I agree that the idea of universal love is an Arminian pillar. However, the Trinity is a Roman Catholic pillar. I would rather not throw out the pillar, but be sure that it is understood biblically. Do you argue that there is only one kind of love (electing) from God. Along with many other reformers, I distinguish different kinds of love. For example, I love my wife differently than I love my children and differently than I love my next door neighbor or my enemies. Therefore, universal love is not unique to Arminianism but it is certainly applied differently. (See Calvin, Charles Hodge, John Bunyan to name a few.)
By the Arminian doctrine of universal love there is no salvation offered in the gospel. There is the possibility of salvation but not actual salvation. If a Calvinist chooses to make this the basis on which salvation is offered to the sinner he alters the nature of the Calvinist system whether he likes to admit it or not. Yes, there is a general love, but it is non-salvific. It forms no basis for the gospel offer.
Hyper-Calvinism is not a definition that everyone agrees on and is therefore somewhat subjective, so I believe your point is mute. In fact, I know of no one who is a hyper-Calvinist that would say that they are. However, I think it can be easily proven that Calvin taught all five of the points that hypers, according to Phil Johnson, come against. If we are going to call the Reformed faith "Calvinism," I think Calvin is a good place to start.
Mute?
"Hyper" stands in relation to "Calvinist." If one agrees on "Calvinism" it should be an easy thing to agree on what constitutes an "hyper" form of it.
If you are advocating the Calvinistic understanding of general (universal) love, how did the article espouse the Arminian concept?
As already stated, by making it the basis of the gospel offer of salvation and by rendering it ineffectual. God is good and doeth good. Holy Scripture teaches no such idea as ineffectual divine goodness. The only basis for sinful men to receive and rest upon Christ for salvation depends on the fact that God is effectually good, that He has mercy on whom He will have mercy.
However, "agape" as defined and applied in Scripture is not in any way synonymous or inclusive of "passions."
Including "compassion." "Compassion" is an anthropopathic term. Benevolence (good will) speaks properly and in accord with the spiritual and simple nature of God.