According to the definition above, you do not believe Christ actually redeemed or saved anybody. 7. To save. Christs death only made salvation possible. It actually secured the salvation of none, only making all men salvable. The early church dismissed this at the Council of Orange. The church has historically upheld Total Depravity, even after Christs death. Your last sentence shows you uphold some form of pelagian soteriology, which is heresy.

By your long examples of what redemption means is precisely what Christ did in fact accomplish. There is absolutely no possibility involved at all. He saved everyone from death and destruction. In fact, as I pointed out, His universe, His creation. It was done to overcome the fall. You apparently have some other definition of the fall if Christ did not overcome the fall. The fall needed to be corrected in order for man to have Union or communion with Christ (God). this Union, the salvation of man is what man was created to do. It did not need correction. It did need a lot of additional gifts which were provided for by Christ to strengthen the believer in His communion with God. But Christ did not accomplish that for which man was created, His Union with Him. The Early Church never dismissed this view. The Council of Orange, actually the Second Council of Orange in 529 is a western local council not an ecumenical council. It was expressly the refutation of Pelagius by Augustine and the fact that man did not inherit any sin from Adam. Man did not need God's grace. Christ was just a good man, lived a sinless life, was a good example, thus any man could follow suit. The Early Church, as a Church, shied away from Augustine for the reason that much of what he stated was put to strongly just to make a point against Pelagius. The Church has never upheld the concept of total depravity. That is a western view and became, as did most of the other Augustinian views the bedrock of Catholicism and the reformers.
I don't think you clearly understand just what Pelagianism actually consists of. The Church has condemned Pelagianism. But not all of what he believed, nor wrote is Pelagianism, just as with all the other heretics. J Edwards thinks that the Church also condemned universalism. It did, but Universalism as any false teaching has part truth within it. What was condemned was the universal salvation of man, not the redemptive portion. Most false teachings have some element of Truth in them.

I think you are either a universalist or confused. 6. To pay the penalty of. According to your definition of redemption Christs death could not have been a vicarious sacrifice for sin. Mans reward? For what work? Surely you don't uphold a synergistic salvation.
Again, you also do not really understand Universalism. I would say you are the one confused.
It actually freed mankind from two deaths. From the judgemeent of Adam and the consequences our our sins, which is spiritual death. So therefore, His death was surely a vicarious sacrifice, we don't necessarily need to suffer death IF we believe and IF we endure.

The salvation of man is absolutely synergistic. Surprised that you even know and use the word correctly. It also cannot be any other way. If Christ also did this for man, then Christ must be held accountable to God, not man. Christ would be judged rather than the Judge at the Judgement seat. Adam would never have sinned in the first place. Adam, as a human being, is no different in essence from us, unless you believe so. I'm making a pure assumption that you believe he is as we are. God, in effect would be overruling the creation and purpose of man in that creation. Adam's walk with God was not the problem. The fact he sinned, thus making it impossible for any kind of union, communion or for man to fulfill his created purpose. Where in the Bible do you arrive at the fact that Christ accomplished man's intended created purpose?

As shown already, your definitions of redeemed, atonement, and redemption are inaccurate. So allow me to ask a question. Was the death of Christ a vicarious sacrifice for sin?
I just pointed that out to you. However, what does this even have to do with whether Christ's work was universal or particular? However, if Adam's judgement of death was not overcome first and foremost, the vicarious sacrifice for sin would be null and void in eternity. We would have forgiveness in this life, but not even enjoy an eternity with Christ. Your emphasis is on sin only. Sin is not man's foremost problem. Death, physcial death is primary. It is what kept man separted from God, thus spiritual death as well. Christ corrected the first by overcoming it. His death also atoned for our sins by paying the penalty of those sins, which is eternal spritual death.
But that penalty was paid for all men. Not just a few. That some will not avail themselves of it, is man's free choice, created in God's image with a will. That will is what Adam used to reject God, same as man can do today, since we all have been freed from the bondage of Adams Judgement, Physcial death, and from our sins, our spiritual death, if we so chose. That is why those that do not believe have already been condemned. It is the believing which uncondemns us. John 3:18. John 3:16 also is opposed to your view. It is universal He came to save the world, not condemn it. Man condemns himself in his rejection of His saviour.

Did Gods first plan fail? What would that say of Gods omnipotence? I have heard this belief offered at bible college. I couldn't believe God would fail.
How could this even be considered God failing. He succeeded in such a way that He saved the world, He recreated the world through Christ. He put the world back into the correct relationship so man could do what His sovereign plan started in the beginning. God, in creating man with a free will, that is independent of God's will. Part of that Image in which we are created. Another part of man's essence is that he is a communal being. Ah, just as God is, and why we were created. God did not want robots that He manipulated, that He controlled, that He forced to love and obey Him. He risked His entire Divine plan on the fact that man was created with a will. A will that could in fact reject his creator. What happened? Man rejected his creator.
Where is scripture do we find that man's essence changed. That the purpose of man is changed? Why did God now want to overrule His sovereign plan and His purpose of creating man. Why must He now manipulate man, control man, lock man into an existance where man is not free to choose.
From your view, as I pointed out to J Edwards, your God cannot be a God of love. He is particular and even though He desires all men to be saved,. He actually does not save all, only some. Not only that but you seriously think that God somehow along the way changed His sovereign plan, which up to now, you have failed to show anywhere in scripture that it might be so.

That sure explains it. If your pastor teaches the same things you are espousing here, you need to find a new church.
Obviously, you believe that there are several ways to Christ. My pastor, teacher is none other than Christ. He is the Head of that Church. He has governed, protected, and preserved that Body from the Beginning. It is, after all, His Body. It is His Truth imparted to the Apostles and has been imparted to believers ever since. Why in the world would I ever depart from the One True Faith, the One True Church, Christ.

Could you tell me how many different contextual meanings for world and all there are in those passages you offered? More than one and almost none are all absolutely. In fact, most alls and worlds and everybody's aren't universally inclusive. I am going to post some scriptures that show a limited scope of atonement.

Absolutely none. They stand as written and meant.
None of your underlined phrases restrict atonement. The first one is the same as that of Romans 5:15-16. Adams death was the result of one sin, Christ redemption covers many sins. The many does not refer to individuals.

Matt 1:21 - is referencing the salvation of man. Those that will accept Him by faith. It is those that He will save from their sins. How, because by repentance they enter into Union with Christ. This is possible only because of the atonement which is still universal. This does not restrict the effect of the atonement.

John 10: 14-15 He is addressing those who will choose Him. It is not referencing the atonement directly, only that there will be some who will choose Christ. God will call all men. The Holy Spirit will be poured out upon all men. Joel 2:28, Acts 2:16ff.

Titus 1:1 is very specifically referencing those that believe and become God's elect. Those that the Holy Spirit will empower to be conformed to the Image of His Dear Son. Romans 8:29. Phil 3:21

I don't see any restriction or even the mention of atonement in these verses.

The real starting point for understanding Christs death is what its purpose was. That purpose could not fail.
Quite correct. It has not failed. So why do you believe in a limited work of Christ? Why do you believe God changes, in that He changed His plan is midstream somewhere, which you have failed to show.