Bang,
You are the one who doesn't understand the argument, not I. Here it is, one more time:
1. The all-powerful God has the power to make any man believe the "truth," to love God, and thus save that man.
2. Thus, if God allows some men to go unsaved, it must be true that God did not choose to use his power to save that man.
There's no problem here, so far, no contradiction. However, after we read in 1 Timothy 2:3-4 that "God wants all men to be saved," we have an obvious contradiction.
Would it make sense to speak of a man standing on the shore of a lake who effortlessly could save a drowning person, and who wants the person to be saved, but who stands by and lets it happen?
I think you're being too defensive about this and you're concentrating too much on defending your god; you need to focus instead on the author of 1 Timothy, who was careless in his use of words. All you have to do to defend yourself and your god is say that the author meant to say, "God wants man to learn to love God the way God wants to be loved, and thus to be saved, without God having to do all of the teaching and the saving himself."
The 1 Timothy author's verse was clumsily composed, and therefore the author wasn't inspired by God. That's the only point I've ever wanted to make. Unless you're operating at the idiot-fundamentalist level of mindless acceptance of the notion that every word in the Bible came from God--and I don't think you are--then you should have no trouble accepting that the author was not inspired and that he could have better communicated his important message to the readers.
I hope we're done with this.
Joseph F. Alward
"Skeptical Views of Christianity and the Bible"