Short Meandering on the Atonement

The Puritan theologian John Owen, in The Death of Death in the Death of Christ:

First, If the full debt of all be paid to the utmost extent of the obligation, how comes it to pass that so many are shut up in prison to eternity, never freed from their debts? Secondly, If the Lord, as a just creditor, ought to cancel all obligations and surcease all suits against such as have their debts so paid, whence is it that his wrath smokes against some to all eternity? Let none tell me that it is because they walk not worthy of the benefit bestowed; for that not walking worthy is part of the debt which is fully paid, for (as it is in the third inference) the debt so paid is all our sins. Thirdly, Is it probable that God calls any to a second payment, and requires satisfaction of them for whom, by his own acknowledgment, Christ hath made that which is full and sufficient? Hath he an after-reckoning that he thought not of? for, for what was before him he spared him not, Rom. 8:32. Fourthly, How comes it that God never gives a discharge to innumerable souls, though their debts be paid?

Owen is addressing the problems associated with an Atonement that is not limited, given the solid assumption, based on scripture, that some are indeed lost. If Jesus, in any form of universal redemption, paid the debts of all, then how are some still found with uncovered obligations? Owen also addresses the payment for future sin, for if total satisfaction was granted on Monday, how then can a second helping be demanded on Tuesday? Did God, Owen asks rhetorically, get caught by surprise by an unforeseen sin?

All non-universalists agree that Christ's Atonement was sufficient for all, but efficacious only for the faithful. Who are the faithful? The debate among non-universalists is between those who believe (as I do) that faith is a gift from God to His elect, and therefore all of salvation is of God. Put differently: grace is necessary and sufficient. Those who oppose this view argue that the faithful are those who, while in their fallen unregenerate state, manage to summons a sufficient quantity of vestigial, inherent goodness that, in cooperation with God's grace (which is then necessary but not sufficient) achieves their salvation. It's the 100% solution vs. the (99% + 1%) solution.

Again put differently, it's (what I believe) that God regenerates you, then you come to faith, vs. You come to faith, then God regenerates you. A before B, or B before A?

Put still differently, did (as I believe) Christ's Atonement achieve salvation for some, or did it make salvation possible for all?

The formal response to the Remonstrance  was the 1618 (Second) Synod of Dort convened to counter the rise of "Arminianism" and its oppositions to the teachings of Calvin and others. J. I. Packer summarizes the synod's teaching on the Arminian view of the  Atonement:

Christ's death did not ensure the salvation of anyone, for it did not secure the gift of faith to anyone (there is no such gift); what it did was rather to create a possibility of salvation for everyone if they believe.

To the Calvinist, the position of the Remonstrance is tantamount to salvation of works--at least that one tiny (but oh-so-crucial) work of a free-will, self-mustered, positive response to the Gospel call in an unregenerate person. To us this is contrary to rest of scripture, especially scripture that speaks of the utter hopelessness of man's fallen state.

The debate continues. The pendulum swings. At the moment, there is some indication that among the young and biblically conservative, Calvinism is gaining ground.