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
Calvinism is more than a mental assent to the Doctrines of Grace, much like salvation is more than a mental assent to the trinity and the Virgin birth or believing that the sinners prayer saves anyone
That being my position I feel the necessity of those that hold the doctrines of grace to defend them, even if the "offender" has a mental assent to the Doctrines of Grace and calls himself a Calvinist
Personally when I see Reformed posters nit picked, misquoted, mocked and corrected or rebuked for expounding the Doctrines of grace and/or the reformation, or when I see one that states he is a Calvinist seeking to find truth in the very basics that Luther, Calvin and others found in serious error, I find no need to wear a false fellowship mask for public consumption based on ones "self proclaimed" doctrinal position or church membership .
So, it may trouble you to find friends that all "say" they are Calvinists having public disagreements on the very basics the Reformation sought to correct, be of good cheer as the doctrines are being correctly presented through the lens of the Reformation and any presentation that is through the Catholic church and their doctrine is dutifully corrected and rebuked .
Respectfully, Jude -- Calvinists are hardly liable either for Martin Luther's over-estimation of Princely Authority (which resulted in the massacre of the Peasants), or for the excesses of Cromwell (who was the anti-presbyterian Warlord of the Independency; a "Calvinist" of sorts in his Soteriology, but not in his Ecclesiology or Theonomy). "Calvinism", if read in the light of Calvin's Institutes, rejects both the Tyranny-prone Monarchism of Luther, and also the Demagoguery-prone popular-Congregationalism of Cromwell.
I praise the God for Luther.