I think that is a very valid point. Protestants rarely go back to the writings of the early church father. I never did, only because I thought most Christians were in agreement on many of the issues that we discuss here. Protestants are ignorant of history and it shows.
It was only after reading some of these disagreements that I thought one has to go back to the early church fathers and look at the history of the Church. Trouble is, as we see here, there are different ways to interpret history and the church fathers (like Augustine).
One thing I do appreciate about the Orthodox and the (cough) Catholics is the references to the fathers. I wish more of my Protestant brothers would do the same. As some may know, given a reference and the opportunity, I will go out and read the work. However, while the early fathers might have been godly men, I don't revere them and often read them with a critical eye-exactly the same way I read Calvin, Wesley and Spurgeon. I'm basically a cynic.
Again, very well stated.
I would suggest to you, though, that our basic construct is essentially the same, but applied in different directions, and that thus your claim to be a skeptic is not completely true. Allow me to elaborate.
You are a Christian thinker in the Reformed tradition. This means that at some point, whether by rearing, personal contacts, reading, or some combination of the above, you came to the point where you decided that Protestantism, in its distinctively Reformed manifestation, was the truest form of Christianity. You did not understand or know everything there was to know about Reformed thought at the time you made that decision (lets leave out the whole predestination thing for the sake of argument, OK?), but you had seen enough to trust that tradition of Scriptural interpretation and theological reasoning.
Therefore, while you do indeed read Calvin critically, you are evaluating in the light of, for want of a better term, the consensus teachings of developed Reformed theology. As you know, Calvin's teachings and the consensus teachings of Reformed theology are not one and the same, therefore you will disagree with Calvin from time to time, just as you will disagree with other reformers from time to time.
But you *do* approach Calvin, Knox, Zwingli, Van Til, whoever, with the basic presumption that because they are within that tradition, their teachings are essentially correct on most things until proven otherwise. You do not open the Institutes with the attitude of "I don't believe any of this stuff, but there might be a point or two I agree with here and there."
We likewise approach the Fathers knowing that probably every Father will have written some things that are not in line with the consensus patrum. But we approach them expecting that we will find that most of what we read will be basically true, since the Church found their writings worth painstakingly copying by hand through the centuries.
By contrast, I approach Calvin knowing that I really don't share a common faith with him, and that while I will find many things that I agree with, especially on core subjects such as the virgin birth, Christ's resurrection in the body, etc..., I am very skeptical in my approach, and keep him at metaphorical armslength. In turn, you approach the early Church Fathers in the same spirit of skepticism, keeping them at metaphorical armslength. This is a very different skepticism with which you approach Calvin or Knox, because you already know that those two guys are in line with your own "consensus patrum" on most things, whereas the Church Fathers are not.
Would you say that this is a fair portrayal?