No, they are not.
I have already shown how Calvin himself did not teach strict determinism but believed in both divine sovereignty and human volitional agency. Here are linked to other noted Calvinists doing the same.
(see also pt. 2)
"Reformed theology recognizes that all people have freedom in the compatibilist sense. Adam before the Fall acted according to his desires, which then were godly. After the fall, sinners still act according to their desires, but those desires are sinful. The redeemed are enabled by God’s grace, and progressively, to desire things which are excellent; and they are free to act according to those desires." - John Frame[/indent
J. I. Packer
John Piper
"Here again are the three definitions:
Definition 1: Our will is free if our preferences and our choices are really our own in such a way that we can justly be held responsible for whether they are good or bad. On that definition, free will exists both in fallen and redeemed human beings.
Definition 2: The human will is free when it is not in bondage to prefer and choose irrationally. It is free when it is liberated from preferring what is infinitely less preferable than God, and from choosing what will lead to destruction. Based on this definition, only those who are born again through Jesus Christ have free will.
Definition 3: We have free will if we are ultimately or decisively self-determining, and the only preferences and choices that we can be held accountable for are ones that are ultimately or decisively self-determined. On this definition, no human being has free will, at any time. Only God does." John Piper
Charles Spurgeon
"But we do hold and teach that though the will of man is not ignored, and men are not saved against their wills, that the work of the Spirit, which is the effect of the will of God, is to change the human will, and so make men willing in the day of God's power, working in them to will to do his own good pleasure." Charles Spurgeon
Charles Spurgeon
"And oh! my hearers, my last thought is a solemn one. I have preached that you will not come. But some will say that, "it is their sin, that they do not come." YES IT IS! You will not come — but then your will is a sinful will. We do not set man's inability to come to Christ down as being part of man's original nature — but as belonging to his fallen nature. It is sin that has brought you into this condition that you will not come. If you had not fallen — then you would come to Christ the moment he was preached to you. But you do not come — because of your sinfulness and crime." - Charles Spurgeon
John Hendryx
"As for discussion about this issue, " I sometimes get the question: "God is sovereign, on that I have no doubt. But God's sovereignty doesn't rule out the fact that we make choices, right?" My answer to this kind of question usually goes something like this: "The choices a fallen man makes are voluntary and self-determined, not coerced, but are in bondage and taken captive by sin, so they make evil choices of necessity, so they are not free. Free from coercion yes, but not free from necessity, due to a corruption of nature. Calvin said, "We do not say that fallen man is forced unwillingly into sinning, but rather that because his will is corrupt he is held captive under the yoke of sin (Rom 7:6; 2 Tim 2:26) and therefore sins of necessity.... As for God's sovereignty, we wholeheartedly affirm that God's predetermination and meticulous providence is "compatible" with voluntary choice. In light of Scripture, human choices are believed to be exercised voluntarily but the desires and circumstances that bring about these choices about occur through divine determinism (see Acts 2:23 & 4:27-28)."
I can probably do this for every single Calvinists any of us have ever read because Calvinism is not determinism. When the Calvinist speaks
correctly of "divine determinism," or providence or foreknowledge, or any of the related terms s/he does so simultaneously asserting God's almighty sovereignty
and real human agency. S/he does so in complete consistency with WCF's statement God ordained all at eternity without authoring son of doing violence against human will or causes ensuing from His First Cause of creation. The two are not mutual exclusives and all-or-nothing is not the correct way to understand monergism. Monergism isn't a doctrine that goes far beyond soteriology. It does not assert its truth over other doctrines; it relies on the truths of those doctrines. It relies on the truth of Theology (the nature of God), that of Christology, hamartiology, etc.
Now this post may be read with the thought, "
That's what I have been saying all along," and I do not also doubt it might have been construed I was asserting something different. I'm sure I may have been read more Calminian or Armvinist to our synergist siblings even though I am neither.