Now, here are some of my personal responses to these points.
My issue with the Calvinism branch of reformed theology is mostly based on the view that if one thing is true, others things cannot be… when often this is not the case biblically. If something appears to be paradoxical, it may be our error. The extreme views often held are either misunderstood or unnecessary.

I will also offer a percentage that expresses my own personal stance as compared to the full Calvinist view. A very strong Calvinist would score 100% on each one, many who would claim to be Calvinist… and especially “reformed” would not score 100%. I represent no one but myself here… these are my thoughts only.

I think this is a more accurate conversation, at least from my perspective, rather than referring to myself as a “four pointer” or something like that.
 Total Depravity: 80%

I believe that mankind and each man is depraved and plenty depraved… but not “totally” depraved according to the way I would use the word “total”. I typically like the “intensive” vs “extensive” clarification.

First, I think we are still created and still bear the image of God. That image itself is not depraved.  

Additionally, I am not as depraved as I could be – there are sins and perversions I have not ever engaged in. I think we represent (each) a cup of water with poison in them (which is poisoned enough) but not a cup of poison. If I use the word “total” to say “I colored a picture totally black,” I mean that there is nothing but black on the page.
Calvinists often say that mankind comes to God like a criminal comes to a policeman – in other words – runs in the other direction while hateful and resentful. I think this is accurate… but that even a criminal has some concept of eternity in him (Eccl 3:11)… so I think it is plausible that we might seek God like a criminal seeks a policeman, when the criminal is falling off of a 1000 foot cliff and is Cop offers him a hand.

What I think is necessary to understand is that no one has the right righteousness, nor enough of it to cancel out our fallen-ness. 

Unconditional election: 60%, or depending on your definition of “unconditional”
The questions isn’t whether the Bible teaches election. It does (Eph 1:4). The questions are about what the term means and what, by existing, it cancels out.

There are things that God elects (Rom 9:10-13) but does He elect for Salvation unconditionally?

Could it be conditioned upon the works of man? No, passages like Eph 2:8-9 make that pretty clear that nothing man can do is what motivates God to save us.

My thoughts are that I can list out a dozen or maybe 100 passages that back the idea that God chooses with utter sovereignty (Rom 8:29, Rom 9:13, John 15:16, and Eph 1:3-11 just for a start) depends on no one but Himself to make that call.
I can also list out dozens of passages that defend the idea that man is responsible to freely believe in God (John 3:16-18, Rev 20:12, and even Eph 1:12-14!)

For this reason, I have come to the opinion that both are true. Man freely and honestly chooses. God sovereignly and freely (dependent on no one else). How is this logically coherent? There are several ways, but I like middle knowledge best.

Limited atonement: 10%, if that.
Verses in defense of the idea of limited atonement:
2 Tim 2:9-11. Therefore I endure all things for the sake of the elect, that they also may obtain the salvation which is in Christ Jesus with eternal glory.

Heb 5:9-11. And having been perfected, He became the author of eternal salvation to all who obey Him, 10 called by God as High Priest “according to the order of Melchizedek,”  11 of whom we have much to say, and hard to explain, since you have become dull of hearing. 

John 17:1-3… “Father, the hour has come; glorify your Son that the Son may glorify you, since you have given him authority over all flesh, to give eternal life to all whom you have given him. And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent. (ESV)

This passage might say that Jesus was only planning on dying for the flesh the Father had given him. It may not. It seems to be referencing the last phrase, which is about knowing the Father and the Christ…does that mean Jesus did not die for the other flesh too? It is not clear.

These, however, seem more clear:

2 Cor 5:14 “For the love of Christ controls us, because we have concluded this: that one has died for all, therefore all have died; ¹⁵ and he died for all, that those who live might no longer live for themselves but for him who for their sake died and was raised.”

The word “all” here is the same as Romans 5:12
“Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned…”

Romans 5:6. Look to Romans 5:6 – the Greek for “ungodly” is “without religion”  – I cannot believe that Paul MEANT to say “died for the ungodly elect” but left the word elect out.

John 3:16. Further, read John 3, Christ’s discussion with Nicodemus about how to be saved.  “For God so loved the ELECT that He gave His only begotten Son…?”  For God so loved the WORLD.

Acts 17:30, “All men to repent,” not just some men.  How could they repent unless their sins had been paid for? One problem with Calvinism is the quick leap to God calling upon people to do things they have no option of obeying as mystery.”

Romans 5:18.  ^“Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”

1 Tim 2:1 Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, 2 for kings and all who are in authority, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. 3 For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, 4 who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 5 For there is one God and one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, 6 who gave Himself a ransom for all, to be testified in due time, 7 for which I was appointed a preacher and an apostle–I am speaking the truth in Christ and not lying–a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and truth. (my underlinings)

1 Tim 4:10  “For to this end we both labor and suffer reproach, because we trust in the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of those who believe. (this one is the toughest one to me… it seems to actually delineate between believers and non and yet refers to Christ as savior of all)

Heb 9:11-12  “But Christ came as High Priest of the good things to come, with the greater and more perfect tabernacle not made with hands, that is, not of this creation. 12 Not with the blood of goats and calves, but with His own blood He entered the Most Holy Place once for all, having obtained eternal redemption.”
Well, that oughta give some stuff to think about… now you can see why I do not accept the teaching of “limited atonement.” I understand the logic behind it, but I just think it is not scriptural.

Irresistable Grace: 60-80% depending on definitions.

To the degree that “irresistible grace” means “drawn,” I am on the same page.

I am not 100% on irresistible part, though.. can the Spirit not be quenched in regards to salvation? This is a problem, I know, sprung of the less than 100% agreement with UE.

However, I do think it is impossible for someone to come to Christ unless God draws them. Certainly, part of that is that the Image of God plays a role here, as does the eternity put in the hearts of all men.

Also, does the irresistible grace apply to every person who believes? Could it be that some are drawn irresistibly, and not others?

Also, I think this argument is greatly augmented by Middle Knowledge again. In many ways, this argument is so linked to Unconditional election that the same arguments and verses apply, since if the teaching here is that God, once electing someone, saves them. I agree with this principle, but not that man has no role in the saving part. See the quandary? If UE is not 100% true, then IG is limited in the exact same ways.

Here are some verses that make it clear that people can only come to God is He chooses and draws them. God is not a passive member of the salvation of any human being.

John 6:44 “No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day.”
Matthew 22:14 “For many are called, but few are chosen.”
Romans 11:5,6 – “a remnant chosen by grace”
John 15:16 – “you did not choose me”
Romans 11:7 – “others are hardened”
John 17:9 – “I do not pray for the world, but those you have given me.” {This is an interesting verse despite the issue of “prayer” not “die.”}
Eph 2: “made us alive together with Christ – by grace you are saved.”… verse 8: by grace through faith.”
John 3:18 – belief is the source of “not being condemned” – unbelief is the source for condemnation.

Perseverance of the Saints 100%

Since salvation is dependent on God’s work, its maintenance is also dependence upon His work… which is settled. As Jesus once said… “It is Finished.” Since I am on the same page here, that once Christ has set you free, you are free indeed, then I will leave this one at that.  This is not really “perseverance of the saints” since it isn’t the saints who are doing anything about it.  You could argue that it should be called “perseverance of the Savior.”  I like to change the term “security of the saints” to “security of the savior” and then I can agree.