The Five Points of Calvinism

[FreeGrace]

Actually, it means "to know before".

Which is exactly what I pointed out. You said it meant "before know".

Are you saying that God doesn't know the future before it happens???

I was very clear. Just the opposite: that God has always known everything that will happen. I must question how quickly or superficially you are reading my posts, to ask such a question.

I think I see the problem in your understanding. It's not about "past knowing", but what God has always known in the past about current or even future events. iow, it's a "past knowing" about future things.

I never said it was about "past knowing". I said foreknowledge means knowing what's going to happen BEFORE it happens. That clearly indicates that in the past God already knew what would occur in the future.

The term "past knowing" suggests a completely different word: hindsight.

[QUOET]But of course the word is about "God knowing in the past". He knew in the past what you do today. That is "past knowing".[/QUOTE]
Of course God knew in the past what will happen today. That is NOT called "past knowing".

I don't think you can prove that foreknowledge means God chose people because He know they would choose Christ. I believe that's simply an assumption.

I acknowledge your opinion. But the proof is in Scripture. First, there are no verses that says that God chooses who will believe. But we know that He does choose. So the question is what He chooses those He chooses for.

And the answer is found in Eph 1:4. The "us" there is defined by Paul later in ch 1 in v.19. The "us" are believers. So Eph 1:4 actually says that God chose believers…to be holy and blameless. So, clearly, He chooses believers.

We also know that God chooses who He will save, but this isn't an election thing. 1 Cor 1:21 tells us that God is pleased to save those who believe. Clearly what He is pleased to do (save those who believe) is a choice.

To answer your question, what is according to foreknowledge, before knowing, is "grace to you and peace."

This doesn't make any sense. Foreknowledge is applied to God. And there is no "before knowing" with God. He has always known. There never was a time for God before He knew anything, because He has always known everything.

 

[chessman]

1 Peter 1:1-2 (LEB) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen who are residing temporarily in the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and for sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ. May grace and peace be multiplied to you.​

If Peter meant God foreknowing in this passage, how does it fit what he said?

I don’t understand your question, really.
Using who's definition of "foreknowing"? The one being used by the Greek speaking Justin in the 2nd Century (which is also the current dictionary meaning and the reformer's meaning) and the one I use (to know something before it happens)? Or are you asking what does it mean on your meaning (Hindsight)?

1 Peter 1:1-2 simply means what it says and fits just fine with a meaning for “foreknowledge = knowledge of the future or knowing something beforehand”, God in this case knowing beforehand. Parsing this out with my take on it, if it helps clarify how I take it any, as follows:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, ​

[This means Peter believes himself to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. Apostle means a disciple/follower of Jesus that had personally/literally/physically met Jesus and was an eye-witness of Jesus’ work in their lifetime. Christ means Messiah of God.]

to the chosen who are residing temporarily in the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father​

[This means Peter is writing to folks he believes are living temporarily in those places (Pontus, etc.) that Peter also believes have been chosen (which means elect) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Foreknowledge means God’s knowledge, which includes past, present and future knowledge. Chosen/elect for what, you might ask? Answer is for obedience and for the sprinkling of the blood. See “for obedience and for sprinkling with the blood of Jesus” for what that means. How have these folks been sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, seeing how Jesus has long sense departed, you might ask? See “by the sanctification of the Spirit”]

by the sanctification of the Spirit, ​

[This means, they have been sanctified (and are being multiplied in their sanctification even more in the future, see “may be multiplied to you”) by none other than the Spirit of God whom Jesus left upon his departure. Sanctification meansgrowing in divine grace as a result of Christian commitment after baptism or conversion. In other words, Peter used “sprinkled with the blood of Jesus”, in a rather spiritual Baptismal sense. Though I would argue it also has a literal meaning. That is, these folks literally had/have the Holy Spirit within them. Why is the Holy Spirit in them? For their sanctification.]

for obedience and for sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ. ​

[Obedience means following God’s Word. Sprinkling with the blood, means baptized/washed/cleansed by the Holy Spirit.]

May grace and peace be multiplied to you.​

[This is Peter’s general and warm greeting of grace and peace expressed to them.]

