Is it possible to reconcile Owen's trilemma with salvation by faith?

John Owen's "trilemma" argument is often used as a defense for Limited Atonement, but it appears to have an underlying difficulty: > To which I may add this dilemma to our universalists: God imposed his > wrath, and Christ underwent the pains of hell, either for all the sins > of all men, or for all the sins of some men, or for some of the sins > of all men. ... If it was the first, then why are not all freed from > the punishment of all their sins? You will say, “Because of their > unbelief; they will not believe.” But this unbelief, is it a sin or > not? If not, why should they be punished for it? If it is, then Christ > either underwent the punishment for it, or he did not. If he did, then > why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death > more than their other sins for which he died? If he did not undergo > the punishment for it, then he did not die for all their sins. (The > Death of Death in the Death of Christ [modernized edition by William > H. Gross ], Book I, ch III) He argues that Christ dying for sins means that unbelief (itself being a sin) should not prevent unbelievers from being saved. But if the atonement would save even those who never believe, then that seems to imply that faith is immaterial to salvation. Is it possible to reconcile this line of reasoning with salvation by faith? ### Clarification To summarize the problem and the question: * Owen argues that Christ dying for a person means that unbelief would not stop that person from being saved, viz, *"...why should that sin keep them from partaking of the fruit of his death more than their other sins for which he died?"* * If, as Owen argues, the atonement means that unbelief doesn't disqualify someone from salvation, that seems to imply that faith makes no difference in whether one is saved. * The question then is **how can faith making no difference in whether one is saved be reconciled with salvation by faith**?