The general problem with the “all” passages is that most often we superimpose a modern mathematical set concept of “all possible individuals,” whereas the context of the passages often points to “all of a class of individuals.” In the Timothy passages you cite, believers are to pray for Kings and other powerful people, even though they were often bitter enemies of the Church. Paul is saying we should pray for all such, because God exclude no particular socioeconomic or ethnic class of people from salvation, and because the salvation of the politically powerful could lead to peaceful lives for Christians. We know that “all” is not “absolutely all” because by the time Paul says this, many have already died and gone to hell, and some still alive (the surviving Pharisees) had been told by Jesus directly they had committed unpardonable sin and would not be saved. So “all” fails as a mathematically absolute term, but it does quite well as a Hebraism encompassing classes of people, reinforcing the Gospel theme that God would act to save across all manner of class boundaries, because he did not care about the distinctions we make among ourselves, but would have mercy on whosoever he would have mercy.
So, the two of you disagree with Charles Spurgeon, who stated that God does desire that all men be saved? Do the two of you think you are greater Bible scholars than Spurgeon?
You hyper-Calvinists are also mistaken in claiming that a man making a decision to accept Christ as his Savior is an act of “work” simply because it requires a decision to accept Christ.
That’s about as much ‘work’ as saying “Thank you” to the person who plepared an elaborate meal for your enjoyment.