 

[Butch5]

I'm still trying to get my head around that.

Hi Deb,

These are the passage that contain "prognosis" and "proginosko." Note that none of them require a looking into the future. They may be able to incorporate it but don't require it.

Prognosis
22 Ye men of Israel, hear these words; Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know:
23 Him, being delivered by the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God, ye have taken, and by wicked hands have crucified and slain: (Act 2:22-23 KJV)

Here Peter is speaking of Christ's crucifixion. Did God know of the crucifixion before it took place? Yes, Peter says that God determined it. If God determined it then He knew it.

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia,
2 according to a foreknowledge of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ: Grace to you and peace be multiplied! (1Pe 1:1-2 YLT)

If we remove all of the dependent clauses the sentence reads like this. Peter, to the choice sojourners of the dispersion, grace to you and peace be multiplied.

The rest of the clauses give additional information.
Peter who, "an apostle of Jesus Christ". who are those of the dispersion? Those of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia. Grace and Peace How? According to the before knowing of God the Father, in sanctification of the Spirit, to obedience and sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ.

This passage can be understood as Peter wishing grace and peace on these Israelite believers based on their having been know as a people in the past by God

Proginosko
4 My manner of life from my youth, which was at the first among mine own nation at Jerusalem, know all the Jews;
5 Which knew me from the beginning, if they would testify, that after the most straitest sect of our religion I lived a Pharisee. (Act 26:4-5 KJV)

This passage is pretty clear. I don't think anyone would suggest that the looked into the future and knew Paul, It think it's clear this is a prior knowing.

26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God. {because: or, that}
28 And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
29 For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brethren.
30 Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified.
31 What shall we then say to these things? If God be for us, who can be against us? (Rom 8:26-31 KJV)

In this passage Paul is addressing Jewish believers and is encouraging them. He says "for we know." The Greek word is oidamen and carries the idea of, to perceive something, or to know by seeing (figuratively or literally) and is in the perfect tense. Literally, we have known. So Paul is saying that these believing Jews have known of perceived something, what? That God works all things together for good for those that love Him. For those He knew in the past He did predestine to be conformed to the image of His Son. How would Paul's Jewish readers have perceived or known this? From their history. God had worked all through the history of the Jews. He blessed those who loved Him and cursed those who didn't. I submit that being conformed to the image of Christ means the resurrection. Did God determine that Abraham be conformed to the resurrection?

8 And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God. 9 And God said unto Abraham, Thou shalt keep my covenant therefore, thou, and thy seed after thee in their generations. (Gen 17:8-9 KJV)

The same promise was made to Isaac and Jacob. Look at David. David loved God and God told him his seed would sit on his throne forever. All of these things would be encouragement to those Jews in Rome.

I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2 God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying, {of Elias: Gr. in Elias?}
3 Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
(Rom 11:1-3 KJV)

This passage seems pretty straight forward. God has not cast of His people which He knew before.

18 Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;
19 But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:
20 Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,
(1Pe 1:18-20 KJV)

Here proginosko is translated foreordained. Obviously this is speaking of the past. Even if we translate this as foreknew there's still no problem as Christ was known before the foundation of the world

14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.
15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you;
16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.
17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.(2Pe 3:14-17 KJV)

I think this passage is pretty clear too. Peter is speaking of them knowing something today so that they can remember it tomorrow.

So you see in each of these passages either prognosis or proginosko can be understood of something happening in the past. I think this fits better with Scripture. While some of the passages might be able to be interpreted to be looking into the future, I don't think all of them can, at least without creating tension. You may not agree with the interpretations but I just wanted to show how they can be understood as a knowing in the past.

 

[Butch5]

I see no significant difference in the above two statements.

I never said anything about the Reformers understanding of foreknowledge. All I did was point out that their translation moved the word "Eclectos" from verse 1 to verse 2.

Clearly it is how the Greek uses the word, else Justin wouldn't have used it that way.

I posted a Greek speaking Bible student (Justin) from the 2nd century, way before the reformers, that does in fact use the word to mean God knows the future. That contradicts your position on what it means in the original Greek. Take it or leave it.

