I am no expert in Reformed theology, but I suppose that the Reformed doctrine of irresistible grace implies that humans cannot delay accepting God’s gift of salvation. (Perhaps somebody reading this thread who is well versed in Reformed theology could verify this.) Likewise, saying that nobody will reject God’s grace continuously forever does not mean that you believe in the doctrine of irresistible grace, which is a cornerstone of Reformed theology.
Maybe it’s only when God personally reveals His grace to someone it’s irresistible (e.g. Saul/Paul), and that all those who appear to be resisting/delaying acceptance, haven’t yet had the personal, unambiguous encounter with grace, and therefore aren’t actually resisting the irresistible?
However, doesn’t irresistible imply one doesn’t have any free will? I think I’m a soft determinist, if that means God gets His way but somehow makes space for us to make real decisions? Do I have to be a determinist to be Reformed? 
I suppose that Reformed implies compatibility of divine determinism and human free will, a type of “compatibilism”
(plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/). Is this what you mean by “soft determinism”?
Given this, I suppose that Reformed implies compatibilism with an inscrutable compatibility of irresistible grace and human free will.
By the way, my view of conditional futurism implies conditional election. So all in all, I do not work with Reformed theology apart from the general sense that Arminius considered himself part of the Reformed tradition.
I read a bit of that definition and it sounds the same, what’s more I discovered Wikipedia says the terms are equivalent.
Yes, that’s where my thinking is at the moment, I could well be wrong as it seems to me to be a complex topic. Either way, even with compatibilism, I think God determined to softly determine some things, rather than Open Theism (if I’m understanding that correctly ) i.e. God knows what He’s doing.
I look forward to reading more of your book to get a greater understanding of conditional futurism, as what I’ve read so far is interesting 
Well, open theists believe that God knows what he is doing. But they believe that God does not always know the definite results of his actions because God doesn’t exhaustively determine everything while God sovereignly limits the possibilities. Anyway, there are two Arminian views of divine sovereignty: first, traditional Arminian simple foreknowledge; second, open theism.
Simple foreknowledge means that God has always exhaustively known the definite outcome of all future events, but but without exhaustively determining all outcomes. Nothing happens without God’s permission, while God sovereignly ensures that his purposes will prevail.
Open theism teaches that God has always known all possibilities of all possible universes, while God has always known his best response for any circumstance that could occur. But God does not exhaustively know the definite outcome of the future because he allows chance and free will. Also, nothing happens without God’s permission, while God sovereignly ensures that his purposes will prevail.
I strongly lean toward open theism while I cannot absolutely reject inscrutable simple foreknowledge.
Also, if we hypothetically eliminate the possibility of open theism, then I would strongly lean toward inscrutable simple foreknowledge while I could not absolutely reject inscrutable compatibilism.
Additionally, I believe that Saul could have rejected Jesus on the road to Damascus, but that rejection would have been highly unlikely.
Alex,
My first attempt at making a quote! Here it is from your opening.
Alex said : God- I believe the Trinity is the best description of the God revealed the Bible. I believe God is infinitely & perfectly loving, holy, glorious, wise, powerful, knowing & just. I believe God deserves all (heart, mind & body) our praise and worship.
unquote
Just a small suggestion. How about adding “merciful” even tho implied of course by “loving” and “just”.
Also I take the opportunity now after joining the forum in July this year to say what a great encouragement and blessing it is to read regularly every day. Thanks to you all!
Michael Witty
at Barcelona
Thanks for clarifying that.
It makes me more comfortable, knowing it doesn’t reject God’s sovereignty.
As you can tell, I haven’t really looked into open theism as I was told it was heresy (although given other “heresies” have turned out not to be heresy, perhaps that’s all the more reason to check it out for myself!).
I don’t absolutely reject inscrutable simple foreknowledge but lean towards inscrutable compatibilism
Yes, highly unlikely or impossible, it’s hard to know.
Excellent suggestion, I’ve updated it 
I’m delighted to hear that!