For Calvin, if a practice wasn’t prescribed in the Bible you didn’t do it. On the question of the relation of faith to reason, Luther came down heavily on the side of faith. Calvin came down on the side of reason. Since this partition between the dominance of faith or reason has been one of the great dividing lines of the history of the Church, it’s no surprise that it made a difference between them.
If Peter is supposed to be a Calvinist warning against the Arminian interpretations of Paul (as I’ve heard some say), then he certainly chose words unlike any Calvinist I’ve ever heard…
I believe the vast majority of Calvinists seek to be clear about their belief in Calvinism when interviewed by a pastoral search committee. I personally know some Calvinists who seek to make this very clear in the interview process. However, and quite unfortunately, that is not always the case.
Individual Human Responsibility. A major weakness in the Calvinist scheme is found here. It is a basic teaching of scripture that individuals are held accountable for their sin. This is the basis for judgment in both human law courts and the divine court.
It is a false argument posed by the Calvinists that requires the lost sinner to have spiritual understanding before they can be saved. The only thing the Bible requires is recognition of the lost condition which the Holy Spirit provides in conviction (John 16:8).