Dude, do you really think the only reason I believe Calvinism to be biblical is because John Calvin said it? No dude. I really don't care who said it. Calvinism is the term given it, and such, for the purpose of discussion I accept it as the term given. I don't care if it was termed "osdtl;e5bu9ae57nj574" I'd use that term for it. It's linguistics dude.
You could atleast give me a little credit that is due.
It is because of a chat with a Calvinist who presented a biblical case for Calvinism that I believe Calvinism to be accurate. I even did the "verses that say all" routine with him, and he went through and explained how all doesn't always mean all, but rather is subject to it's context.
I have learned a lot more sense, and have debated Arminians many times. Each time, I have not seen one that could adequately deal with scripture at an exegetical basis in this area of theology. George Bryson, Dave Hunt, Ergun Caner, Norman Geisler, the Calvary Chapel crowd etc etc... I've not seen any of the major critics present anything that worked.
This whole "because someone did something bad they can't be right" in and of itself does not work to establish anything. The Apostle Paul has done things that were wrong (persecuting early Christians), does that mean he couldn't have ever said anything right? Well, of course not. So now you'll have to re-work your Ad Hominem Fallacy in order to feel fulfilled in using it. You don't fool any of us.