Calvinism/Reformed Christianity AMA

[DC Al Fine]

Question: in your opinion, must a conversion be instantaneous and certain, with no misgivings, to be valid? If someone hems and haws, researches the pros and cons of Biblical Christianity for a while, etc. and reluctantly submits to conversion, would you doubt the validity of their conversion?

Well, first I ought to point out that questioning a person's salvation is a big faux pas in Calvinism. It's considered placing oneself in God's shoes.

That said, I wouldn't doubt the latter person's conversion. If anything I'd be far more likely to doubt the former person's. Calvinists are really skeptical of revivialism and lots of Calvinist Christians will tell you they became Christians well after they got baptized (as adults).

[TJ in Oregon]

How do Calvinists view the Problem of Evil argument?

[DC Al Fine]

How do Calvinists view the Problem of Evil argument?

This is actually a pretty hotly contested debate in Calvinist theological circles. We usually call it the Logical Order of God's Decrees, since we are working within a Calvinist theological system and are thus limited in what sort of theodicies we can posit, beyond tinkering with how God set things up.

The majority school which I hold to is Infralapsarianism. Essentially, God first setup creation with libertarian free will. After the Fall, humanity was under the curse and unable and unwilling to work out their own salvation. Thus God sends Jesus to die and rise, and predestines some to life.

The minority school is Supralapsarianism. It posits that God predestined the elect and reprobate including Satan, before all worlds, and that everything was from the start made for God's glory. Another minority school suggests that it is impossible to to talk about a timeline for God's decrees since God is an infinite being, existing outside time.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The preceding is a prime example of why I am not, and likely never will be, a Calvinist. Perhaps it's just the wording, but I note that both views suppose that God decreed the Fall of Man. There's certainly nothing in Genesis to even suggest that God created Man for the purpose of failing. Supralapsarianism explicitly holds that. While infralapsarianism doesn't require that Man was created for the purpose of failing, it holds that God allowed the Fall of Man and yet elected to arbitrarily assign some to suffer for that when He need not have so elected. Both views are of a capricious God that treats Man as a plaything. I don't see that as being Biblically true.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

From Lucy Maud Montgomery's Wikipedia article, which I was reading because I was trying to explain to somebody why some of the later Anne books piss a lot of people off:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IMO one of the biggest flaws in Calvinism is that it can lead to situations like this where somebody who struggles with behaving morally concludes that they must not be one of the elect and thus it's pointless to try harder. Even if this doesn't lead the person to utter despair like Reverend MacDonald, it still strikes me as the opposite of something a theological ethics should encourage. How would you respond to this?

[RFayette]

Have you by chance read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel or Cold Case Christianity by J Warner Wallace, and if so, what do you think of their approaches?  I recently read both and found them fantastic reads and really solid defenses of the faith, but I knew virtually nothing about early New Testament history and dating prior to reading them, so I'm curious what you thought hoc them since you have more expertise in those areas.

[DC Al Fine]

From Lucy Maud Montgomery's Wikipedia article, which I was reading because I was trying to explain to somebody why some of the later Anne books piss a lot of people off:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

IMO one of the biggest flaws in Calvinism is that it can lead to situations like this where somebody who struggles with behaving morally concludes that they must not be one of the elect and thus it's pointless to try harder. Even if this doesn't lead the person to utter despair like Reverend MacDonald, it still strikes me as the opposite of something a theological ethics should encourage. How would you respond to this?

First, I must say that we ought to be chiefly concerned with whether Calvinism is true, not what 'it encourages'. If I thought Catholicism were true, I'd have to swallow a lot of Marian dogma, despite it encouraging the wrong things in my opinion. Not that you subscribe to that foolish brand of liberalism, but I take issue with your wording.

As for your actual question, I must admit you took me by surprise. Calvinism's main pastoral flaw in my experience goes in the opposite direction; ignoring the need for sanctification and a moral life. We talk about assurance so much, that often we ignore our present sins. Even if we look into the past, you get people like Roger Williams who worried terribly about their salvation until being convinced of Calvinism.

That said, if I were to encounter a toned down version of Rev. MacDonald, I would point out to him that his guilt is evidence of his possible election. I would also suggest that this guilt is the result of the Holy Spirit's regeneration, as he is seeing the gravity of what his sin truly is. There are many confident 'Christians' in Hell who never truly repented, so guilt is hardly a reason to believe oneself damned. I know this sounds trite, but I think its the best solution, for this unusual situation.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

First, I must say that we ought to be chiefly concerned with whether Calvinism is true, not what 'it encourages'. If I thought Catholicism were true, I'd have to swallow a lot of Marian dogma, despite it encouraging the wrong things in my opinion. Not that you subscribe to that foolish brand of liberalism, but I take issue with your wording.

