The history of the Church in understanding the Creed is important. The contributing role of Arianism and the Pneumatomachi cannot be ignored if you want to understand why the words came to be so carefully considered in 381. The original purpose was to ensure that people could understand that the argument that the Nicene Creed is not scriptural and lacks a scriptural base is without merit. I quite like Beveridge on the Creed (https://www.anglican.net/works/william-beveridge-church-catechism-explained-1720/#p4) however I don't know that he was seeking to exegete it, but rather to discuss its meaning for us. I don't think that the filioque was a big issue for the reformers in general who attention was focussed on other matters, notably matters of indulgences, the authority of the Church vs the authority of scripture, and the incapacity of man to save himself save for faith in the redeeming work of Christ. Essentially it wasn't the topic of the day. I personally think that to dismiss a position of the filioque as 'may personally feel' is a little disingenuous. I have not sought to argue for or against the filioque, though it is clear that I have a considered position on the subject, I certainly allow room for others to have a considered position which may be different to mine.