Since this line of argument was not thoroughly fleshed out in the Corinthians thread, I figure it's best to create a new thread for discussion of the argument that the Reformed articulation of the gospel does not constitute good news for all men because the death of Christ did not save unbelievers.
Problematically, unless you are a universalist, you too believe that there will be people in hell. And unless you are an open theist, you believe that whether or not someone is going to hell is presently already a determined fact. Thus I would challenge any Arminian who isn't a universalist or open theist to explain how it is that a general or potential atonement provides better good news than particular redemption.
One may say that under generalism, Christ modified all men such that, if they just believe, those who will never believe will be saved. It needs to be noted here that this good news is of a counterfactual nature. It could be true in an alternate version of reality, but will not be in this one. If that is the case, particularists are also entitled to justify the goodness of their gospel using counterfactuals. Counterfactually, if an unbeliever whom Christ did not particularly redeem were to have been a believer, he would have been a believer whom Christ particularly redeemed, because under particularism Christ redeemed all believers. This is true universally. No distinction of Jew or Gentile or man or woman or young or old or rich or poor or any other distinction can withhold a man from salvation; salvation is for all if only they believe. Some won't believe, and Christ did not die so as to efficaciously redeem them, so they will go to hell, but isn't that just as true of any non-universalist position?
It has also often been said that under particularism those who are damned were foreordained unto damnation, whereas under generalism they are not, but this is a very confused error. Arminians are conflating particular redemption and unconditional election. Particularism merely states that Christ, in his death, saved all the saved and did not save all the unsaved. The reason why a man believes unto salvation or disbelieves unto damnation is not relevant to particularism.
If there are any other reasons out there why the fact that there will be damned people means that particularism is insufficiently good compared to generalism, reasons which don't hinge on counterfactuals or conflations of independent doctrines, this is your chance to present them.
Problematically, unless you are a universalist, you too believe that there will be people in hell. And unless you are an open theist, you believe that whether or not someone is going to hell is presently already a determined fact. Thus I would challenge any Arminian who isn't a universalist or open theist to explain how it is that a general or potential atonement provides better good news than particular redemption.
One may say that under generalism, Christ modified all men such that, if they just believe, those who will never believe will be saved. It needs to be noted here that this good news is of a counterfactual nature. It could be true in an alternate version of reality, but will not be in this one. If that is the case, particularists are also entitled to justify the goodness of their gospel using counterfactuals. Counterfactually, if an unbeliever whom Christ did not particularly redeem were to have been a believer, he would have been a believer whom Christ particularly redeemed, because under particularism Christ redeemed all believers. This is true universally. No distinction of Jew or Gentile or man or woman or young or old or rich or poor or any other distinction can withhold a man from salvation; salvation is for all if only they believe. Some won't believe, and Christ did not die so as to efficaciously redeem them, so they will go to hell, but isn't that just as true of any non-universalist position?
It has also often been said that under particularism those who are damned were foreordained unto damnation, whereas under generalism they are not, but this is a very confused error. Arminians are conflating particular redemption and unconditional election. Particularism merely states that Christ, in his death, saved all the saved and did not save all the unsaved. The reason why a man believes unto salvation or disbelieves unto damnation is not relevant to particularism.
If there are any other reasons out there why the fact that there will be damned people means that particularism is insufficiently good compared to generalism, reasons which don't hinge on counterfactuals or conflations of independent doctrines, this is your chance to present them.