Point taken. I certainly didn't mean to imply an instrumental or consequentialist view of why one should adopt a theological position, only that I doubted that a theological system that was true would have this particular problem (but as you point out I'm sure you'd say the same about some of the superstitions that Marian dogma "encourages", and I think that would be a fair criticism!).

Thank you for the rest of your answer; it's a compelling defense and one that I hadn't considered.

(One novel that I've read recently is The Prime of Miss Jean Brodie by Muriel Spark, which is among other things a a Catholic convert's critique of the assumptions and culture of Scottish Presbyterianism, and, yeah, the glibness and unconcern with continued spiritual and moral formation that the doctrine of assurance can lead to is one of the things it discusses. To be honest, I wasn't sure it was an entirely fair critique, and I say that as someone who'd be naturally inclined to agree with it.)

[DC Al Fine]

Have you by chance read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel or Cold Case Christianity by J Warner Wallace, and if so, what do you think of their approaches?  I recently read both and found them fantastic reads and really solid defenses of the faith, but I knew virtually nothing about early New Testament history and dating prior to reading them, so I'm curious what you thought hoc them since you have more expertise in those areas.

I've only read The Case for Christ so I'll restrict my answers to that

The criticism of The Case for Christ I've encountered falls into two categories:

a) Strobel wrote the book after he became a Christian and misrepresented the book and it's underlying interviews as occuring while he was an atheist. Because of this, he did not ask tougher questions.

b) Criticism of the arguments made by the people he interviewed.

I think the first category is valid, but was surprised how weak critics in the second category were. The people Strobel interviewed made fairly cogent arguments and I didn't find much to refute them.

On a popular level, higher criticism turns into be a mix of presenting, hyperskepticism, and question begging. I personally think Catholics and Orthodox make a mistake in treating higher criticism like evolution. The case for the former is much, much weaker than the latter. Christian presuppositionalists don't have anything on the higher critics. The Case for Christ provides a good base for shoring up ones faith in the face of such silliness.

For example, Nathan related a story of a professor who dismissed Jesus predicting the destruction of the temple a priori (a key question in dating Mark), despite it being completely plausible that an apocalyptic preacher would foresee doom. Another example of this is arguing against the resurrection... by ruling it out beforehand.

All that said, there were some spots where I felt the arguments were weak and that Strobel could have dug a little deeper. For example, there was an argument that went something like "Luke was a historian, so we can take everything he says at face value". That statement needed to be questioned and it wasn't.

The Case for Christ is a solid apologetic work and a good introduction to conservative perspectives on historical criticism. It's all most believers really need for their day to day faith, but there are better books​ out there if you want to dig deeper.

[Antonio the Sixth]

First, I must say that we ought to be chiefly concerned with whether Calvinism is true, not what 'it encourages'. If I thought Catholicism were true, I'd have to swallow a lot of Marian dogma, despite it encouraging the wrong things in my opinion. Not that you subscribe to that foolish brand of liberalism, but I take issue with your wording.

Point taken. I certainly didn't mean to imply an instrumental or consequentialist view of why one should adopt a theological position, only that I doubted that a theological system that was true would have this particular problem (but as you point out I'm sure you'd say the same about some of the superstitions that Marian dogma "encourages", and I think that would be a fair criticism!).

I'm tempted to take this point even further (not to take issue with DC's explanation, just because it's a topic I find personally interesting). I'd argue that not only is a critical examination of the moral implications that a given theology entails relevant to its truth value, but that it's actually the most compelling test of its truth value. I hope we can agree that trying to resolve the issue through an empirical test of some kind is a dead end (not because empirics proves religion wrong, but because it doesn't prove anything at all, because metaphysical propositions are inherently unfalsifiable). On the other hand, while I understand that arguments based on scripture play the leading role in theological disputes among Christian faiths, I'd like to point out that these arguments will necessarily leave behind those of us who are interested in Christian thought but aren't inclined to uncritically accept the scripture (whom I'd like to think can be part of the conversation).

[SingingAnalyst]

A couple questions on Christian evidences generally, such as those presented in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ:

1. If the truths of orthodox Christianity are so self-evident, why did so few people believe? Why were many Christians (according to one source) depressed and suicidal until the time of Constantine? Why did the early Church require violence, and later suppression of dissent, to spread its message?

2. If one really has to have a razor-sharp (or lawyer-sharp) sense of logic to follow Strobel's (and others') arguments, where does that leave cultures that value logic less, and human interaction more, than Anglo-Saxon western culture?

And another question: the Bible talks abot some truths being spiritually discerned. Do you believe some extra-biblical truths can only be spiritually discerned (such as the "truth" about Creationism, or the moon landings, or the presence of aliens among us-- to name a few "truths" I have been exposed to).

Thanks.

