I will post this answer as a second post that presents a real 100% Calvinist view as observed by classical Calvinists using their preferred way of expressing their view, rather than my modern preferred way as a 95% Calvinist. The truth is many versions of Calvinism today have a slight mixture of Arminianism in them. The basic difference is that within classical Calvinism mans choice to receive Christ is predominantly and 'outcome of election' and that God 'effectively calls' all for whom Christ died, and all who he does not effectively call, Christ did not strictly die for. In some sense this means God does not effectually love all. This does not mean a Calvinist does not think God is loving and loves all, it has more to do with our understanding of what 'God's will' really means.
I refer to a classical treatment on the very subject you question by John Owen entitled 'The death of death in the death of Christ':
Most apparent, then, it is that the new covenant of grace, and the promises thereof, are all of them of distinguishing mercy, restrained to the people whom God did foreknow; and so not extended universally to all. Now, the blood of Jesus Christ being the blood of this covenant, and his oblation intended only for the procurement of the good things intended and promised thereby,—for he was the surety thereof, Heb. 7:22, and of that only,—it cannot be conceived to have respect unto all, or any but only those that are intended in this covenant.
Notice Owen arguably the leading Calvinist of his time says Christ did not die for all.
This is no uncertain matter to the Calvinist. The word all simply does not mean ‘all’ without exception. Owen lists several reasons why this is so.
First Owen argues that the
‘word all being in the Scripture most commonly used in this sense (that is, for many of all sorts)’
Second Owen argues that in the case of 1 Timothy
after he hath enjoined us to pray for all, because the Lord will have all to be saved, he expressly intimates that by all men he understandeth men of all sorts, ranks, conditions, and orders, by distributing those all into several kinds, expressly mentioning some of them, as “kings and all in authority.”
Third, Owen actually clarifies that scripture says ‘we should not pray for all’ although not quoting it he is obviously referring to 1 John 5:16.
Fourth, Owen argues that no man can resist God’s will so since not all are saved not all were willed to be saved.
Fifth, Owen argues that God would have no more to be “saved” than he would have “come to the knowledge of the truth.”
These two things are of equal latitude, and conjoined in the text. But it is not the will of the Lord that all and every one, in all ages, should come to the knowledge of the truth. Of old, “he showed his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them,” Ps. 147:19, 20. If he would have had them all come to the knowledge of the truth, why did he show his word to some and not to others, without which they could not attain thereunto?
So we basically get the idea. Calvinists insist that only those who are elect before the foundations of the world will be saved. The choice to receive Christ, or not, based on a provision of salvation for all, is not the determining factor, rather it is God's will and election that counts. The concept that God provisioned for all and then we simply decide, yes or no is actually more Arminian than Calvinistic. However what complicates the issue for most is that receiving Christ is not strictly a 'work' so modern Calvinism might allow some relationship to man's choice in God's election but this concept is not really supported by classical Calvinism.
Having posted two posts to the question I should add that I actually have no objection to 100% Calvinism and do not object to saying that Christ did not die for all and even to say in some sense he does not love all. But we must be careful about words for I fully support that Christ did died for all and that God does love all. To be fair we must listen fully to a persons arguments and slowly understand what they mean be each term and sense in their explanation. Although I prefer to use different terms and senses as expressed in my original post where I confess I am no longer 100% Calvinists, to be honest I actually find the alternate phrases and senses by a 100% Calvinist (when properly understood) to be virtually no different then my own. Sometimes it is simply a preferred way of saying the same thing, however some peoples preferred way can be highly confusing to others! To me and many other Calvinists one can put all salvation is God's choosing and effectual calling to the elect 'only', while believing that God in some real sense truly loves all, but refer to my second post for that 'preferred way of expressing these terms'.