I don't have the time now to exegete those passages in detail now, but I would offer the following.

1. I think the biblical usage of the word "agape" is a commitment to the good of someone else. Such commitment takes different expressions, some being temporal and others eternal.

2. Regarding your first question, I would personally lean toward understanding 2:3-4 in terms of God's revealed/perceptive will. However, I don't feel dogmatic about that interpretation. Of course, Calvin understands it to be speaking about classes of people. However, my biggest reservation in interpreting it this way is that we are told to make intercessions and supplications for all men. It seems unnatural that these prayers would be only for classes of elect people. It also seems unnatural that the emphasis would be switched from individuals to classes of individuals if indeed we are to pray for individuals in this context.

3. In reference to your question, I would agree with John Murray's Free Offer of the Gospel article.

4. Concerning John 3:16, I'm not persuaded I need to exegete something that's been exegeted so many times. I know the arguments and stand with Calvin's exegesis of the passage for reasons I gave in a previous response.

Question: You still haven't reconciled the love and hate that believers are to have to unbelievers. The benevolence spoken of in Matt. 5 is unavoidably called "love" ("love your enemies"). How is it that believers are called to both love and hate their enemies if love and hate are mutually exclusive as you've stated?

Honestly, I'm not sure if there's much more to discuss on the subject. However, I feel fairly confident that our controversy is at the level of vocabulary, not concept. You've made it abundantly clear that God is benevolent to the reprobate. We call the same benevolence something different, but I would certainly not say you are hyper-Calvinist because of it... I have thoroughly enjoyed our discussion on the matter and it had tremendously helped me understand the difference between where I was as a hyper-Calvinist in contrast to your position on the matter, which I believe would be Owen's approach.

Fair?