Secondarily, I forgot to include: I think there should at least be an option of their being an "amralydian church" if my denomination is not created. This is because there is nowhere for these people to go. My church would allow anywhere from infralapsarian, amralydian and Lutheran views on perseverance. This is because the early church tended to not believe in perseverance ; however on atonement, they clearly weren't universalist so they were at least Lutheran on atonement, (in that it was limited because not all would believe); however, my church according to #7 rejects the entire Lutheran debate between Eldona and other Lutherans because even if you hold to Eldona's view, it is still the same tautological argument as someone would make for "eternal election" (versus regular election in time) to claim that there is an objective/subjective distinction; it was created entirely to get around the fact that the atonement is still limited at least in the sense of infralapsarian/Amyradianism since neither are universalists. In Lutheranism, election is a cause not the cause of salvation in the Formula of Concord (which we won't hold to since we don't hold to such restrictive dogmatic texts). The elect are simply those finally saved. The "universal saving will" should be equated with the order of degrees being started by "creation" and this UOJ/ SJ distinction is just superfluous to me, no hackles intended (This is an Aristotelian arbitrary distinction). Most if not all church fathers could be viewed as Amyraldyian or infralapsarian but I've yet to see how the church fathers fall under "efficacious grace" and not "definite atonement" or "election of some", universal grace is never written about in books on Lutheranism as the topic of a whole book or a compare/contrast.
See the chart for comparison. to put the point more succinctly, I just find it really odd that Lutherans emphasize "universal grace" to safeguard God's omnibenevolence yet leave perseverance open, yet if you want to be open on the atonement issue, or leave it ambiguous that's somehow a problem. I don't think TULIP needs to be logical to believe in it , is what I'm saying. What really got me when I was officially Lutheran was how Lutherans were still being rationalists despite what they say because they are trying to uphold God's omnibenevolence, the same as al-Razi , when he constructed his cosmology, they tweaked TULIP in a rationalistic way but it is still just as illogical as a calvinist view--- the problem to me is not TULIP itself therefore, it is simply rationalism itself and not focusing on the actual text and exegesis. However, I do not believe in throwing off everything from Orthodoxy as "adiaphora" is right either, that's how I arrived at these beleifs.... no pews, monks, the liturgy as necessary in my view, no need to innovate or Westernize the church.
Below is an Inforgraphic chart that shows the comparison between general soteriological views taught in different Christian denominations. The chart is based off of the TULIP Calvinist theology. This is similar to the Order of Decrees chart made by B.B. Warfield in his book Plan of Salvation...