. How Justin understood the word foreknowledge has no bearing on Paul's use of the word. The word is "prognosis" literally, pro = before and gnosis =know. The word could be understood either way, to know something before it happens or to know something in the past. Just because Justin used it as knowing something before hand doesn't mean that Paul is using the word the same way. Justin's use of the word doesn't contradict anything I've said.

 

[Butch5]

1 Peter 1:1-2 (LEB) Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, to the chosen who are residing temporarily in the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, by the sanctification of the Spirit, for obedience and for sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ. May grace and peace be multiplied to you.​

I don’t understand your question, really.
Using who's definition of "foreknowing"? The one being used by the Greek speaking Justin in the 2nd Century (which is also the current dictionary meaning and the reformer's meaning) and the one I use (to know something before it happens)? Or are you asking what does it mean on your meaning (Hindsight)?

1 Peter 1:1-2 simply means what it says and fits just fine with a meaning for “foreknowledge = knowledge of the future or knowing something beforehand”, God in this case knowing beforehand. Parsing this out with my take on it, if it helps clarify how I take it any, as follows:

Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ, ​

[This means Peter believes himself to be an apostle of Jesus Christ. Apostle means a disciple/follower of Jesus that had personally/literally/physically met Jesus and was an eye-witness of Jesus’ work in their lifetime. Christ means Messiah of God.]

to the chosen who are residing temporarily in the dispersion in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia, and Bithynia, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father​

[This means Peter is writing to folks he believes are living temporarily in those places (Pontus, etc.) that Peter also believes have been chosen (which means elect) according to the foreknowledge of God the Father. Foreknowledge means God’s knowledge, which includes past, present and future knowledge. Chosen/elect for what, you might ask? Answer is for obedience and for the sprinkling of the blood. See “for obedience and for sprinkling with the blood of Jesus” for what that means. How have these folks been sprinkled with the blood of Jesus, seeing how Jesus has long sense departed, you might ask? See “by the sanctification of the Spirit”]

by the sanctification of the Spirit, ​

[This means, they have been sanctified (and are being multiplied in their sanctification even more in the future, see “may be multiplied to you”) by none other than the Spirit of God whom Jesus left upon his departure. Sanctification meansgrowing in divine grace as a result of Christian commitment after baptism or conversion. In other words, Peter used “sprinkled with the blood of Jesus”, in a rather spiritual Baptismal sense. Though I would argue it also has a literal meaning. That is, these folks literally had/have the Holy Spirit within them. Why is the Holy Spirit in them? For their sanctification.]

for obedience and for sprinkling with the blood of Jesus Christ. ​

[Obedience means following God’s Word. Sprinkling with the blood, means baptized/washed/cleansed by the Holy Spirit.]

May grace and peace be multiplied to you.​

[This is Peter’s general and warm greeting of grace and peace expressed to them.]

You said, "Foreknowledge means God’s knowledge, which includes past, present and future knowledge."

Haven't I said that it means before know? Wouldn't that be God's past knowledge, things God knew in the past?

 

[Deborah13]

How about what Spurgeon, Law, Whitefield or Wesley had to say about total depravity of men? Is this tread about their comments, in your opinion?

When I made that statement it was not about Total Depravity. It was more about men having a choice rather than God choosing certain men to be saved and choosing others to be lost.
I'd really like to stick to the 5 points of Calvinism, what Calvin taught and to see scriptural support for those teachings. :neutral

My point was merely that Butch5 implied that it was the reformers (like Luther/Calvin) that started an erroneous idea that foreknowledge was God's knowledge of the future (including that knowledge of what men will choose). He implied they even mis-translated the Texts incorrectly to instill their erroneous ideas about what the text said. That's simply and clearly not the case, as my posting of Justin's 2nd Century statement about God's foreknowledge proves.

Plus Justin had something to say, in the same paragraph, about God giving men freewill choice. Just as Spurgeon, Wesley. Law and Whitefield did. It related to your discussion/questions about whether God has created man with freewill choice, given God knows their future. That's all. I made no disrespectful comment or off-topic post to you or Butch, for that matter.

