The terms you use here - Calvinism, Arminianism, Reformed Provisionism are
anachronistic with respect to the ECF since these theological constructs simply did not exist when the Early Church Fathers were teaching and preaching. In fact, until Augustine came in the
Fifth Century, no one taught
total unilateral determinism of every
physical event in the universe together with every thought emotion, desire and
choice of mankind.
If we had to label them we would have to call
both the Eastern (Orthodox) division of Christendom and Western (Roman Catholic) divisions syngergistic since they both believed humanity had to respond to God's offer of salvation. The Western Roman Catholic Church as they continued following Augustinian determinism believed more and more like him. The Reformers being avid devotees of Augustine took his teachings even further.
When I have listened to Leighten Flowers teaching on what he calls "
Provisionism" and it seems to me he is attempting to preserve free will in salvation while guarding the doctrine of OSAS. By contrast, Wesley who knew the ECF writings very well used what they taught to argue that while salvation has been
provided for all mankind and ontained by faith the individual must
continues walking in the faith until the very end of their lives to inherit full and final eternal life in the world to come.
This, I believe, is exactly what the ECF taught and it agrees perfectly with what the Apostles taught.
24 As for you, let what you have heard from the beginning remain in you. If it does, you will also remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that He Himself made to us: eternal life.…
(1 John 2:24-25)
If we continue believing the message of the Gospel we will continue walking by faith to abide and we will remain in the Father and Son and this ongoing union with Him is itself the
definition of
eternal life.
When you call Calvinism and Arminianism the two primary historical systems defining how divine grace and human will interact. You create a false dichotomy that did not apply to those who lived before Calvin and Arminius. You believe this dichotomy is universal and that it is a template by which we can measure soteriological truths.
When you take the position that salvation must be either initiated and secured unconditionally by God or left totally up to us you have assumed a false dichotomy. The Apostles did not say securing salvation was UNCONDITIONAL. They only said it could not be EARNED by the performance of MERITORIOUS WORKS. While Repentance and Faith are not meritorious but they are the necessary for the preparation of the soil to receive the seed of life.
Before a person would be willing to submit to such radical treatments as chemotherapy and radiation they first have to know they are in desperate need of treatment and that the only alternative is death. Knowledge of our sinful state is the result of CONVICTION which produces godly sorrow which leads to repentance. Only when we fully know our desperate condition will we reach out for the savior.
After Paul had tried over and over to be better he finally gave up and cried out: 24 What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death?
(Romans 7:24)
There is no third option between monergism and synergism regarding the initial new birth or regeneration? Isn't there? What I have proposed is synergistic but but it is not about our earning salvation since none of us deserves it. However, to say the human will contributes nothing to this initial act is also untrue. There are conditions we must meet and only the Holy Spirit can bring us to that point. However, we can resist Him. The word itself warns us not to harden our hearts, resist or grieve the Spirit which assumes that we can. Though Israel had been given the deed to the Land and, though God's presence gave them the power to take it, they failed to do so because of their unbelief
Apart from extremely grateful and happy that God showed me such mercy and kindness 
.