Rather than dealing with what has been presented as the proper interpretation of the passage in question, 1 John 2:2, the only rejoinder you have offered is but moving the goal posts to yet more improperly interpreted Scripture and cavils about Calvinism.
For that matter, you haven't provided a single argument to support your claims, e.g., the atonement is universal. Nor have you dealt with what I have provided as analysis of the actual passage in question. Moving to yet another verse is evidence you have no proper answer.
No one can provide an answer to a nonexistent argument. Unless and until you or others like you put an actual argument on the table, there's nothing for anyone to evaluate.
Too many non-Calvinists take crucial intellectual shortcuts.
Critics of Calvinism need to master the difference between assertions and arguments. They need to become aware of their unexamined assumptions. When they are pressed to examine them, things usually start off well enough. But as the discussion continues wherein they are asked to dig deeper into what they are asserting without careful examination, the discussion quickly turns into personal attacks; most likely borne of the cognitive dissonance that has erupted within themselves. At that point it usually becomes a matter of fight or flight. Being a good steward of one's time granted by God dictates not to waste one's efforts on those that have shown themselves to be unwilling or unable to engage at the needed substantive level for sacred topics.
The non-Calvinist needs to learn that just because something seems to be wrong to them, that creates no presumption that their perception is correct. Non-Calvinist critics need to become aware of how often they beg the question.
Unfortunately, these folks usually shield themselves from scrutiny by playing to a sympathetic audience or airing their views in a controlled setting (which they themselves can control). They don't usually risk direct and substantive engagement with others who disagree and who happen to be outside their own weight class. And for good reason. :AMR:
Not a few non-Calvinists like to merely nakedly assert, usually involving some lifted Scripture quotes with nice boldface or coloring, without providing and actual argument and then sit back. After all, "Scripture says this, see my boldface therein? That settles it. I win!" :AMR1:
It is simply not the Calvinist's job to make their argument for these sorts, as they are but intellectual freeloaders. Why should anyone enable their intellectual laziness by doing the heavy-lifting they themselves should be doing? Unless there's a well-provided reason to think their view of this or that matter of doctrine is incompatible with God's goodness, love, or whatever, there's nothing for the Calvinist to disprove. We literally have nothing to work with in a real discussion.
Accordingly, it is becoming an increasingly rare occasion for me to actually engage another unless that person has honestly shown themselves to be willing to stay put until the matter is driven to ground versus retreating behind verbal abuse when unable to furnish even prima facie reasons for their objections, toadying to the crowd, lachrymose claims of hurt feelings, refusal to dig deeper into the topic and interact with the same, and other what-nots that purportedly gives them a rationalization to avoid actual discussion of specifics.
I have no problem explaining that which I hold dear to the sincere person wanting to know more about some topic or even question what I believe. It just seems to me in the public arena some are unwilling to be seen as willing to learn something new or increase their knowledge, especially if the person they are directing their mere assertions and opinions toward is the imaginary Bogeyman, the Calvinist.
AMR
AMR