No, you were never disrespectful in anyway that I have seen. I didn't want you to think I was being disrespectful of you. I'm sorry that I did not understand why you were quoting Justin Martyr. :neutral
I do believe that God knows all things from beginning to end. I don't believe He directly controls or ordains all things that men do.
The strongest statement that God made, that I know of, to support what I believe is in Jeremiah 19 and 32.
Jer_19:5 They have built also the high places of Baal, to burn their sons with fire for burnt offerings unto Baal, which I commanded not, nor spake it, neither came it into my mind:
Jer 32:35 And they built the high places of Baal, which are in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to cause their sons and their daughters to pass through the fire unto Molech; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

Calvin's double predestination is just not represented in any scripture that I know of. I know of no scripture where it says that God ordained wicked men to be wicked, as Calvin says.

 

[Chopper]

I thought that you were referring to his teachings, not the condition of his heart.


Here is a more complete quote of who Calvin is referring to from the same page and contains what you have posted.

"But experience shows that this will, for the repentance of those whom he invites to himself, is not
such as to make him touch all their hearts. Still, it cannot be said that he acts deceitfully; for though
the external word only renders, those who hear its and do not obey it, inexcusable, it is still truly
regarded as an evidence of the grace by which he reconciles men to himself. Let us therefore hold
the doctrine of the prophet, that God has no pleasure in the death of the sinner; that the godly may
feel confident that whenever they repent God is ready to pardon them; and that the wicked may
feel that their guilt is doubled, when they respond not to the great mercy and condescension of God.
The mercy of God, therefore will ever be ready to meet the penitent; but all the prophets, and
apostles, and Ezekiel himself, clearly tell us who they are to whom repentance is given."


What did Calvin believe? He did not believe that God allowed all men to repent. In fact he believed that God chose some men to be saved and the rest He chose to be wicked. He did not believe what you believe or what I believe.
You asked me to give you a quote from Calvin's own words. I did that. What are your thoughts about that quote?
The Five Points of Calvinism

Right now, I'm not going to going to respond to your question because I'm having problems with IE. When I get Fire Fox back running, I'll be able to post.

 

[Deborah13]

Right now, I'm not going to going to respond to your question because I'm having problems with IE. When I get Fire Fox back running, I'll be able to post.

IE, grrr.....

 

[chessman]

I do believe that God knows all things from beginning to end.

Me too.

I don't believe He directly controls or ordains all things that men do.

I don't believe He directly controls all things that men do either. I don't believe ordains means the same thing as controls.
I believe He ordains the evil things men do as being evil.

I'm sorry that I did not understand why you were quoting Justin Martyr.

I am sorry that I mixed in Justin's comment about man's freewill choice in my reply to Butch's post about what foreknowledge means in Greek. In hindsight, it was a mistake to mix the two points

Calvin's double predestination is just not represented in any scripture that I know of

Which letter in TULIP stands for double predestination?

 

[Deborah13]

I don't believe He directly controls all things that men do either. I don't believe ordains means the same thing as controls.

My definition of ordain is to 'order' or 'give a decree, a command'.

I believe He ordains the evil things men do as being evil.

I agree.

Which letter in TULIP stands for double predestination?

2
Calvin taught it even if it is not specifically represented in the acronym. Part of the explanation for 'irresistible' grace, I presume.

 

[Chopper]

IE, grrr.....

Ok Deb. I finally got Fire Fox "refreshed". It's had problems a little over a week now and I couldn't use it because of the cookies that weren't saved. IE grrr is right, in fact it deserved a double grrr.

You said, "he believed that God chose some men to be saved and the rest He chose to be wicked." I don't like the word "chose" as far as it is applied to our Heavenly Father. IMO, God doesn't choose people to be wicked. He doesn't have to choose, they are already wicked. He chose some, not all, to be saved out of their wickedness to become righteous and repent of their sin, and to obey His Commands.

I have had a very taxing week. Debi and I have Debi's twin Sister living with us. She can't be left alone. So I have to transport her to and from dialysis, and I have to run errands for her needs. My head is reeling from all the added responsibilities concerning her. So please excuse me if I don't respond to your liking. I don't mean to be short to you, I'm just tired....Love you!

 

[Deborah13]

Ok Deb. I finally got Fire Fox "refreshed". It's had problems a little over a week now and I couldn't use it because of the cookies that weren't saved. IE grrr is right, in fact it deserved a double grrr.

