Ahh, but one must be cautious of the unintended consequence, my friend. Look at the inverse/reverse. When one declares TRUE, all else (that which is in opposition) must be made false. Things that are declared are necessarily enforced and defended, and suddenly a bright line develops... EVERYTHING outside of that line becomes heretical in an instant.
Look at what has happened on this thread. Our FRiend DouglasKC is not an unthinking man. Whether I agree with him or not, I appreciate his thoughtful approach to things, and his willingness to examine things in a thoroughgoing manner. And in the big picture, the formulation he adheres to is only incrementally opposed to trinitarianism - He does not deny the Father, or the Son, or the Spirit - and his view is quite defensible according to the Word. In fact, his notions wrt the Holy Spirit are directly in line with the older tradition of the Hebrews - The Ruach HaKodesh is defined by them in nearly identical terms.
Yet on this thread (and others), he has been excoriated, and thrown outside the camp. He has not been met with intellect and reason. He has been met with acolytes clamoring.
That is what creeds do.
Well, first, I agree that DouglasKC has managed to maintain an wonderfully civilized level of inquiry here. It's a blessing.
The word heresy is too often used of folks who aren't smart enough to agree with me -- even though they ARE wrong, and on purpose too. ;-)
BUT I think this. While I hold that non-Nicene blah blah theology is a heresy, that does NOT mean that all who hold it are heretics. It is consistent with my view to hold merely that they are in error. The ACT of heresy involves a willfulness hard to muster in so skeptical an age and, strangely, there are those who for quite good reasons can disagree with moi with no grave sin attached to that disagreement.
But second, and this to me is VERY important, somehow conversation falters when I just swagger into the room and say, "You, you, and you over there: you're all wrong. Have a nice day."
I mean seriously that to enter into conversation, REAL conversation, is an act of intellectual hospitality. To have this conversation with you is, for me, too re-examine my view on what we might call "articulable orthodoxy," while talking with DouglasKC means trying to go over Trinitarian thought de novo. One reason I really scaled back my participation here in that too often both sides fall into a mutual exchange of rants, like an artillery duel.
I would say that my years of swinging the cudgels here has brought me to a deeper appreciation of reason (and a more persistent wondering just what exactly the heck reason IS) than I came in here with, just as the conversation about "idols" led me to read John of Damascus and to a deeper appreciation of the Incarnation.
So despite the heat and noise, these conversations CAN be helpful. But they are less so when the attitude is not peer to peer, brethren in seeking to know Truth better.
Sorry for preachiness. In haste....