Jesus died for you

However, the Scripture also states that no one can come to the Son unless the Father draws him - so it is not a false gospel. God is the one who touches hearts. Otherwise man CANNOT choose God in his sickened, sinful state.

I'm just looking at Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem, and here's what he says on the Atonement (I'm not going to type all points out but I'll give you the outline headings):

D. The Extent of the Atonement
1. Scripture passages used to support the Reformed view.
2. Scripture passages used to support the non-Reformed View (general redemption or unlimited atonement).
3. Some points of agreement and some conclusions about disputed texts:

It would be helpful first to list the points on which both sides agree:
1. Not all will be saved.
2. A free offer of the gospel can rightly be made to every person ever born. It is completely true that "whoever will" may come to Christ for salvation, and no one who comes to Him will be turned away. This free offer of the gospel is extended in good faith to every person.
3. All agree that Christ's death in itself, because He is the infinite Son of God, has infinite merit and in itself sufficient to pay the penalty of the sins of as many or as few as the Father and Son decreed. The question is not about the intrinsic merits of Christ's sufferings and death, but about the number of people for whom the Father and the Son thought Christ's death to be sufficient payment at the time Christ died.
Beyond these points of agreement, however, a difference remains concerning the following question: "When Christ died, did he actually pay the penalty only for the sins of those who would believe in Him, or for the sins of every person who ever lived?" On this question it seems that those who hold to particular redemption have stronger arguments on their side. First, an important point that is not generally answered by advocates of the general redemption view is that people who are eternally condemned to hell suffer the penalty for all of their own sins, and therefore their penalty could not have been fully taken by Christ. Those who hold the general redemption view sometimes answer that people suffer in hell because of the sin of rejecting Christ, even though their other sins were paid for. But this is hardly a satisfactory position, for (1) some have never rejected Christ because they have never heard of him, and (2) the emphasis of Scripture when it speaks of eternal punishment is not on the fact that the people suffer because they have rejected Christ, but ont he fact that they suffer because of their own sins in this life (see Rom. 5:6-8, 13-16, et al.). This significant point seems to tip the argument decisively in favor of the particular redemption position.
Another significant point in favor of particular redemption is the fact that Christ completely earned our salvation, paying the penalty for all our sins. He did not just redeem us potentially, but actually redeemed us as individuals whom he loved. A third weighty point in favor of particular redemption is that there is eternal unity in the counsels and plans of God in the work of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit in accomplishing their plans (see Rom. 8:28-30).

He then goes into answering the Scriptures in the next paragraphs: (John 1:29, 2 Cor,. 5:19, John 6:51, John 2:2, 1 Tim. 2:6, Heb 2:9, Rom. 14:15, 1 Cor. 8:11)

He then states: "In conclusion, it seems to me that the Reformed position of "particular redemption" is most consistent with the overall teaching of Scripture. But once that has been said, several points of caution need to be raised.
4. Points of clarification and caution regarding this doctrine.

If you guys want me to type out any particular section that I just put in the heading, let me know. I'll try to do it tonight (I need to get ready for church before I'm late.)

 

I have a couple of minutes to type out the section "Scripture Passages Used to Support the Reformed View" from Systematic Theology by Wayne Grudem (from chapter 27, The Atonement)

"Several Scripture passages speak of the fact that Christ died for his people. "The good shepherd lays down his life for the sheep" (John 10:11). "I lay down my life for the sheep" (John 10:15). Paul speaks of "the church of God which he obtained with the blood of his own Son" (Acts 20:28). He also says, "He who did not spare his own Son but gave him up for us all, will he not also give us all things with him?" (Romans 8:32). This passage indicates a connection between God's purpose in giving up his Son "for us all" and giving us "all things" that pertain to salvation as well. In the next sentence Paul clearly limits the application of this to those who will be saved because he says "Who shall bring any charge against God's elect?" (Rom. 8:33) and in the next verse mentions Christ's death as a reason why no one shall bring a charge against the elect (8:34). In another passage, Paul says, "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her" (Eph. 5:25).
Moreover, Christ during his earthly ministry is aware of a group of people whom the Father has given to him. "All that the Father gives me will come to me; and him who comes to me I will not cast out...this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all that he has given me, but raise it up at the last day" (John 6:37-39). He also says, I am not praying for the world but for those whom you have given me, for they are yours" (John 17:9). He then goes on from this specific reference to the disciples to say, "I do not pray for these only but also for those who believe in me through their word" (John 17:20).
Finally, some passages speak of a definite transaction between the Father and the Son when Christ died, a transaction that had specific reference to those who would believe. For example, Paul says, "God showed his love for us in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us" (Rom. 5:8). He adds, "For if while we were enemies we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, now that we are reconciled, shall we be saved by his life. (Rom. 5:10) This reconciliation to God occurred with respect to the specific people who would be saved, and it occurred "while we were enemies." Similarly, Paul says, "For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that hin him we might become the righteousness of God" (2 Cor. 5:21; cf. Gal 1:4; Eph 1:7). And "Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law, having become a curse for us" (Gal. 3:13)
Further support for the Reformed view is found in the consideration that all the blessings of salvation, including faith, repentance and all of the works of the Holy Spirit in applying redemption, were also secured by Christ's redemptive work specifically for his people. Those for whom he earned forgivenenss also have had those other benefits earned for them (cf. Eph 1:3-4; 2:8; Phil 1:29).
What I have called "the Reformed view" in this section is commonly referred to as "limited atonement." However, most theologians who hold this position today do not prefer the term "limited atonement" because it is so easily subject to misunderstanding, as if this view somehow held that Christ's atoning work was deficient in some way. The term that is usually preferred is particular redemption, since this view holds that Christ died for particular people (specifically, those who would be saved and whom he came to redeem), that he foreknew each one of them individually (cf. Eph 1:3-5) and had them individually in mind in his atoning work.
The opposite position, that Christ's death actually paid for the sins of all people who ever lived, is called "general redemption" or "unlimited atonement."

 

So let me understand your take:

Jesus died for the sins of the world. So all sins are paid for.

Man denies God and thus go to hell.

Man denies God because Satan is blinding them.

God wishes that none would perish but there are those who are blinded by Satan so they will go to hell even if God doesn't want them to.

Thus Satan is stronger than God.