You said, "he believed that God chose some men to be saved and the rest He chose to be wicked." I don't like the word "chose" as far as it is applied to our Heavenly Father. IMO, God doesn't choose people to be wicked. He doesn't have to choose, they are already wicked. He chose some, not all, to be saved out of their wickedness to become righteous and repent of their sin, and to obey His Commands.

I have had a very taxing week. Debi and I have Debi's twin Sister living with us. She can't be left alone. So I have to transport her to and from dialysis, and I have to run errands for her needs. My head is reeling from all the added responsibilities concerning her. So please excuse me if I don't respond to your liking. I don't mean to be short to you, I'm just tired....Love you!

Thank you for explaining your lack of time right now. No need to apologize. Just get as much rest as you can. Love you, too.

 

[ezra]

"he believed that God chose some men to be saved and the rest He chose to be wicked."

where in scripture does it say that?

 

[JLB]

So your view of Rom 6:23 is wrong. It cannot mean eternal death. Or all humans would die eternally, since Rom 3:23 says "for ALL have sinned".

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

All humans who do enter the kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ will die eternally, for the wages of sin is death.

People do not have to accept Jesus as their Savior to die physically.


Eternal death and eternal life are being contrasted by Paul here in Romans 6:23.


JLB

 

[FreeGrace]

I never said anything about the Reformers understanding of foreknowledge. All I did was point out that their translation moved the word "Eclectos" from verse 1 to verse 2.

V.1,2 are one sentence. No one moved anything.

How Justin understood the word foreknowledge has no bearing on Paul's use of the word. The word is "prognosis" literally, pro = before and gnosis =know.

There would be no difference in the way Paul and Justin used the word. Why do you apply an English word order to a Greek word? The meaning in the Greek is to "know before".

The word could be understood either way, to know something before it happens or to know something in the past.

What lexicon supports your view?

Just because Justin used it as knowing something before hand doesn't mean that Paul is using the word the same way. Justin's use of the word doesn't contradict anything I've said.

prognōsis
Thayer Definition:

1) foreknowledge
2) forethought, pre-arrangement

So, where do you get this idea of knowing something in the past? What lexicon gives that meaning?

In 1 Pet 1:2, the phrase "according to the foreknowledge of God" cannot mean that He "knows something in the past".

It goes without saying that God would know everything in the past. Unless you are prepared to argue that God may be, uh, let's say, forgetful on occasion.

Are you aware of the word "omniscient"? It goes with omnipresence and omnipotent. These are attributes of God.

Because God is omniscient, He knows all, or is all knowing.[/QUOTE]

 

[FreeGrace]

When I made that statement it was not about Total Depravity. It was more about men having a choice rather than God choosing certain men to be saved and choosing others to be lost.
I'd really like to stick to the 5 points of Calvinism, what Calvin taught and to see scriptural support for those teachings. :neutral

This is the real meat of the debate: finding verses that plainly teach what the 5 points claim. And there aren't any.

So, what do Calvinists do, generally? They finally admit that the 5 points are inferred from Scripture. That's how they get around the problem of having no verses that say what they claim.

 

[FreeGrace]

Which letter in TULIP stands for double predestination?

It is part of the "U", for unconditional election. For the Calvinist, God choice for salvation is unconditional. Which means that faith isn't the reason God saves people. God unconditionally chooses to save people!! They then must go on to 'splain themselves, given all the verses that say that salvation is based on faith. For them, because God chose them from "before the foundation" (misunderstanding of Eph 1:4), God regenerates those He has chosen, so that they will believe.

Remember, the "T" means for them that fallen man cannot believe. They call it a "moral inability". So, because of their view of total depravity, God HAD to choose who to save, and that unconditionally.

So, by His "sovereign choice", the chosen ones are predestined for heaven. So, what do we do with the unchosen ones. This gets interesting. Some Calvinists believe only in single predestination, whereby God actively chooses some for salvation, and passively passes over the unchosen ones.

Others believe in double predestination, whereby God actively rejects some for the lake of fire.

