After reflecting on our debate, it has occurred to me that perhaps our original resolution(s) was(were) not very well defined:
You posted this statement of the resolution:
*** QUOTE ***
Resolved: Christ's sacrifice has saved or will save each person upon whose behalf it was offered.
I will be denying that [assertion] and affirming that Christ died universally for the whole world, especially the elect.
*** END OF QUOTE ***
In the debate, I tried to ask you whether you were intending to take the position that Christ died with the intent that the benefits of his death would be applied to the reprobate.
Specifically I asked:
Did Christ die intending to save the reprobate?
You gave the following answer:
Christ died to pay for the sins of the world with the intention to save the elect. God's salvific will is purposed for only the elect, but his desire is for all to come to salvation. This is the famous "two-wills of God" theory, which I hold to. So this is where the multiple intentions comes in the discussion. Christ died for the whole of mankind, but his special love for the elect was the "joy set before him" and that is why he "endured the cross."
Try as I might, I cannot be sure whether that is supposed to be an affirmative or negative answer to the question.
If you are simply saying that Christ's death was of sufficient value to save the reprobate, we have no debate.
If you are simply saying that Christ's death would save the reprobate, if the reprobate man turned in faith to Christ, we have no debate.
I asked you follow-up questions in the comments section of your post, but I don't see any response, so I'm left wondering whether your intended disagreement with my position is anything more than a semantic disagreement.
After all, some of the folks on your side have suggested that they are merely holding to the teachings of Hodge and Shedd.
Yet Shedd clearly taught limited redemption (while semantically differentiating that from "unlimited" [that is to say, unlimited in intrinsic value] atonement):
(Dogmatic Theology, p. 471)
So the question remains for you, what is it that you believe Christ intended on the cross as far as the salvation of the reprobate go? Was Christ offering his infinitely valuable sacrifice with the intent to save others than those whom he actually will save?
If you do not believe that Christ intended on the cross to save the reprobate, I'm not sure how you can reasonably say that you disagree with my assertion: "Christ's sacrifice has saved or will save each person upon whose behalf it was offered." - at least, as far as I intended it.
And if you are only disagreeing with it in a sense in which I did not intend it, perhaps we ought to call off the debate, as fundamentally (though not semantically) in agreement with each other.