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.
"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."
No, that isn't what I meant to say, anyway. If there is one thing that I *don't* believe, it is this idea that Protestants turn to the Bible and get their doctrines straight from it -- then look for a place that fits it.
Most people who are serious about their faith have been introduced to the doctrines of that faith by someone. Something rings true, and the process of exploration begins. At some point, a critical mass is reached, and the decision to commit at some level to that tradition takes place.
I think this is very different from what you thought I said, and in line with what you describe as your experience.
So what do you think about the writings of St. Ambrose of Milan (St. Augustine's teacher), and of St. Hillary of Poitiers? These are easily the two most respected of the western fathers in the Orthodox Church.