Quote
"He came to SEEK and to save those who were LOST"
He did save/make atonement for those who believed [look up "believed"-means an act of belief--an action! not to be confused with a work] so that was success! Anything but failure! What Christ accomplished on the cross should NEVER be thought of as that!!! You don't have the right to define infallible. If He came to die for only those who He KNEW would believe, then you can not say otherwise. It didn't say he died for the saved! That would have been a waste! He died for the lost!
First, welcome to the forum. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/hello.gif" alt="" /> While I agree with you that Christ was not a failure, respectfully, many of your other thoughts here are riddled with error.

A. You claim that we can’t define “infallible.” However, in the way the term is being used (i.e. being infallibly drawn to Christ) to say such would be tantamount to saying that one’s salvation is not sure, for if it is not sure in the LORD, then there is no surety for it! Thus, your assertion is incorrect. The drawing of God to salvation is as sure as the salvation itself is.

B. Next you claim that “He came to die for only those who He KNEW would believe.” I understand your statement to mean, "God foreordained us because He foreknew our decision," which if I have understood you correctly you are incorrectly dividing and separating God’s fore-knowledge from His fore-ordination. Maybe you did not mean this ... <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/shrug.gif" alt="" />

C. While Christ did die for the LOST, He did not die for ALL the LOST, neither did He come to efficaciously SEEK ALL the LOST. The atonement was limited in design, but not in power. Though His message would be heard by many, it would only be efficaciously heard by God’s elect—those God had given Him before the foundation of the world.

Reformed and Always Reforming,