Oh no, my young Jedi. You will find that it is you who are mistaken, about a great many things.

Contrary to the idea that somehow Christ is again re-sacrificed in the Lord's Supper ceremony, I share this Erwin Lutzer tidbit:

However, the New Testament Book of Hebrews explicitly states that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for God,* thus it was offered once for all. Four contrasts are made between Christ's sacrifice and those of the Old Testament (Heb 10:10-14):

1. In the Old Testament many priests offered sacrifices; in fact, they worked in shifts. But now there is only one High Priest who lives forever.
2. Many sacrifices were offered, day after day, whenever sin was committed. But Christ offered "one sacrifice for sins for all time." His work ended the sacrificial system forever.
3. The Old Testament sacrifices could only take care of past sins--which was the reason they had to be reoffered. But of Christ we read, "For by one offering He has perfected for all time those who are sanctified" (v.14).
4. The former priests were not allowed to sit down while working their shift. But Christ sat down on the right hand of God the Father because his work was finished. (The Doctrines that Divide, 109)
   

10 And by that will we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all. 11 And every priest stands daily at his service, offering repeatedly the same sacrifices, which can never take away sins. 12 But when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God, 13 waiting from that time until his enemies should be made a footstool for his feet. 14 For by a single offering he has perfected for all time those who are being sanctified. (Hebrews 10:10-14, ESV)

*N.B. In addition to these contrasts, key to an understanding of the atonement is that Christ's sacrifice was sufficient for God. Plus, nothing else could appease His wrath or justice, so anything else being offered in its place, or in addition to Christ's sacrifice, is an insult to God who accepted it and to the Christ who offered it.

I hold myself in contempt!

“… what Christ did by dying on the cross for sinners was to appease the wrath of God against sinners. By requiring of his Son such humiliation and suffering for the sake of God's glory, He openly demonstrated that He does not sweep sin under the rug. All contempt for His glory is duly punished, either on the cross, where the wrath of God is propitiated for those who believe, or in hell, where the wrath of God is poured out on those who don't.” ~ John Piper, Desiring God (emphasis added)

For more of the topic of glorifying God (i.e., NOT having contempt for His glory), see the following:

• You may be the lovely dust through which God works His purpose!
• You'll get the answer to that question, Mr. Bender, next Saturday.
• It's not that I'm lazy. I just don't care. It's a problem of motivation.
• I can't have a chink in my chain.

Meditate on this, I will.

Lionel Woods sparked a conversation about the atonement and the potential for Christ's death to be fruitless, if nobody choose Him.

In other words, what if Jesus died on the cross and nobody believed? Could that have happened? To take it further, did Christ's death on the cross accomplish something, or did it create the potential for something and, subsequently, the potential for nothing?

For what it's worth, I shared the following. Label it what you will, but I think it's what the Scriptures teach.

I think the Father chooses a people as a gift to the Son (John 6:37, 39), the Son dies for that people (John 10:15), and the Spirit brings those people individually to from spiritual death to spiritual life (Eph 2:1-3) so that they freely choose the Light of the world, else they never could (John 3:3; 6:44), because they would never want to (John 3:19-20).

This has to do with the limitation of the atonement, for some limit its scope (the who) while others limit its effect (the what), but everyone (except the universalists) limit the atonement in some way. I prefer to think of it as the intent of the atonement, for whom did Christ intend to die?

From John Owen's The Death of Death in the Death of Christ, I leave you with the following:

The Father imposed His wrath due unto, and the Son underwent punishment for, either:

1. All the sins of all men.
2. All the sins of some men, or
3. Some of the sins of all men.

In which case it may be said:

• That if the last be true, all men have some sins to answer for, and so, none are saved.
• That if the second be true, then Christ, in their stead suffered for all the sins of all the elect in the whole world, and this is the truth.
• But if the first be the case, why are not all men free from the punishment due unto their sins?

You answer, Because of unbelief. I ask, Is this unbelief a sin, or is it not? If it be, then Christ suffered the punishment due unto it, or He did not. If He did, why must that hinder them more than their other sins for which He died? If He did not, He did not die for all their sins!"