Matt, yes. There begins to be so much to respond to in one thread, that one can't possibly respond to all, which is the reason for the delay. There is a lot of convoluted distinctions regarding the differences between Arminianism, Amyraldianism and Hypothetical-Conditional Universalism, but to keep it simple: Arminians/Amyraldians/H.U.'s, etc, posit a certain general atonement at the level of God's eternal decrees that is frustrated by man (the creature) and never fulfilled. Thus there are effectual saving purposes in God that are never effected. This is bad. The Sincere Free Offer of the Gospel, as historically presented by the vast majority of reformed history, holds to limited atonement for the elect alone in God's eternal decrees which is always effectual and irresistible, and also a revealed saving purpose in God's revealed will that gospel hearers (including the reprobate) should come to Him. This revealed will, as demonstrated by the numerous historic reformed quotes I have put up, especially Rutherford, is not intended to be effected, and so is not frustrated in that sense, because God never intended to effect it. The difference is whether the saving purpose of God is at the level of decree (Arminians, etc) or in His revealed will (Calvin, the reformed, puritans, etc.). Winzer denies that God has any saving purpose in His revealed will beyond that to the elect, and unfortunately we don't know who those are, so the unconverted Gospel hearer can never know if God wills that he should come to Him. Winzer also is trying in various ways to force the Sincere Free Offer into the level of decree to make it Arminian. He's making a valiant attempt, but one that I, and most of reformed history, finds to be unpersuasive. Hope this is helpful.