I have written before on the subject of the doctrine of limited atonement, when expressed as "Christ died only for the elect": here, here, here, and here. I find I have several more unfinished posts on the topic. Recently I interacted with two people on X who advocated for this position. I asked both of them, "What is the gospel?" because, at best, proponents of this position can only say "Christ might have died for you." Both initially declined to answer, which I found odd, since one would think a Christian would jump at the chance to proclaim it when asked. After all, it's hard enough to share it when not asked. But one finally said that the gospel is that "Jesus is the Messiah". That's true, but it isn't the gospel. A cross-less resurrection-less message isn't good news for anyone.¹

The Synod of Dort referred to the atonement in Articles 3, 5 and 6. In part, article 6 says:

... the sacrifice of Christ offered on the cross is [neither] deficient [n]or insufficient...²

Proponents of limited atonement stress the sufficiency of the atonement but they overlook that their interpretation is deficient. These two pictures³ vividly illustrate how their "gospel" is deficient. There is sufficient water for everyone who is thirsty. But...

---

[1] Perhaps this explains other non-gospel gospels such as "Jesus is King" or "the kingdom of God is at hand." And if a limitarian says the gospel is "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ" follow up with the question, "believe what, exactly?"
[2] The "is not" outside of the quotation was distributed to the inside of the quotation.
[3] Courtesy of Grok.