In short, God brought His own Son to Calvary and demonstrated to all the greatest Love ever known. Had there been no evil men and evil cross and evil sin, then that Love could not have been demonstrated.
God created this world to demonstrate His own great Love and, therefore, His own great glory.
He created this world to demonstrate His own great Love, and also His own great judgment.
" He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned." -- Mark 16:16
I find that life is more coherent believing in God's predestination of all things which, as you've rightly illustrated, does not make God the author of evil. It simply recognizes that God exists, God is sovereign, God is who He says He is in Scripture, God sustains all life according to His purpose by His will, and that all men are fallen and in desperate need of a Savior.
Here's a really nice explanation of Calvin's take on election. All Scripturally-based, IMO...
God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man. For all are not created in equal condition; rather, eternal life is foreordained for some, eternal damnation for others(Inst. III, 21, 5). This definition requires some qualification because many of Calvin's opponents, including Arminius, would not have a problem with this definition. Arminius did not deny predestination, in fact, he believed in it, "I do not present as a matter of doubt the fact that God has elected some to salvation, and not elected or passed by others"(Bangs 201). The difference is he did not base it on a "divine arbitrary decree", but upon God's foreknowledge of man's merit(Bettenson 268). Calvin seemed to foresee that there would be people that would argue that God "distinguishes among men according as he foresees what the merits of each will be"(Inst. III, 22, 1). Calvin, accordingly, writes against this notion, "by thus covering election with a veil of foreknowledge, they not only obscure it but feign that it has its origin elsewhere"(Inst. III, 22, 1). Calvin contests that this view of foreknowledge makes man God's co-worker in salvation, and implies that election is ratified only by man's consent. This is to make the gravest of errors because it suggests that man's will is superior to God's plan, or at the very least, implies God's plan is partially dependent on man(Inst. III, 24, 3). In refutation of this view, Calvin asserts that "this plan was founded upon his freely given mercy, without regard to human worth"(Inst. III, 21, 7 emphasis added). Calvin wisely proceeds to draw exhaustively from Scripture to buttress his argument citing that God chose us "before the foundations of the world were laid"(Eph.1:4a), "according to the good pleasure of his will"(Eph.1:5), in order "that we should be holy and spotless and irreproachable in his sight"(Eph.1:4b). Calvin observes that Paul sets "God's good pleasure" over against any merit of ours, declaring all virtue in man to be the result of his election(Inst. III, 22, 2). Calvin continues by arguing that if God chose us to be holy, it naturally follows that he would not have chosen us because he foresaw that we would be so(Inst. III, 22, 3). The fact that God chose the elect to be holy also refutes the accusation and misrepresentation that predestination overthrows all exhortations to godly living(Inst. III, 23, 13). Calvin reminds his opponents that election has as its goal, holiness of life, "therefore, it ought to arouse us to eagerly set our mind upon it than to serve as a pretext for doing nothing"(Inst. III, 23, 12). Calvin remarks that Paul afterward confirms what he had earlier said about the origin of our election when he states: "According to the purpose of his will"(Eph.1:5), "which he had purposed in himself"(Eph.1:9). This is to say that God considered nothing outside himself with which to be concerned in making his decree(Inst. III, 22, 2). To more meticulously deal with the objection by some that God would be contrary to himself if he should universally invite all men to him but choose only a few as elect(Inst. III, 22, 10), Calvin draws heavily from the ninth chapter in Paul's letter to the Romans. Paul writes that before Jacob and Esau were born, or had done anything good or bad "in order that God's purpose of election might continue . . . the elder will serve the younger"(Rom.9:11,12). Calvin therefore argues that, "rejection does not occur on the basis of works"(Inst. III, 23, 11). He argues that Paul specifically emphasizes that point by showing that before Jacob and Esau had done anything good or evil, one was chosen, the other rejected(Rom.9:13). This is in order to prove that the foundation of divine predestination is not in works(Inst. III, 23, 11). Calvin also reminds us that the apostle Paul writes that God "has mercy upon whomever He wills, and He hardens the heart of whomever He wills"(Rom.9:18). "Has not the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for beauty and another for dishonour?"