To those who interpret “all men” in 1 Timothy 2:1–4 as referring to every class or kind of men: Have you sat down today, identified every conceivable class of humanity, and prayed specifically for each class of men?

Theologians like Turretin, Spanheim, et al., give a horrendous treatment of the will of God. Their formulations introduce unnecessary difficulties and tensions that render the doctrine a contradictory mess. There are far better treatments within the Reformed tradition itself. I would recommend reading theologians such as Robert Baron, Barthold Holtzfus, and Jean Daillé, whose accounts offer a more coherent understanding of the divine will and its various distinctions.

This equivocates on the divine will. Certainly, whatever God absolutely decrees to accomplish must infallibly occur. But does God genuinely will that men obey his commandments and abstain from sin? Surely he does. Yet men continually disobey him. Does their disobedience prove that God never genuinely willed their obedience? Or that his will has been frustrated? Neither follows. God’s precepts express what he truly wills men to do, even when he permissively decrees to allow them to act contrary to what he wills and commands. Likewise, God may genuinely will the salvation of all men according to his antecedent and revealed/approbative will, while decreeing to allow men to resist his grace, reject Christ, and perish through their own unbelief. Thus, God’s permissive decree does not negate his genuine will concerning what he permits men to reject. Many hypers assume that every genuine divine volition must be an absolute, efficacious decree. But that needs to be demonstrated.

1 Tim 2:1-4 is not referring to some men from every class. And taking the “all men” at face value does not require us to pull out a phone book, as some silly people say, and pray for every single individual. To suggest one must do this is to miss Paul’s point. As Chamier argued, “Pray for Nero, because God wills some emperors to be saved” is no sufficient rationale for praying for Nero himself. Paul’s point is that we may pray for particular persons because God wills the salvation of those very persons. We may therefore pray for any individual, regardless of his rank or station, not merely because God wills to save some men from every class of men, but because he genuinely wills the salvation of the individuals for whom we pray.

I often find that many Limitarians have a troubling view of reprobation, as though non-election entails the denial of sufficient grace and the means of salvation, and as though God has no sincere desire that the non-elect repent and be saved. Rather, non-election concerns God’s decree not to infallibly bring them to saving faith, permitting them instead to freely reject and abuse the means of salvation provided to them, unto their own destruction.

You’re missing the point. The question isn’t whether ipso facto means instantaneously but whether the satisfaction of divine justice necessarily extinguishes the sinner’s liability to condemnation. Christ has already satisfied divine justice for the elect yet prior to faith they remain justly under God’s wrath and liable to condemnation. But how can they justly remain liable to condemnation if divine justice has already been satisfied for their sins? If satisfaction necessarily extinguishes liability to punishment, then the elect cannot justly remain under wrath prior to faith. But if they can justly remain under wrath notwithstanding satisfaction, then satisfation does not, of itself, extinguish that liability. Consequently, you cannot argue that Christ’s satisfaction for the non-elect would make their condemnation intrinsically unjust without also implicating the pre-conversion condemnation of the elect. If divine justice permits the elect to remain under wrath and liable to condemnation notwithstanding Christ’s satisfaction for them, then satisfaction itself cannot render such liability intrinsically unjust. Otherwise, the elect’s pre-conversion condemnation would itself constitute an injustice. Therefore, the mere fact that Christ satisfied for someone who remains condemned establishes no contradiction in divine justice.

Both high and moderate Calvinists have historically affirmed God’s general love for mankind and in His revealed will that all men be saved. But only the classic-moderate Calvinist position carries that principle consistently into the atonement. Out of that general love and salvific will, God gave His Son to die for all men, providing in Christ the remedy by which any sinner may be saved through faith. After all, if God truly wills the salvation of all, what salvation does He will for them apart from Christ? There is no salvation outside of Christ and no remission of sins apart from His satisfaction. Thus the universal salvific will naturally corresponds to a universal provision in the death of Christ, while election adds the special intention to infallibly save elect.