Well known Calvinist that have died for the faith

You, then as now miss MY point.

My post by Rhodes SHOWED the QUOTE and THE SOURSE.
Rippons Showed me were to find it in Gill's book.

I never once refer BACK to Rhodes but the SOURSES from which the Quotes originate and give where they can be found.
The best one can deduce from Rippons quotes is that a person supposedly said according Gill such and such with NOT sourse to validate.

I gave YOU each quote you questioned regarding the paraphrased ones, the original quote and it's sourse to VALIDATE the paraphrase. THEN I WENT BACK and ADDED the exact quotes and original sourses.

Each time you see (after that) that list was the revised version. (and you are exagerting greatly - 20 times - when it is more like 6 or so IF I remember right).

The point is, what started out as Rhodes quoting people much like Gill did, the quotes he gave were revamped by me to show the original quotes and their sourses, which Rippon did not. So when you see stuff like this now
Regarding Early Church Fathers and the Reformers who did not hold to the "L":

It is mine Though it's basic outline (people and dates) began with Rhodes.
But these are just some of the leaders.

But again ALL of this was discussed and set straight in THAT thread and each thread after that. The fact is you can not deny the quotes given and that they state Christ died for ALL of Mankind, which does not deny the same Truth that Christ Specifically Redeemed some of ALL.

BUT ... what I was stating FROM THERE that you are contending exactly the opposite of your own position earlier, that "

Which us a complete contradiction to your preset claim of being about to prove such. You can not prove the early church Fathers held to the "L" of present day Calvinism nor did many of the Reformers themselves!
Irresistable grace can not be found in the early Church Fathers nor can its inference or intension.
Your 'Doctrines of Grace' or better name by the Presby "Soveriegn Grace Doctrines" are held together in the 5 pillars which establish the Theology of Calvinism which is shown in TULIP. These 5 constitute the Soveriegn Grace Doctrines and if the Early Church Fathers did not adhere to them ALL they can not fall under your little cloak. Many held some points or 2 or so points but NONE held your 'Calvinism'. That is why BOTH the Cal's and Non-Cals can lain Theological claim to many of the SAME early Church Fathers, and in relation to Unlimited Atonement a good many of the Reformers to.

 

Deleted Post.

 

I don't believe we have two 'seperate doctrines' but the issue is seeing the mechanics of the same doctrines opperating differently.
Both theologies hold to
Man depravity
God's Election
Christ's Atonement
God's Grace
The Keeping of Gods Saints

Our doctrines are the same but the doctrines (mechanics) regarding those main doctrines differ but we come to the exact same conclusions. So we don't have differing doctrines just a different view of how they opporate and even then they are very similar in most instances.

However, why do infra's debate with supra's (regarding those of Calvinism) over their doctrines. Do they hold seperate doctrines of grace?? Are they not all in Christ? Why not just leave each other alone?
They disagree as to the mechanics of their opperation but still hold the same doctrines and debate to try and validate which one has the better argument according TO scripture. It is a way of iron sharpening iron.
Why must the Calvinist make the Non-Cal feel they are seperated from their brothers in CHrist?
It should not be in either case but both Theological camps are guilty of this, yet that does not mean all of each are thus guilty.

Regarding your grade:
I give you a solid "B". Why?

Because you still neglected to answer #4