Yes, but by requesting that I agree or disagree with your list in post 351, that is what you were trying to get me to do. To put God is a box.
Would you be willing to answer yes or no to your own list?
Since you are not a Calvinist by your own admssion and I am not an Arminian, lets see where we agree.
Would you agree that God saves those that he chooses to save and no others?
Would that be a good starting point?
You have used the TULIP as an acrostic to roughly describe your theological understanding. Though I don't care much for that approach, I know a number of Calvinists and Reformers have used it in the past. It seems as good a place to start as any...
Here is yours repeated:
T-- Total Depravity -- all have sinned. None are righteous.
U -- Unconditional Election -- Not possible. There must be a condition otherwise it is arbitrary. God is not Arbitrary.
L-- Limited Atonement-- Not Biblical, but a necessary linchpin to hold together the other four point.
I -- Irresistible Grace -- You bet. It is irresistibly thrust upon all men. It is, however, rejectible grace. If you receive it you will be saved, if you reject it, you will be damned. But the same grace which results in one man's salvation may result in the next man's damnation.
P-- Perserverence of the Saints -- Eternal life is eternal. Once you have it, you can't lose it. Otherwise it is not eternal.
It was a bit ambiguous but appears that you agree with T, I, P and grudgingly L. Even your agreement with I seems to be conditional and not what I would normally categorize as irresistable grace. Your strongest disagreement is U, the idea that God elects those whom He saves.
As I have posted previously, I believe there is more than one type of grace (common grace and saving grace). The saving grace is irresistable (man must respond) but the common grace is that which maintains some semblance of beauty, restraint, and happiness in the lives of sinners and believers alike. Your idea that God's grace damns an unbeliever does not seem to agree with Scripture as far as I can tell. Can you give scriptural basis for this belief?
The aspects of TULIP that I support (in general) is T, U, I, and P. The limited atonement is traditionally misunderstood so I prefer to use a statement more like:
Christ death is sufficient to cover all sins but efficacious only for those who God calls.
We seem to disagree primarily on the topic of election. I don't understand how you can adhere to total depravity and yet not accept election. If man is totally depraved, it seems to follow that man cannot choose God on his own. There is a substantial amount of scripture that supports the idea of an elect (it is used at least 8 times in the NASB) and that Man is dead in his sin. I would admit that these are hard truths, but they are scriptural and follow a logical understanding of God's sovereignty.
The hardest aspect of this view is the issue of sin. Where did it come from? Why did God allow it to enter this world? If He is truly sovereign, does it imply that God is the "author" of sin?
I will end here because I wish to get your response before continuing the discourse. It may be that we have much more to discuss before touching on the issues of sin...