[DC Al Fine]

First, I must say that we ought to be chiefly concerned with whether Calvinism is true, not what 'it encourages'. If I thought Catholicism were true, I'd have to swallow a lot of Marian dogma, despite it encouraging the wrong things in my opinion. Not that you subscribe to that foolish brand of liberalism, but I take issue with your wording.

Point taken. I certainly didn't mean to imply an instrumental or consequentialist view of why one should adopt a theological position, only that I doubted that a theological system that was true would have this particular problem (but as you point out I'm sure you'd say the same about some of the superstitions that Marian dogma "encourages", and I think that would be a fair criticism!).

I'm tempted to take this point even further (not to take issue with DC's explanation, just because it's a topic I find personally interesting). I'd argue that not only is a critical examination of the moral implications that a given theology entails relevant to its truth value, but that it's actually the most compelling test of its truth value. I hope we can agree that trying to resolve the issue through an empirical test of some kind is a dead end (not because empirics proves religion wrong, but because it doesn't prove anything at all, because metaphysical propositions are inherently unfalsifiable). On the other hand, while I understand that arguments based on scripture play the leading role in theological disputes among Christian faiths, I'd like to point out that these arguments will necessarily leave behind those of us who are interested in Christian thought but aren't inclined to uncritically accept the scripture (whom I'd like to think can be part of the conversation).

What exactly are you planning on basing Christocentric moral arguments on besides Scripture​? If you're not Christian, it's not going to be the the Magisterium or that Montanist nonsense the Mainlines have been getting into. Am missing something?

[DC Al Fine]

A couple questions on Christian evidences generally, such as those presented in Lee Strobel's The Case for Christ:

1. If the truths of orthodox Christianity are so self-evident, why did so few people believe? Why were many Christians (according to one source) depressed and suicidal until the time of Constantine? Why did the early Church require violence, and later suppression of dissent, to spread its message?

2. If one really has to have a razor-sharp (or lawyer-sharp) sense of logic to follow Strobel's (and others') arguments, where does that leave cultures that value logic less, and human interaction more, than Anglo-Saxon western culture?

You misunderstand my position. The historical record, and the study of history itself are nuanced and prone to secular sophistry. Strobel, Craig et al are useful because they provide they provide a pushback against such sophistry. Almost no one, Western or otherwise is converted to Christianity through historical criticism and logical argument. If I want to convert people, I'd be far better off spending my time serving the poor and showing my friends hospitality than I up brushing up on my apologetics.

I question your account of history. Christianity grew fairly quickly (approximating Mormonism if I recall correctly), and was mostly on the receiving end of the violence up until Constantine. Also, what is your source for depressed Christianity? This is the first I'm hearing of it.

And another question: the Bible talks abot some truths being spiritually discerned. Do you believe some extra-biblical truths can only be spiritually discerned (such as the "truth" about Creationism, or the moon landings, or the presence of aliens among us-- to name a few "truths" I have been exposed to).

I'm a bit confused? How is creationism extra-biblical? Even if it's wrong it's a pretty straightforward literal reading of Genesis.

But to answer your original question, I'm a Calvinist. The main thing that God needs to reveal in you is your sinful heart and need for repentance.

[Antonio the Sixth]

First, I must say that we ought to be chiefly concerned with whether Calvinism is true, not what 'it encourages'. If I thought Catholicism were true, I'd have to swallow a lot of Marian dogma, despite it encouraging the wrong things in my opinion. Not that you subscribe to that foolish brand of liberalism, but I take issue with your wording.

Point taken. I certainly didn't mean to imply an instrumental or consequentialist view of why one should adopt a theological position, only that I doubted that a theological system that was true would have this particular problem (but as you point out I'm sure you'd say the same about some of the superstitions that Marian dogma "encourages", and I think that would be a fair criticism!).

I'm tempted to take this point even further (not to take issue with DC's explanation, just because it's a topic I find personally interesting). I'd argue that not only is a critical examination of the moral implications that a given theology entails relevant to its truth value, but that it's actually the most compelling test of its truth value. I hope we can agree that trying to resolve the issue through an empirical test of some kind is a dead end (not because empirics proves religion wrong, but because it doesn't prove anything at all, because metaphysical propositions are inherently unfalsifiable). On the other hand, while I understand that arguments based on scripture play the leading role in theological disputes among Christian faiths, I'd like to point out that these arguments will necessarily leave behind those of us who are interested in Christian thought but aren't inclined to uncritically accept the scripture (whom I'd like to think can be part of the conversation).

What exactly are you planning on basing Christocentric moral arguments on besides Scripture​? If you're not Christian, it's not going to be the the Magisterium or that Montanist nonsense the Mainlines have been getting into. Am missing something?

