I've discussed TULIP before in a post, but never really got around to finishing my thought. I can't remember what I said there, and I don't necessarily stand by it. This is one of those doctrines that Christian teenagers discuss and then when it's been argued enough, they figure there are bigger theological fish to fry. But it never hurts to reevaluate where one stands.
I would have to say that I am a two and a half point type at this point. Here's my quick thoughts on each.
Total Depravity - I am absolutely 100% convinced of the utter degeneracy, corruption, and disgrace of not only the situation we all find ourselves in, but of our very selves, myself and those around me. We are hopelessly corrupt. I did not need the Bible to tell me this, but in case Biblical support is desired, that's simple enough to establish.
Unconditional Election - Two examples should suffice. The first is Israel. Abraham in particular, was chosen by God through no virtue of his own. God could have chosen anyone. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But I'm sure that he chose Abraham at the very least. This choice is confirmed throughout the Old Testament and confirmed, and not denied by the New. The second example is Paul. The man was knocked off a fucking horse by God! Dude, sorry, you are chosen. This is not to say that either Moses or Paul had no choice but to accept, and it's not to say that had a choice. That's a question for later in the acronym. But it's undeniable that he chose them to fulfill his purposes. He loved them before they loved him.
Limited Atonement - This is where I veer into "half" territory. Suffice it to say I'm not original here. I'm with what I've read is the position of Thomas Aquinas as influenced by Peter Lombard. The atonement of Christ is sufficient for all, but only [effective] for some. My understanding of the extreme Calvinist position (even though I've also heard that Calvin himself was somewhat ambiguous on this point) is that Christ only actually died for the elect. If I'm misinterpreting the Calvinist position, then someone needs to correct the legions of Calvinists who I've heard that from because the misrepresentation, if there is indeed one, didn't start with me. Speaking of ambiguity. I think that Scripture's own ambiguity on this point is what leads me to this point.
Regarding this point, in particular, what led me to post on this topic was a series of short posts by Michael Bird where he had three posts where he asked three representatives to answer the question, "For whom did Christ die?" The presenters were Paul Helm for the Calvinist view, Ben Witherington for the Arminian view, and Michael Jensen for the Amyraldian view. [Side note: I've never heard the term Amyraldian in my life. Is that new?] Jensen view strikes me as best. Thus my half position rather than all or nothing results from the Bible's own ambiguity.
Irresistable Grace - The Old Testament is the history of God's chosen people resisisting grace, a resistance for which they are summarily punished. They knew God, through the law, and yet denied him. God revealed himself through the prophets, and yet they denied him. The Parable of the Wicked Tenants is a narrative version of Hebrews 1:1-2. And yet, they (proximately, the first century Jewish inhabitants of Jerusalem, but not excluding us as well) refused to acknowledge him. They/we will be summarily punished.
Perseverance of the Saints - It's impossible for me to read much of Paul before declaring this position untenable. Most defenders of this point posit that there is some kind of "truly" saved people which will not fall away, and if anyone does, it can't prove the opponents point, it only shows that they were never "truly" saved. How convenient! Again, Paul is very serious about warning (and I'm not talking about the book of Hebrews, I'm talking about Paul) his followers to perservere. Those who do persevere in the end will be shown to be the true saints. But there is persevering that needs to be done. You don't hear coming from Paul's pen the kind of comfort you hear these days from "Once saved always saved" style preachers. It's so easy! Not for Paul it's not.
So you see there are two that I'm strongly for, two that I'm strongly against, and one of which I have a nuanced middle view. Thus I can be considered to hold to two and half points of the theory. Here I stand... for now at least. Label me as you will!