You're going under the asinine assumption that everyone refuting you is Calvinist. Truth be known, you already charge one person who is as anti-Calvinist as you are with being a Calvinist. Stunned is probably a Calvinist, but she hasn't bothered studying it enough yet to even know if she is or isn't. I am Calvinist, and yet have never read more than two sentences of Calvin, don't really get who most of the Calvinist teachers are, and can't even explain the 5 Solas yet.
I'm a Calvinist, simply because I knew I was too lazy to do the research to understand the times and customs of the Bible to reference it for those times and customs, so, viola! I decided to use commentators, because at least those guys studied enough to comment on that book. And, viola again! It seems the vast majority of people who do bother taking a lot of time to study the book end up being reformed, so... they convinced me enough to believe it. (And, they did have to convince me, because I do not buy crap on someone's simple say-so. Prove it first!)
I'm just getting to that point of learning what in the world are Calvinists now, and I've been a Calvinist since the late 1980s to early 1990s.
It's really not about being Calvinist, as you seem intent on believing. We're studying the Bible in it's vastness, and when we do that it makes sense. And, it just happens to be the opposite way you're doing it, when you demanded, in your other thread, that everyone takes one verse to prove a chapter. So you're idea is to piecemeal scripture, while ours is to believe it as a whole.
Which, BTW, is why you are making absolutely no sense even when you argue your points. And it's bad enough that even non-Calvinists can see what you're getting wrong.
So don't go blaming any of this on Calvinism. Blame it on you picking out phrases out of context and hurling them as if it meant anything to anyone.