God resurrects the evil as well as the good, of course; He wouldn’t need a demonstration of His true character and justice on the cross for that purpose. I doubt He would need any such demonstration in order to resurrect the sheep any more than the goats, or vice versa. (I don’t recall any scriptural testimony to that effect; and I don’t know any metaphysical argument concluding it as a derivation from principle.)
Fortunately, I don’t consider what was accomplished on the cross to be limited to a forensic demonstration. 
I was only noting that such a demonstration can fit into a “defeat of dark powers” through God’s atonement with sinners, too, in its own way.
The cross undercuts the despairing accusations of the Accuser in all directions, though: it shows to the one who is despairing of God’s tolerance for evil and tragedy, that God does not hold Himself exempt from the suffering of the innocent and will also act just as strongly to bring triumph out of the tragedy. (What Tolkien later called eucatastrophe.) God reconciles with the suffering innocent. It shows to the one who despairs of God’s wrath against His enemies, that God does not inflict such wrath from on high but suffers the consequences along with His enemies and not to a hopeless end; also that God loves even His enemies so much that He still gives Himself (as He has always done) for their sake. God reconciles with the guilty. (Or acts to do so anyway, and is obviously totally committed to keep on doing so until the guilty agree to make peace with God.) And it shows to the one who insists on appealing to some depersonalized notion of mere ‘legal’ justice against sinners, whether out of a perverted sense of righteousness (a sense that has nothing to do with accomplishing and fulfilling fair-togetherness between people) or out of a hateful sense of mutual destruction (well I got caught and punished so why aren’t you going after that guy, too!!–it’s unfair if you don’t!!–so you’re a hypocrite after all!!), that God is interested in more than mere law and always was and always will be: that love is the source of any legitimate law and also the only legitimate fulfillment of law.
Yes, actually I am pretty sure that God’s resurrection of the evil even into judgment, is explained by God’s continuing action toward reconciliation with them. 
There is no point resurrecting someone you have no intention of completing reconciliation with; they might as well be annihilated from the outset, period. (Unless the one resurrecting the rebel against him is a sadist getting off on mere torment the rebel for sake of assauging his affronted ego, perhaps; but if that is what God really is, then we’re all in massively huge trouble which is not going to be satisfied by God tormenting some innocent person instead of us.) The resurrection of the goats as well as the sheep, even though the goats continue in punishment, is itself a step toward the restoration of (and thus fulfilling reconciliations with) the goats; otherwise, God might as well leave them disembodied spirits in hades. And it is certainly God Who does all this, not the rebel spirits who manage to somehow accomplish it!
From God’s eternal perspective, the reconciliation is finished and perfectly completed. But even the existence of anything at all involves God’s continuing action of self-sacrifice; the cross is a one-time historical event, but it points to something far more fundamental happening eternally.
Yet even if that is denied (though I don’t recommend it), my “whole concept of a continuing action” of reconciliation still detracts no more from Christ’s accomplishment than St. Paul’s acknowledgment that people (including faithful Christians) still do die, that even Christians (including himself) still do sin and are not yet perfected, that Christ will reign until all His enemies are beneath His feet in the subjugation that He Himself submits to the Father, and that the race is still being run.
Maybe the problem is that my concept is a whole one, which keeps those things (among many others) in mind, too. 
Nope. The cross is just as truly special whether or not a sinner has yet repented and accepted God’s reconciliation. Nevertheless, repentance and regeneration of the sinner is part of the whole process, too. Otherwise there would be no point to the evangelical appeal: “Be reconciled to God!” Nor can that repentance (much moreso the regeneration) happen without God’s action to call and lead and empower. If that hasn’t happened historically yet–and it obviously hasn’t for anyone this side of God giving us the victorious new name in the white stone–then it ought to be good news to hear that God will continue to act toward this and not give up short of victory. The good shepherd doesn’t only open the door for the 100th sheep and sit around waiting for it to come home; much less close the door (not without opening it again later anyway–for there are sometimes door-closings, too); much much less does he merely pretend the sheep is already home, so calling the gathering of the flock ‘finished’. The good shepherd goes out after the sheep and keeps going until He finds the sheep and then still keeps going until He has brought the sheep home. (Whereupon the angels in heaven rejoice more over that 100th sheep than over the 99 who never left the fold.)
The sheep doesn’t have to do anything to merit this salvation from the shepherd; neither does the shepherd have to keep fiddling with the door once he has opened the door. (And the shepherd is also the door, as Christ puts it in GosJohn. Which has a lot of relation to our recent new member John’s remarks about Christ == the Cross == the Tree of Life, by the way.)
But the shepherd doesn’t stop with merely opening the door, either.
Oddly, I recall fighting for my understanding of the atonement in that very sentence you quoted, as well as afterward. (Which is why I didn’t only write “I suspect we have rather different ideas of what at-one-ment means” and stop there.)
What I don’t recall, by the way, is you “engaging” with the portions of that sentence you omitted when reproducing it. Come to think of it, I don’t recall you engaging in any discussion of the meaning of ‘atonement’ per se after I spent some amount of e-ink fighting for my understanding of it. It might be less boring if you did that. (Though maybe I missed it? I see you discussing and complaining about three or four things in your replies, which is fine to do, too; but not discussing what ‘atonement’ means. I could discuss the use of {hilas-} and cognates in the New Testament, or “propitiation” as it is sometimes translated in English, if you preferred. {shrug} It has to do with being merciful to those who repent and throw themselves on the mercy of the court.)
But neither is it necessarily restricted to limited atonement in any sense.
I think he’ll really appreciate it.