fact that it is a Latin church interpretation of the Greek Nicene creed, i.e., tacitly accepting the tradition of the Latin church which almost all of them consider apostate.
8. The FIRST COUNCIL OF CONSTANTINOPLE (381) approved what is the current form of the Nicene Creed as used in most Oriental Orthodox churches. The Filioque was absent.
9. In the FIRST COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431) "After quoting the Nicene Creed in its original form, as at the First Council of Nicaea, without the alterations and additions made at the First Council of Constantinople, it declared it "unlawful for any man to bring forward, or to write, or to compose a different Faith as a rival to that established by the holy Fathers assembled with the Holy Ghost in Nicæa."

The above arguments seem to favor the rejection of filioque. However, I wish to make clear that Paul and the first century Christians never even bothered with this issue. This tells me that if one just sticks to what Scripture says, this is one issue that is peripheral. 

Note, also, that the Ecumenical Councils are all Gentile councils. Though we use Tradition in our bible exegesis, we need to take this every important point into consideration: Gentiles could tend to misinterpret the Greek New Testament from a highly JEWISH authorship and viewpoint. Both Roman and Eastern Catholic churches cannot even appreciate the gravity of the the second of the Ten Commandments in both Hebrew and the context of the Torah into which it was declared by God Himself. Jewish tradition also confirms the rejection of icons, and who, but Moses and the Jews can truly understand what God means with the second commandment???