Scenario:
Paul walks into a town. He meets Steve. It happens to be the fact, unknown to either Paul or Steve, that Steve is never going to have faith in Christ and therefore is going to hell. You would have us believe that Paul preaches "Christ died for you so that if you believe you will be saved." Nothing bars Steve from salvation except for the fact that it happens to be the case that he will not believe.
I would suggest to you that the actual gospel which Paul would preach runs more along the lines of "If you believe, Christ died for you so that you will be saved." Of course, again, he's not going to believe, but if he would have believed, Christ would have died for him such that he would be saved.
Both gospel formulations have the same basic elements, arranged such that there is salvation for believers and no hope for those who do not believe. The Gospel is good news for the damned only in the sense that God is objectively good, as are all His works. It is of no use or benefit to the damned in either system. The claim that efficacious redemption differs in any meaningful sense from potential atonement concerning the availability of salvation is false, because in both systems all believers are saved, and none who will not believe may be saved, except if they believe (which they never will, because by definition they belong to the category of "people who will not believe"). I can thus come up with only three basic reasons for why you might be going on and on about this as if your gospel held any more good news for those who will be damned than our formulation does.
1) You may be an open theist and do not believe that the categories of "people who will believe" and "people who will not believe" are actual things. There thus can't be a one-to-one correlation between people who won't believe and people who won't be saved.
2) Despite the fact that within non Open Theist doctrine the set of people who will be saved and the set of people who will believe are identical, you feel on some level that if Christ efficaciously redeemed only the believers and did nothing for the unbelievers, someone in the set of unredeemed people might believe, and then - Oops! No redemption for you. Christ didn't die for you, so even if you believe, you're out of luck. Of course, for this to be the case, Christ would have had to have erred by omitting someone who believed from his efficacion of redemption.
3) You're conflating Unconditional Election and Limited Atonement. You quote that "compacted with himself" line of Calvin's a lot. It would help if you used it in the context of the doctrine it applies to. Reformed Theologians like to write their expressions of doctrines in a manner that flows from point to point, showing how all the points work together within the grand scheme of the divine plan, but it is not the case that the points of Calvinism are interdependent. Nothing prevents a Conditional-Election Resistible-Grace Lose-your-Salvation Arminian from holding to Particular Redemption.
If you want to be taught about Calvinism, there are plenty of qualified teachers on this forum, and if you see something which your philosophical precommitments say is a contradiction, we'll be more than happy to help you understand the Reformed position better. However, you want to debate Calvinism. If so, we will expect that you already understand the position well enough to interact with it, and will not need us to articulate your arguments for you. This is why, for the last half-dozen interactions, when you have asked me to address a contradiction, I have simply observed that you haven't established a contradiction. Sometimes, as I just did above, I can guess about what it is that's making you throw out massive non sequiturs as if they were self evident, but in the first place, it's patronizing, and in the second, I'm not going to do your homework for you.
