Here's a link to a fascinating commentary on Calvin and +John Chrysostomos. I never knew any of this. It leads me to wonder, however, if Calvin and at least some of the Reformers were so enamored of The Fathers, why they didn't simply become Orthodox? I have referred before to the letters of the Thubingen divines to Pat. Jeremias II and his responses. That exchange simply became, at least on the Lutheran side, argumentative and contentious, as if they refused to accept that the East might have a clue about what the eastern Fathers had written. From what little I can see of Calvin, he didn't feel that way. Any ideas?
By the way, here's a link to a very interesting article on this subject:
http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/religious_studies/SBL2005/Ward.htm
This is a fascinating article. It will require far more time for me to go through it than I presently have. However, I have bookmarked it.
I have only read about half the article so I don't wish to sound like I'm bashing the author or trying to find fault. Calvin does go back and forth between Chysostom and Augustine in Romans-but not in Romans 7 as this author points out. Calvin mentions Chysostom in chapter 6 and 8 but never in chapter 7. I'm not sure why the author brings Chysostom into the picture for a study of Romans 7 when Calvin never mentions him.
Furthermore, in Romans 7 Calvin specifically mentions that Augustine corrected himself about the man "under the law" in his first letter to Boniface which this author did not mention. I went and looked up the letter to Boniface. In this letter Augustine is talking (among other things) about the value of baptism. To be fair, I skimmed the letter (it is 3 o'clock in the morning). If my understanding is correct, Augustine is making a case that baptism spiritually changes you (albeit doesn't guarantee anything). If I understand all of this correctly, Calvin's and Augustine's point are one in the same. That, under both systems, Romans 7 is saying that without some act of regeneration (either through God or through baptism) man remains under the law. Once regenerated either through the Spirit (Calvin) or baptism (Augustine) man is capable of living for God although his flesh remain carnal. This is precisely the same point.
Now I will confess that I did not go back and read the early writings of Augustine that this author is referring to, to see any changes in Augusstine's though. But it would seem to me this is a significant letter (Boniface) for the purpose of baptism within the Church.
I believe the Reformers probably did not become Orthodox for the same reasons I did not become Orthodox. They saw the Pelagius error in the system-that man needs to do something for God (cooperate, have faith, etc.). Man's free will was always the view of the eastern church as far as I can tell. But as I have repeatedly stated here, it was never the "true" view of the western church. The western church was heading (and is heading) towards an Orthodox view. The Reformers had no other recourse but to leave if they were to maintain the true belief of the western church.