By this logic, OP, one could then say that the spirit "proceeds" from others in the "mediatorial" manner when you consider Matthew 10:20 "for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you." Orthodoxy tends to stay with the basics. The Divine Economy is eternal, thus the Word is eternally begotten by the Wisdom, and the Spirit eternally proceeds (wells) from the Wisdom. That never changes, always keeping in mind that God is transcendental. Instead, you are thinking of the Pentecost -- a singluar point in time. Open up a little more; you are getting there. :-)I agree with your point; good citation on Matthew 10:20.
However, even granting a "mediatorial" procession of the Spirit through the Agency of the Saints, you still have to admit the Son as the "First Mediator" of the Procession of the Spirit at the very least -- A.) Temporally, because (being Eternal Himself) He obviously is the First Sender; "Before Abraham was, I am"; and B.) Causationally, because unless the Son first send the Spirit to the Saints, the Saints have not the Spirit to send out into the World.
As such, I still think it is Biblically-correct to say that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father, through the Son". I think that such a formula does the best possible justice to John 15:26, even admitting the secondary-mediation of the Saints described in Matthew 10:20.
However, I admire the Eastern Orthodox desire to stick with the Scriptural basics as regards the economy of the Trinity -- which is why I am uncomfortable with the Roman-Latin filioque since, its meaning simply being "and the Son", it does not in and of itself explicitly and carefully preserve the apparent economic distinction of Trinitarian Offices evidenced in John 15:26.
As such, I still think it is Biblically-correct to say that the Spirit proceeds "from the Father, through the Son". I think that such a formula does the best possible justice to John 15:26, ...
Certainly the scripture speaks to this:
John 15
26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
In the passage, He speaks of the Spirit proceeding from the Father but, with regard to Himself, He mentions only that it shall testify of. Not that it in any way proceeds
from Him.
It seems somewhat acrobatic to read this in any other than in its own simple testimony. I simply do not see how you derive "from the Father, through the Son" from the rather unambiguous verse 26.
I assume you were aware that this is one Calvinist/Baptist who does agree with the Orthodox on the matter of the filioque, a doctrine promulgated by Rome at the Synod of Toledo in Spain in 447, a rather late date in establishing the fundaments of faith. I've no doubt that some other FReepers will come unhinged at the idea that Calvinists actually have any differences of opinion but certainly we are not the minions of some spiritual dictator as they often accuse us, ironically so given the well-known practices of their own denomination.
I consider that the Bible speaks plainly enough on the matter. And beyond that, I need not inquire.
To many, this seems a rather abstract question. But it is quite relevant to central statements of scripture that “No Man cometh unto the Father, but by Me,” and “No Man cometh unto Me, except the Father which hath sent Me draw him.” From a Calvinist standpoint, I find the filioque to disturb the basic relationships of Father and Son and mankind and it certainly muddies many otherwise clear passages in scripture. Whereas, without the filioque, this is beautifully clear in its meaning, particularly so for Calvinists.