You didn't explain that in your post. One could take it that God was pleased to crush Him because He takes delight in sending people to hell. Given the Calvinsist idea of double predestination, is it surprising that I thought that you considered God sadistic?
I already gave you my interpretation by posting Isaiah and Ezekiel, plus what we find in Hebrews about WHY God allows evil - to discipline those whom He loves and to bring them back to good. God does not desire that people reject Him.
As a matter of fact, yes {that God told you that you were of the elect}. Thus sayeth the Lord: "Whoever believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God..
And John also says "everyone who commits sin is a child of the devil" (1 John 3:8). I don't think John meant that these two verses were to be taken literally, because he ALSO says "if we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us" (1 John 1:8). I believe what John means is that our relationship with Christ changes, depending on whether we are "in sin" or "in Christ". Are we currently abiding in Christ or are we abiding in the devil? A person who has sinned and not asked for forgiveness is not "born of Christ" - but this is not an ontological statement - since Christians who have sinned have been born again. When Paul and John talk about Christians and sin, they tell us what they OUGHT to be doing, not what they ARE doing. It is evident that Christians sin, even after being born again.
The Roman Catholic Church abandoned Augustine's and the Council of Carthage (418) view of original sin in 1109 (a teaching that had been in the Church for almost 700 years) to introduce Anselm's idea of limbo. A doctrine, btw, that was established against the false view of Pelagius who preached the same thing.
The Council of Carthage of 418 was a result of Pelagianism. It denied the necessity of grace and the reality of original sin. The Council censured the following heresies:
Adam was mortal; his sin harmed himself only, not his offspring; newborn children are in the same condition as Adam before the fall; Christ's death and resurrection are not the cause for human persons rising from the dead since even before Christ's coming there were people without sin.
Trent merely reaffirmed all of these in the Fifth Session on the Decree on Original Sin (1546). I don't know exactly what you are talking about regarding what teachings of St. Augustine that were adopted at Carthage and then ignored or changed in 1109.
I will note that the Council of Carthage fully defends the efficacious use of infant baptism, which was defended again by a letter from Pope Innocent in 1201. In the letter, the Pope explains the different nature of personal sin and original sin. He continues the teachings found at Carthage and again reaffirmed in the five canons at Trent on Original sin.
The first time I see a Pope talk specifically about "Limbo" is by Pope Pius VI (1775-1799), which he writes in an effort to quash a re-birth of Pelagianism. I have no idea where you got St. Anselm as the introducer of the teaching of Limbo, which was merely an opinion, never a dogma of the Church. St. Augustine's idea of mass damnatia was NEVER accepted by the Second Council of Orange or the Council of Carthage. Can you please point to me where the Universal Church teaches that all unbaptized babies go to hell? Regarding limbo, I believe that those who taught it understood that these infants would be "punished" differently than those who were in hell because of personal sin. Theologians distinguish between "poena damni" - the exclusion from the Beatific Vision of God, and "poena sensu", caused by external means and which will be felt by the senses.
According to "The Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma, Dr. Ott writes: "while St. Augustine and many Latin Fathers are of the opinion that children dying in original sin must suffer "poena sensus" also, even if only a very mild one, the Greek Fathers and the majority of the Schoolmen and more recent theologians, teach that they suffer "poena damni" only. The declaration of Pope Innocent III is in favor of this teaching." Ott, (Ott, pg 114).
A condition of natural bliss is compatible with "poena damni". Theologians had assumed that there would be a special place or state for such children, which they called "children's Limbo". As I said before, Pope Pius VI adopted this view against the Synod of Pistoia (Denzinger 1526).
Today, theologians have largely abandoned the concept of Limbo, merely calling it speculation.
Regarding Romans 3, I suggest you read Psalms 14, which was what Paul is quoting from. Paul is writing about the wicked. THEY are the ones Paul is talking about. If you note in Psalm 14, the sacred writer later refers to the righteous, who DO seek out God. The teaching Paul is giving is that the wicked do not seek out God, not a one. He is not giving us a lesson about the wickedness of every man ever born. This would be excluding great chunks of Scripture that tell us about righteous men who DO seek out God!
Regards
The idea of double predestination (God elects some and others He doesnt) isnt all that far fetched or sadistic. God told the Israel to sprinkle blood on the lintels to protect their first born. He didnt tell the Egyptians anything. Was that sadistic of God?
I would content that God hate evil and cannot stand the sight of it. The greater the evil the more repugnant it is to Him. He tolerates it and uses mans evil simply so He can carry forth His divine plan.
We know that no one who is born of God sins; but He who was born of God keeps him, and the evil one does not touch him. 1Jo 5:18
Is John actually saying Christians do not sin? Not at all. John clarifies what he means:
No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. 1Jo 3:9
Christians cannot PRACTICE sin because they are born of God. They are now slaves to righteousness (Rom 6). That does not mean that we have no sin. It simply means that we will no longer sin without great conviction and chastisement.