I have asked Calvinists, “Is God angry and grieved with sin?” They have answered, “Yes.” Then I’ve asked, “Was sin the secret Sovereign plan of God?” They have answered, “Yes.” Then I’ve asked, “So you’re saying that God is angry and grieved with His own secret Sovereign plan?” They don’t know how to answer that.
LINK removed per mod. This verse proves Calvinism is wrong.
Jas 1:13 - Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil,neither tempteth he any man:
My response to that, as a monergist, is to say those particular Calvinists who believe the second question is answerable in the affirmative do not correctly and adequately understand Calvinism. BUT I also think there is a problem of ambiguity contained in the question. What,
exactly, is meant by "
plan"?
Sin is not the plan.
Jesus is the plan.
Jesus addresses the matter of sin. Jesus, the plan of God, addresses the matter of sin. The plan addresses sin, but sin is not the plan. Sin is an aspect of creation the plan addresses, but it is not the plan. You, as a non-Cal should be able to call out all such Cals by simply pointing to the WCF because it plainly states God was not the author of sin. How can sin be His plan if He's not the author of sin? That would necessarily imply He is not the author of His own plan.
I, therefore, think you're going to have to take some responsibility for the foolhardiness of that ensuing conversation because of the way you framed the question. It reads like bait. You should give some consideration about how James 1:13 applies to us all, to you in this instance. Consider James 1:13 as it intersects with verses like Luke 17:1. We should all be careful how we tempt others.
Ultimately, I think the problem to which the op justly seeks to bring to our attention is a problem I have often mentioned. The NUMBER ONE problem in the Arm v Cal board is the failure of believers, otherwise sincere and earnest believers,
to understand their own doctrine. Straw men are huge problem in this board, but misrepresenting the other side's views is second place to our own failure to correctly understand what we claim we believe. Determinism and Pelagianism are simply the two extremes, the pole everyone should be avoiding. Determinism is no more Calvinism than Pelagianism is Arminianism. Determinists are wrong to think of themselves as Calvinists. ALL of you can recall an example when I have quoted Calvin to prove he was not a (strict) determinist. Pelagianism, Traditionalism, and Wesleyanism are not classic Reformed Arminianism. Augustine, Luther, Knox and others were monergist, not wholly in agreement with Calvin.
That's why it's important for us to label our views from time to time so we don't end up arguing under the guise of Calvinism or Arminianism when we're neither.
So.... I will side with you in saying 1) Sin is not the plan, 2) It is self-contradictory to say God is angry with His own plan, 3) that kind of "logic" isn't logical or scriptural, but I will likely part ways with you 4) to say that has anything to do with Calvinism as Calvin taught salvation, and 5) there is a thoroughly scriptural way to understand the problem of sin as irrelevant to God's plan, and 6) monergism proves the best position.