You're 95% right.
[T]he Scriptures do endorse the Protestant contention of Sola Scriptura, the doctrine that the Bible Alone contains within itself all teaching necessary for a Finite Man to attain a perfectly-rightful (albeit Finite) understanding of the things of God:
The phraseology I prefer is that the Bible, properly intepreted, is the only infallible rule of faith and of life.
can certainly believe in any individual Fallen Man's propensity -- even once he is Redeemed -- to get things wrong from time to time
Even the best of us - even titans of the Faith like St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas - have a tendancy to prejudice our interpretations by projecting our own experiences against the words of the text. It is simply impossible to strip all that away.
Jude would reject the "one head is better than two" Papist approach to reading Scripture and the Magisterium, favoring instead the Presbyterian-Conciliar approach ordained in Scripture itself;.
I don't subscribe to Papal infallibility, but especially this current Pope has a lot of credibility with me. He seems to recognize the most serious threat to modern Christianity is secular post-modernism. So I'll listen to him, just like I'll listen to any church leader with whom I share my disagreements.
Jude would agree with John Knox that the Reformation generally, and Calvinism in particular, produced amongst Christendom "the best school of Christ since the Apostles", affirming the Protestant contention that the Reformation (warts and all) was indeed a Work of the Holy Spirit;
I agree with Reformed theology, and believe it to be the most accurate, but there are a lot of warts there - and the resulting schism is something to be lamented. It may have been necessary, but if so, it is like chemotherapy - a radical treatment that is in fact poisonous itself.
that the longer and more-universally a Creed or Confession has become accepted amongst Bible-believing Christians, any Magisterial Teaching is always subject to the possibility of proper revision or clarification under the "Constitutional" bar of Sola Scriptura
That's certainly true in the case of the later early church father's like Augustine, or the monastics like Aquinas. I would argue, however, that the Creeds and the early writings like the Didache are the lens through which the New Testament must be interpreted, because the canon was not crystallized until after they were written, and these were unquestionably orthodox. Those writings are binding authorities on the interpretation of the Scripture.
The problem today is as it has always been, SIN . The solution is what it has always been, Gods grace.
We can not make a goat a sheep, we can not change the unregenerate nature of the reprobate by forcing him to adhere to OUR morality . If men were saved by their own merits and "goodness" perhaps the approach of trying to enforce a Christian code of ethics on the reprobates might make sense. But if salvation rests on God and His grace alone, and if God is truly sovereign over all things making alliances with those with whom we are unequally yoked or praising the work of men or seeking alliances with unregenerate men for a social end is fruitless and sinful IMHO.
Remember in Genesis when Abram refused to take booty from the King of Sodom ? He did not want it said that the King of Sodom had any hold over him or a part of his fortune.
That was great wisdom, and something we should consider when making alliances. Even the reprobates can see the social issues among us, that gives them no spiritual standing with me..
I couldn't disagree more.
It may have been necessary, but if so...
"If so" ?!?
To compare the Reformation to flesh-destroying chemotherapy is vile. Do you know anything of the Counter Reformation, Jude? You mimic it pretty precisely.
If one believes in a sovereign God, then one realizes all who come to faith are led exclusively by His will alone.
You nor I cannot increase or decrease the number of saved men and women by even one digit. So don't lament what you have no control over. Lament for those who are numbered among the elect, and haven't heard the Good News yet.
But rest assured. They will.
I was going to object to your characterization of the Reformational Schism as being similar to "necessary-but-poisonous chemotherapy", but since I last had a few moments to post, other GRPLs have already argued against your statement on two grounds:
However, since you've already been debated on this point by numerous others, I'll refrain from pressing the matter further. No need to "pile on"; and besides, that dispute is mainly one of poor word choice and misunderstood sentence construction, and I wanted to discuss a different matter with you.
(Re: the subordination of Magisterial Teaching to Scripture)... "That's certainly true in the case of the later early church father's like Augustine, or the monastics like Aquinas. I would argue, however, that the Creeds and the early writings like the Didache are the lens through which the New Testament must be interpreted, because the canon was not crystallized until after they were written, and these were unquestionably orthodox. Those writings are binding authorities on the interpretation of the Scripture."
I must object that there can be NO "binding authority" upon the interpretation of Scripture except the supreme authority of Scripture itself (which we must consider our "Constitution"); ANY declaration pronounced by a Presbyter or a Council of Presbyters must be regarded as equivalent to either a single Judge's Ruling, or a Supreme Court Judgment, respectively. And any "Supreme Court Judgment", no matter how long-established as Precedent, is always subject to "constitutional" (i.e., Biblical) future challenge (e.g., Plessy v. Ferguson, for example).
The fact that the Didache and some other early Magisterial writings appeared prior to the formal finalization of the Biblical Canon does nothing to change the inherent supremacy of the Books of the Biblical Canon over all Magisterial Teachings.
Lee Strobel (MSL, Yale Law School), former Legal Affairs Editor for the Chicago Tribune, quotes Dr. Bruce Metzger (Ph.D., Professor Emeritus Princeton Theological Seminary) in this regard in his book The Case for Christ:
For somebody now to say that the Canon emerged only after councils and synods made these pronouncements would be like saying, 'Let's get several academies of musicians to make a pronouncement that the music of Bach and Beethoven is wonderful.' I would say, 'THANKS FOR NOTHING! We knew that before the pronouncement was made.' We know it because of sensitivity to what is good music and what is not. The same with the Canon." (emphasis mine)
In short, if one truly believes (as Protestants do, and Romanists say that they do) that the Canonical Books of Scripture are the uniquely-inspired, wholly-infallible Word of God, then one MUST regard their every word as being genuinely-Miraculous in Authority (a "Miracle" being defined as Direct Divine Intervention in the Natural course of affairs).
As such, the Scriptures Alone must be regarded as being so far above ANY Magisterial "commentary", even the Didache and the Early Patristics, as we would regard the Resurrection of the Dead above any natural textbook on Medicine, even the best textbook on Medicine.
The Didache and the Early Patristics may be -- in fact, are -- excellent Medicine, which a Christian ignores at the peril of his spiritual health... but the Canonical Scriptures are Miraculous Life, in and of themselves -- without comparison, or "binding", to any Magisterial commentary whatsoever.
Having said that, Jude, I will say also that I never like to see Calvinists fighting against eachother. I hope that we can all agree to temper our disagreements in charity. I'll probably sound "preachy" if I say anymore than that, so that's all that I will say on the subject.
Best, OP