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?
I would say this is a fair portrayal. I have always held from my first day as a Christian, original sin, as well as OSAS (a very poor interpretation of Perseverance of the Saints).
When I first heard of the Reformed belief I wanted to know if the basic principles were indeed what the early church taught. I did three things; first, I reread the scriptures from an entirely Reformed perspective; second I studied some of the early church teaching focusing on Augustine since he was considered one of the leading theologian of the times; and third I studied the evolution of church doctrine throughout history. I did not studied the details of the Reformed beliefs through Calvin or Reformed writers but through the early western church writings. I wasn't interested in the details of the Reformers until I could understand where the basic concepts came from.
The Orthodox Church has a different history from the western church and it's very difficult to trace that history and doctrinal development. However, I believe there is enough historical evidence to say the synergistic view of the Orthodox church can be legitimately traced back to the early church. There are reasons why I disagree with the Orthodox position but most of those reasons are embedded in many of my discussions both the the Orthodox and Catholics. The views of the Catholic Church (and many Protestants today) are the views of the Orthodox Church-not the original western views.
Where I would disagree with your statement, if I understand it correctly, is the implications that I had established my views and these views lined up with the Reformed perspective, so I was naturally inclined to the Reformed view. While there is some merit in this statement, I was very concerned that I had the right perspective and was willing to abandon everything. To be honest, it was far more of a culture shift to accept the Reformed monergistic perspective than it would have been to maintain what I now know to be an Orthodox's synergistic perspective.
Unfortunately, while the Reformed perspective was the primary view of the western church, it has largely been abandoned. It is openly derided. It would be far easier for me to take the path most traveled by. I have had people tell me I'm foolish, ignorant, hand me slips of papers at church with various Bible verses on it "correcting" my egregious interpretations, etc. At the risk of sounding arrogant, I know I'm right on primary doctrinal points. I feel I would not be true to the gospel or God, and certainly I would be remiss to other fellow believers, if I did not try to offer corrections.
Here I stand. I can do no other. May God be merciful.