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.
"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.)."
Never thought of that. You may be right. I will say that the Thubingen divines, to my recollection, never raised that point with the EP, though.
Harley, I don't know if this link covers it or not, but if I remember correctly Calvin wasn't opposed to pictures of Christ necessarily, as in paintings, sculptures etc that were strictly confined to the sphere of art, what he was adamantly opposed to was their display and use in Churches.
I think both he and Augustine felt that once a person rested his eyes on an image of Christ, the natural process of the spiritual extension of one's hand to the Father or to the Son was blunted in a way that was not advisable. In other words, when you prayed before a statue, you really were praying before the statue, even if in part. Icons are bit different to me though, in that they don't have that dimensional aspect to them that enliven them the way a statue can become enlivened.
I'm not totally sure how I view this controversy, as Christ was a man too, so a representation of him on the Cross doesn't seem to me fall under the proscription of graven images. One thing though, that I think is a really bad idea, and that is to picture God the Father. All of the images I've seen of God the Father, picture him as an old man, and who once seen as such, the mind can't help but consciously or sub-consciously contemplate his not-too-distant death.