(Rom.9:21). God is free to determine a purpose for election, but that purpose has nothing to do with man's desire or effort. Nothing is more clear in Romans nine, "it does not therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy"(Rom.9:16). To comprehend that God chooses us not because of what he finds in us, but according to his own good pleasure, gives rise to the charge that God is arbitrary(Sproul 156). Arminius, when citing the difference between his predestination and that of Calvin, declares that he did not base predestination on a "divine arbitrary decree"(Bettenson 268). This is an erroneous evaluation of Calvin's doctrine because it suggests that God makes his selection in a whimsical or capricious manner. Calvin's argument is only that there is no reason found in us, but that is not to say that God has no reason in Himself. This is precisely what Calvin is trying to communicate when he reasons that we are saved by "God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man"(Inst. III, 21, 5). It should now be apparent that while most bible-believing Christians do in fact acquiesce to some form of predestination they depart on the issue of the basis of this election. Arminians will contend that we are chosen according to foreknowledge of merit(Bettenson 268), while a Calvinist theology maintains that we are chosen "because He has willed it"(Inst. III, 23, 2). Calvin believes that if you proceed further to ask why he so willed, "you are seeking something greater and higher than God's will, which cannot be found"(Inst. III, 23, 2)... This essay earlier asserted that the doctrine of predestination is the most hated doctrine, but that is only how it is commonly understood. It is in fact, the most blessed doctrine in all of Scripture. That God would choose from all eternity a people that are consistently antagonistic towards Him, and in order to effect this foreordination of salvation, becomes incarnate in Christ and dies for the sins of men to restore fellowship. Wilhem Niesel believes that "Calvin's doctrine of election is intended to be nothing more than an expression of glad tidings: in Christ, God has elected us before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless"(Niesel 169). This doctrine is also the most God glorifying doctrine. It gives God all the glory. God elects us, sends Christ to pay for our sin, sends the necessary faith and grace to save us, and sustains us until the end. Man does absolutely nothing. Calvin's doctrine of election magnifies the glory of God and reduces us to true humility, "neither will anything else suffice to make us humble as we ought to be nor shall we otherwise sincerely feel how much we are obliged to God"(Inst. III, 21, 1). Calvin developed the doctrine of election because he felt constrained to do so obediently to the Word of Scripture. This essay concurs with John Calvin, that his doctrine of predestination, has been completely faithful to the Holy Scriptures, and in doing so, he has given the Church a coherent and invaluable doctrine to motivate us to glorify God's name. Since we cannot deny the necessity of confabulating with the doctrine of election, the fundamental task remaining is the coherent and veracious articulation of this doctrine. Calvin defines predestination as:
This is precisely what Calvin is trying to communicate when he reasons that we are saved by "God's eternal decree, by which He compacted with himself what he willed to become of each man"(Inst. III, 21, 5).
Excellent thought worthy of contemplation. "What He willed to become of each man" is the same as "What He willed each man to be."
He willed an apple to be....(describe apple)
He willed a shark to be....(describe shark)
He willed a lamb to be....(describe lamb)
But, what is a man. In physical form, a human can be described thus and so. In terms of internal workings, humans are so different. All are flawed. Some are forever not so noble.
Interesting. The excerpt you posted had only references to Ephesians 1 and Romans 9. I think that it is a very nice take on Calvin's theology, and the very limited and misinterpreted Scripture that it is based upon.
Mark 16: 14 (But) later, as the eleven were at table, he appeared to them and rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart because they had not believed those who saw him after he had been raised. 15 He said to them, "Go into the whole world and proclaim the gospel to every creature. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned. 17 These signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will drive out demons, they will speak new languages. 18 They will pick up serpents (with their hands), and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not harm them. They will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover." 19 So then the Lord Jesus, after he spoke to them, was taken up into heaven and took his seat at the right hand of God. 20 But they went forth and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the word through accompanying signs.) 3
Every creature, everywhere; the entire world. The Reformed God does not demonstrate great love, only limited love and limited mercy.