God's plan to bring about Redemption was predetermined. The cross makes salvation possible for anyone and everyone who believes. The idea that man has no choice in this but is fated to choose or reject it is what I was saying is not historical. You would think if "Reformed Doctrine" had been taught by the Apostles then the generation they taught and subsequent ones would believe it but quite the opposite is true.
Ignatius of Antioch (
35-107 AD) … Seeing, then, all things have an end, and there is set before us life upon our observance [of God's precepts], but death as the result of disobedience, and every one, according to the choice he makes, shall go to his own place, let us flee from death, and make choice of life. For I remark, that two different characters are found among men-the one true coin, the other spurious. The truly devout man is the right kind of coin, stamped by God Himself. The ungodly man, again, is false coin, unlawful, spurious, counterfeit, wrought not by God, but by the devil. I do not mean to say that there are two different human natures, but that there is one humanity, sometimes belonging to God, and sometimes to the devil. If anyone is truly religious, he is a man of God; but if he is irreligious, he is a man of the devil, made such, not by nature, but by his own choice (Letter to the Magnesians 5).
http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/ignatius-magnesians-longer.html
Irenaeus of Lyons (120-202 AD) This expression, ‘How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not,’ set forth the ancient law of human liberty, because God made man a free (agent) from the beginning, possessing his own soul to obey the behests of God voluntarily, and not by compulsion of God. For there is no coercion with God, but a good will (toward us) is present with Him continually. And therefore does He give good counsel to all. And in man as well as in angels, He has placed the power of choice (for angels are rational beings), so that those who had yielded obedience might justly possess what is good, given indeed by God, but preserved by themselves… (Against Heresies Book IV, Chapter 37)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0103437.htm
Justin Martyr (110-165 AD) "We have learned from the prophets, and we hold it to be true, that punishments, chastisements, and rewards are rendered according to the merit of each man's actions. Otherwise, if all things happen by fate, then nothing is in our own power. For if it be predestined that one man be good and another man evil, then the first is not deserving of praise or the other to be blamed. Unless humans have the power of avoiding evil and choosing good by free choice, they are not accountable for their actions-whatever they may be.... For neither would a man be worthy of reward or praise if he did not of himself choose the good, but was merely created for that end. Likewise, if a man were evil, he would not deserve punishment, since he was not evil of himself, being unable to do anything else than what he was made for." (First Apology chap. 43)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0126.htm
Clement of Alexandria (150–215 AD) "A man by himself working and toiling at freedom from sinful desires achieves nothing. But if he plainly shows himself to be very eager and earnest about this, he attains it by the addition of the power of God. God works together with willing souls. But if the person abandons his eagerness, the spirit from God is also restrained. To save the unwilling is the act of one using compulsion; but to save the willing, that of one showing grace." (Clement, Salvation of the Rich Man chap. 21)
Tertullian (160-225 AD)
I find, then, that man was by God constituted free, master of his own will and power; indicating the presence of God's image and likeness in him by nothing so well as by this constitution of his nature. For it was not by his face, and by the lineaments of his body, though they were so varied in his human nature, that he expressed his likeness to the form of God; but he showed his stamp in that essence which he derived from God Himself (that is, the spiritual, which answered to the form of God), and in the freedom and power of his will. This his state was confirmed even by the very law which God then imposed upon him. For a law would not be imposed upon one who had it not in his power to render that obedience which is due to law; nor again, would the penalty of death be threatened against sin, if a contempt of the law were impossible to man in the liberty of his will. So in the Creator's subsequent laws also you will find, when He sets before man good and evil, life and death…
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/03122.htm
Archelaus (250-300 AD) "All the creatures that God made, He made very good. And He gave to every individual the sense of free will, by which standard He also instituted the law of judgment.... And certainly whoever will, may keep the commandments. Whoever despises them and turns aside to what is contrary to them, shall yet without doubt have to face this law of judgment.... There can be no doubt that every individual, in using his own proper power of will, may shape his course in whatever direction he pleases." (Archelaus, Disputation With Manes sees. 32, 33)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0616.htm
Methodius (260-315 AD) "Those [pagans] who decide that man does not have free will, but say that he is governed by the unavoidable necessities of fate, are guilty of impiety toward God Himself, making Him out to be the cause and author of human evils. " (Methodius The Banquet of the Ten Virgins discourse 8, chap. 16)
http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/062308.htm
As you can see, freewill rather than pre-determinism was the original doctrine uniformly taught by the Early Church. Pre-determinism, in any form, was regarded as pagan. Still, in the 400s it was foisted upon the Church by force through Augustine who is considered by many to be the father of the Catholic Church. His ideas (which came from Gnosticism) were popularized much later by Calvin and Luther because of their strong affinity for Augustine. You claim to not be related to the RCC but the doctrinal kinship is much closer than you imagine