Because of their view of the "T" and "U", their 3rd point "L" for limited atonement, demands that Christ did NOT die for everyone, but ONLY or JUST for the elect. While it's all logical, the problem for them is that there are no verses that teach any of this.

 

[FreeGrace]

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. Romans 6:23

All humans who do enter the kingdom of God, through Jesus Christ will die eternally, for the wages of sin is death.

People do not have to accept Jesus as their Savior to die physically.


Eternal death and eternal life are being contrasted by Paul here in Romans 6:23.JLB

There is no point in further discussion. You won't interact with anything I've posted, while I've directly interacted and refuted all your posts.

 

[JLB]

There is no point in further discussion. You won't interact with anything I've posted, while I've directly interacted and refuted all your posts.

You haven't refuted a single thing, you have just ignored the obvious context of what Paul wrote.

Furthermore you don't bother to even post scripture, rather you just state your opinion, and tag it with a scripture reference.

No that you have been shown the plain and clear words of scripture, and how easily they refute your "doctrine", you have decided to come up with the excuse that I won't "interact".

My post is my interaction.


JLB

 

[chessman]

Which letter in TULIP stands for double predestination?

It is part of the "U", for unconditional election.

Ah, I see. So Double Predestination hinges around the one letter U in TULIP. 'D_U_P', so to speak.
And since DUP has to do with Election (E) and our Destiny (D), we could just call it DUPED then, huh?

All joking aside, good summary in your post. It makes a lot of sense.

The quote Deborah13 posted of Calvin's is the first writings of Calvin I've ever read. Really! I sure do hear people speak for him a lot, though. I doubt they are getting his beliefs correct though since many of these people, speaking for him, seem to be presenting contradictory positions of his views. Some people use the term HyperCalvinism (I think by that they mean DUPED, double predestination of the elected kind). But if it's not based on Calvinism, then why call it Hypercalvinism? Makes no sense to me why they use the term Hypercalvinism. I suspect I know why they do that though.

I doubt I'd agree with everything Mr. Calvin said though, even if I did read him. I don't even agree with my wife on several topics. And I'm in love with her. Plus, she looks a lot better.

The verse Calvin used to justify/defend what he said in the previously mentioned quotation/commentary on what Paul says in Rom 9:18 ("that not only the destruction of the wicked is foreknown, but that the wicked themselves have been created for this very end — that they may perish") is Pr 16:4. [Which by the way, I think Justin's comments, that I posted, were also Justin's opinions consistent with this very same verse on both subjects too.]

i.e. theses two issues (foreknowledge and DUP) do go together in a fashion.

Proverbs 16:4 ((LEB) All Yahweh has made is for his purpose, and even the wicked for the day of trouble.
​

Which of course says what it says. None of us disagree with what it says (hopefully it's translated correctly). We just have differing views of whether God means it as a general Proverb that applies to His overall plan for the redemption of mankind (as I do, even foreshadowing Christ as that plan) or does He mean it on an individual by individual basis (Double Unconditional Predestination, DUP). i.e. does God 'make/force/command/order' some individual people for their 'day of trouble'.
Rather, I think God has foreknowledge that evil mankind (the un-saved, the un-forgiven) are decreed/ordained for their day of destruction.

I think Proverb 16:6 explains a lot.

Proverbs 16:6 (LEB) By loyalty and faithfulness, iniquity will be covered over, and by fear of Yahweh one turns from evil. ​

To make a long story short, I think "by loyalty and faithfulness, iniquity will be covered over" typifies and foreshadows Christ's work of covering over our iniquity. [As in God foreknew that would occur.]

​

Also, 'by fear of Yahweh one turns from evil and this covers their iniquity' puts to bed the idea that people can 'hear the word and immediately receive it with joy' (versus fear the Lord first) and expect their 'joy' to cover their iniquity (Matt 13:20). It is 'fear of the Lord' that will cover their iniquity not joy. In the OT and NT. Joy comes after our iniquity is covered just after 'fear of the Lord', not before. At least it did for me and does per Proverbs 16:6.
The Gospel is good news to a fearful and dying person. But if that person has no fear of the Lord and are happy in their spiritually dead condition, then the true Gospel is hidden from them, in my opinion.