Who believes that reality limits what we can say about it? Who believes reality speaks for itself? If the latter is believed, then there is the obvious fact of it being wrong, given all theories of reality are developmental. Who would think appealing to reality as authoritative would make any difference at all in some theory of reality? That would be the equivalent of saying “What I believe about reality is true, is true … because reality exists!”
In fact, this is no different than having “scripture” substituted for “reality” in the above. All things are equal here. Scripture exists but it doesn’t speak for itself.
There is no more sense in saying Einstein was a Newtonian heretic than suggesting Arius was an Athanasian heretic, or Saint Augustine being Antichrist for framing scripture in Manichean and Neoplatonian terms (i.e. imputation of a “totally depraved” nature through “original sin”, “election”, etc.). Or indeed, John and Paul creating Christology in the image of Greek, Stoic and Neoplatonic philosophies.
It is a grand perversion to suggest anything more than that scripture exists, must be studied, limits conversations about it, but does not speak for itself. Ultimately, like reality and scripture, there are authorities. Neither can be authorities on themselves, but are objects of study.
I very much doubt anyone would suggest to Einstein that in the book of Newtonian gravity there’s a comment that says “this book is from God and is therefore authoritative” and therefore, Einstein was a heretic, the Antichrist, or wrong. And yet, some that agree what an odd thing to do will employ the exact absurdity over a book written by men; which of course is not demonstrable except to fiat and desire to believe it.
There is no scriptural authority except those spending their lives studying it.