Calvin’s theology wasn’t unique to him alone.
You have to excise large portions of Paul’s teachings to refute Calvin.
Yet you miss my point.... the name Calvinism applied to what is touted to be “true Christ Logos in Flesh “ washed doctrine argues against it being so.
For example, though others have tried to argue it so in direct opposition to Paul, we don’t say Paul’s preachings and teachings are principles of “Paulist-ism” the same way that scriptures are used in a way to support “Calvinism”. We accept that Paul preached under the influence of the Holy Ghost and thus accept his scriptures and letters as having the imprimater of the Godhead itself and themselves ...the three in One.
So my argument ....Calvinism so long as it is identified as such is man made while Paul’s preaching was God breathed. Calvinist views aren’t all bad and it doesn’t deny the Jesus Christ came in the flesh. Yet it’s like adding a garnish like parsley to the Lords Supper or the Eucharist if you wish to call it that. It looks nice, it might frshen the breath but does it have a place in a meal of bread and wine, flesh broken and blood poured out?