sorry for weird formatting at the end (at least on amethyst) must have accidentally triggered a markdown thing
Have you ever read the [Westminster Confession of Faith](https://opc.org/wcf.html)? Specifically, chapter 31 "[Of Synods and Councils](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_31)," reads:
>All synods or councils, since the Apostles’ times, whether general or particular, may err; and many have erred. Therefore they are not to be made the rule of faith, or practice; but to be used as a help in both.
Instead, the "rule of faith" is Scripture itself--it carries the authority of its Author. Regarding your point about maintaining "the faith once delivered" (with which we would wholeheartedly agree--we "agonize" for it!) it's not that we move away from or go beyond that faith, but our understanding of those doctrines matures over time--we go "deeper in," so to speak--especially in the face of controversy. The intent is to further refine not the truth itself, but our understanding (and expression) of it, i.e., in our creeds and confessions. When a proposition is imperfect it allows false teaching--we then refine the proposition to say "Oh, we mean this--and not that." These documents give us a rallying point for voluntary association, for summarizing and teaching the faith, and for propagation of the message, while plowing with others "of like faith and practice." This actually protects congregations from tyranny (where every pastor is a pope!) because we can point to an external (secondary) standard and say "no: we don't believe that, not here." Leaders can thus be held accountable (think Paul's exhortation to the Ephesian elders in Acts 20).
~~~
I remember reading about the filioque controversy, thinking how sad it was that much of it seemed to be merely a difference in emphasis on who or what (technically, how many) "principia" there are in God. As a triune being, one God existing eternally in three persons, this is bound to cause difficulty--mysteries are not puzzles to be solved. The EO wanted to emphasize God's oneness (a single principium), while the West wanted to affirm the full deity of the Son "with the Father" (which means two principia). I can see the reasoning in both emphases. The East (it seems to me) found this overly intellectual and retreated to "God cannot be known, but he can be loved," and the West went the other way ("how can we love a God we cannot not know?").
For my part, I believe in the perspicuity (clarity) of God's Word--that he is able to speak to us in a language we can understand (with the above caveat), with the purpose that we *know* the truth in its fullness (as the Spirit was given "to lead us into all truth") and on the basis of texts like Deut. 29:29. We say that we can know God as he is "pro nobis" (as he has revealed himself to us in Scripture and in the Son), though we cannot know him "in se" (as he is in himself--apart from what he has 'voluntarily condescended' to reveal to us). Just to wrap up: sola scriptura does not mean solo scriptura: we read the Scriptures "with the church," but the doctrinal statements themselves are of 'secondary' status and can be refined, corrected, etc. -- though the Scriptures cannot be (see WCF chapter I "[Of the Holy Scripture](https://opc.org/wcf.html#Chapter_01)" if you'd like to dig a little deeper into what the Western, Reformed & Protestants confess.
I don't know anyone IRL who is in the EO church, so I (again) appreciate this dialogue.
Discussion
I am familiar with WCF. I studied at a local presbyterian seminary which is less well known in presb circles, but dont want to give too much info for the sake of anonymity lol. Dr. James Anderson taught my Pastoral Studies class and was the first to convince me of the doctrines of grace. I remember fondly the strength of the systematic framework and apologetic power. Not to state that as an argument for authority at all, simply to state that I had a long season in reformed theology, specifically presb tribe, moved to reconstructionist though at the end.
I cant say i disagree with anything you've said in your explanation. If I were plucky, I would poke a bit on a specific consensus list of where the councils erred, and a orthodox view of the filioque heresy, but for know, I'm thankful that I met someone who can handle a bit of back and forth peacefully. I appreciate you brother.
No kidding! Well, very cool to know and good to meet you. I should have signed up under a nym but I'm too far down the path now I think. Besides, I'm probably already on all the naughty lists anyway.