So you believe that Calvinism is "biblical" and interprets the Bible "correctly"? Read Origen's apologetic against the Gnostics of his day and take note of the verses they used and what they taught. Notice the parallel with Calvinism. Origen refutes their interpretation and obliterates their beliefs.
"Let us observe how Paul, too, addresses us as having freedom of the will and as being our- selves the cause of ruin or salvation. He says, "You are treasuring up for yourself wrath on the day of wrath and the revelation of the righteous judgment of God—who will render to everyone according to his works." . . . There are, indeed, innumerable passages in the Scriptures that establish with exceeding clarity the existence of freedom of the will. But, since certain declarations of the Old Testament and of the New lead to the opposite conclusion-namely, that it does not depend on ourselves to keep the commandments and to be saved, or to transgress them and to be lost—let us examine them one by one and see the explanations. . . . The statements regarding Pharaoh have troubled many, respecting whom God declared several times, "I will harden Pharaoh's heart." For if he is hardened by God and commits sin because of being hardened, he is not the cause of sin to himself. If so, then Pharaoh does not possess free will. . . . There is also the declaration in Ezekiel, "I will take away their stony hearts and will put in them hearts of flesh so that they may walk in My precepts and keep My commandments." This might lead someone to think that it was God who gave the power to walk in His commandments and to keep His commandments—by His withdrawing the hindrance (the stony heart) and implanting a better heart of flesh. And let us look also at the passage in the Gospel . . . "That seeing they might not see and hearing they may hear and not understand. Lest they would be converted and their sins be forgiven them."
There is also the passage in Paul: "It is not of him that wills, nor of him that runs, but of God who shows mercy." Furthermore, there are declarations in other places that "both to will and to do are of God" and "that God has mercy upon whom He will have mercy; and whom He wishes, He hardens." . . . And also, "But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? Will the thing formed say to him who formed it, 'Why have you made me like this?' Does the potter not have power over the clay—from the same lump to make one vessel unto honor, and another unto dishonour?" Now, these passages are sufficient of themselves to trouble the multitude—as if man were not possessed of free will, but as if it were God who saves and destroys whom He wills. Let us begin, then, with what is said about Pharaoh—that he was hardened by God so that he would not send the people away. . . . Some of those who hold different opinions [i.e., the Gnostics] misuse these passages. They essentially destroy free will by introducing ruined natures incapable of salvation and by introducing others as being saved in such a way that they cannot be lost. . . . Let us now see what these passages mean. For we will ask them if Pharaoh was of a fleshly nature. And when they answer, we will say that he who is of a fleshly nature is altogether disobedient to God. And if he is disobedient, what need is there for his heart to be hardened—not only once, but frequently? Unless we are to think that . . . God needs him to be disobedient to a greater degree in order that He could manifest His mighty deeds for the salvation of the multitude. Therefore, God hardens his heart. This will be our answer to them in the first place.
Since we consider God to be both good and just, let us see how the good and just God could harden the heart of Pharaoh. Perhaps by an illustration used by the apostle in the Epistle to the Hebrews, we may be able to show that, by the same operation, God can show mercy on one man while he hardens another, although not intending to harden. . . . "The earth," he says, "drinks in the rain that often comes upon it and produces crops to those for whom it is farmed, receiving the blessing from God. But that which produces thorns and briers is worthless, and is in danger of being cursed. Its end is to be burned." . . . It may seem profane for the One who produces rain to say, "I produced both the fruit and the thorns that are in the earth." Yet, although seemingly profane, it is true. If the rain had not fallen, there would have been neither fruit nor thorns. . . . The blessing of the rain, therefore, fell even on the unproductive land. But since it was neglected and uncultivated, it yielded thorns and thistles. In the same way, the wonderful acts of God are like the rain. The differing purposes are like the cultivated and the neglected land. . . . If the sun had a voice, it might say, "I both liquefy and dry up." Although liquefying and drying are opposite things, the sun would not speak falsely on this point. For wax is melted and mud is dried up by the same heat. In the same way, the operation performed through the instrumentality of Moses, on the one hand, hardened Pharaoh (because of his own wickedness), and it softened the mixed Egyptian multitude, who departed with the Hebrews. . . . Now, suppose that the words the apostle addressed to sinners had been addressed to Pharaoh. Then, the announcements made to him will be understood to have been made with particular application. It is as to one who—according to his hardness and unrepentant heart—was treasuring up wrath for himself. For his hardness would not have been demonstrated nor made manifest unless miracles had been performed, particularly miracles of such magnitude and importance. . . .
If it is not we who do anything towards the production within ourselves of the heart of flesh—but if it is [all] God's doing—it would not be our own act to live agreeably to virtue. Rather, it would be altogether an act of divine grace. This would be the statements of one who from the mere words annihilates free will. But we will answer, saying that we should understand these passages in this way: It is like a man who happens to be ignorant and uneducated. On perceiving his own defects—either because of an exhortation from his teacher, or in some other way—he spontaneously gives himself up to an instructor whom he believes can educate him and teach him virtue. Now, on his yielding himself up, his instructor promises that he will take away the man's ignorance and implant instruction. Yet, it is not as if the student contributed nothing to his own training. . . . In the same way, the Word of God promises to take away wickedness (which it calls a stony heart) from those who come to Him. But not if they are unwilling to come. It is only if they submit themselves to the Physician of the sick. . . .
After this, there is the passage from the Gospel where the Saviour said, . . . "Seeing, they may not see, and hearing, they may not understand. Lest they would be converted and their sins be forgiven them." Now, our opponent [the Gnostics] will say . . . it is not within the power of such ones to be saved. If that were so, we are not possessed of free will as regards salvation and destruction. . . . In the first place, then, we must notice the passage in its bearing on the heretics, who . . . daringly assert the cruelty of the Creator of the world. . . . They say that goodness does not exist in the Creator. . . . Come, then, and let us (to the best of our ability) furnish an answer to the question submitted to us. . . . The Saviour . . . had foreseen them as persons who were not likely to prove steady in their conversion, even if they heard the words that were spoken more clearly. For that reason, they were treated this way by the Saviour. . . . Otherwise, after a rapid conversion and healing through obtaining remission of sins, they would despise the wounds of their wickedness, as being slight and easy to heal. As a result, they would again quickly relapse into them. . . .
"Shall the thing formed say to him who formed it, "Why have you made me this way?" Has not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour and another unto dishonour?" . . . Now we must ask the person who uses these passages whether it is possible to conceive that the apostle contradicts himself. I presume that no one will venture to say it is. If, then, the apostle does not utter contradictions, how can he, according to the person who so understands him, justly find fault with anyone? How could he condemn the individual at Corinth who had committed fornication, or those who had fallen away? . . . And how could he bless those whom he praises as having done well? . . . It is not consistent for the same apostle to blame the sinner as worthy of censure and to praise him who had done well as deserving of approval—but yet, on the other hand, to say (as if nothing depended on ourselves that the cause was in the Creator for the one vessel to be formed to honour and the other to dishonour. . . . The power that is given us to enable us to conquer may be used—in accordance with our faculty of free will—either in a diligent manner (in which case, we prove victorious) or in a slothful manner (in which case, we are defeated). For if such a power were wholly given us in such a way that we would always prove victorious and never be defeated, what further reason would there be for a struggle—for such a one could not be overcome? Or what merit would there be in a victory, if the power of successful resistance is taken away? However, if the possibility of conquering is equally conferred on all of us—and if it is in our own power how to use this possibility (either diligently or slothfully)—then the defeated can be justly censured and the victor can be deservedly praised."