What about moral intuitions? What about rational deduction from (Christian, in this case) first principles? I hope you wouldn't claim that God wants us to abdicate these methods of seeking moral truth altogether. Sure, they can sometimes lead us astray, but so does Biblical interpretation (as I'm pretty sure Calvinists would claim that a large number of people read the Bible wrong ). What's wrong, then, with checking the conclusions you reach based on one methods on the basis of another? Ideally, we should expect the three to lead us to the same conclusion. If they don't, you're free to give primacy to your reading of the Bible if you are convinced that it is the correct one. But if your reading of the Bible happens to be in line with people's moral intuitions and deductions, surely that would bolster your case, wouldn't it? And again, it would also mean that you have arguments to convince even people who don't fully trust the Bible as a moral guide.

[Bono]

Interesting. I had a convo with a catholic guy one time who was very adamant that all protestants were deterministic, lol. I guess that was just his bias talking.

Or is Protestantism different from Calvinism/Reformed? 

The funny thing is that Catholicism never settled the means of grace controversy between Jesuits and Dominicans, so being a determinist is explicitly allowed within Catholicism, and in fact, some would argue a more faithful interpretation of Aquinas than the libertarian one.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Interesting. I had a convo with a catholic guy one time who was very adamant that all protestants were deterministic, lol. I guess that was just his bias talking.

Or is Protestantism different from Calvinism/Reformed? 

The funny thing is that Catholicism never settled the means of grace controversy between Jesuits and Dominicans, so being a determinist is explicitly allowed within Catholicism, and in fact, some would argue a more faithful interpretation of Aquinas than the libertarian one.

This isn't false but I think it's important to point out that the non-libertarian Catholic position is compatibilist rather than "hard" determinist.

[Bono]

Interesting. I had a convo with a catholic guy one time who was very adamant that all protestants were deterministic, lol. I guess that was just his bias talking.

Or is Protestantism different from Calvinism/Reformed? 

The funny thing is that Catholicism never settled the means of grace controversy between Jesuits and Dominicans, so being a determinist is explicitly allowed within Catholicism, and in fact, some would argue a more faithful interpretation of Aquinas than the libertarian one.

This isn't false but I think it's important to point out that the non-libertarian Catholic position is compatibilist rather than "hard" determinist.

Indeed, but I'm not sure why you think the same is not true of Calvinism. To use only a representative quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter III, 1-2):



I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Interesting. I had a convo with a catholic guy one time who was very adamant that all protestants were deterministic, lol. I guess that was just his bias talking.

Or is Protestantism different from Calvinism/Reformed? 

The funny thing is that Catholicism never settled the means of grace controversy between Jesuits and Dominicans, so being a determinist is explicitly allowed within Catholicism, and in fact, some would argue a more faithful interpretation of Aquinas than the libertarian one.

This isn't false but I think it's important to point out that the non-libertarian Catholic position is compatibilist rather than "hard" determinist.

Indeed, but I'm not sure why you think the same is not true of Calvinism. To use only a representative quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter III, 1-2):



I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

Honestly, most of what I know about the details of Calvinist theology I know either through DC or through an overview in a class that, while not outright hostile, was probably slanted by the professor's Arminianism-Wesleyanism.

[DC Al Fine]

First, I must say that we ought to be chiefly concerned with whether Calvinism is true, not what 'it encourages'. If I thought Catholicism were true, I'd have to swallow a lot of Marian dogma, despite it encouraging the wrong things in my opinion. Not that you subscribe to that foolish brand of liberalism, but I take issue with your wording.

Point taken. I certainly didn't mean to imply an instrumental or consequentialist view of why one should adopt a theological position, only that I doubted that a theological system that was true would have this particular problem (but as you point out I'm sure you'd say the same about some of the superstitions that Marian dogma "encourages", and I think that would be a fair criticism!).

I'm tempted to take this point even further (not to take issue with DC's explanation, just because it's a topic I find personally interesting). I'd argue that not only is a critical examination of the moral implications that a given theology entails relevant to its truth value, but that it's actually the most compelling test of its truth value. I hope we can agree that trying to resolve the issue through an empirical test of some kind is a dead end (not because empirics proves religion wrong, but because it doesn't prove anything at all, because metaphysical propositions are inherently unfalsifiable). On the other hand, while I understand that arguments based on scripture play the leading role in theological disputes among Christian faiths, I'd like to point out that these arguments will necessarily leave behind those of us who are interested in Christian thought but aren't inclined to uncritically accept the scripture (whom I'd like to think can be part of the conversation).

What exactly are you planning on basing Christocentric moral arguments on besides Scripture​? If you're not Christian, it's not going to be the the Magisterium or that Montanist nonsense the Mainlines have been getting into. Am missing something?

What about moral intuitions? What about rational deduction from (Christian, in this case) first principles? I hope you wouldn't claim that God wants us to abdicate these methods of seeking moral truth altogether. Sure, they can sometimes lead us astray, but so does Biblical interpretation (as I'm pretty sure Calvinists would claim that a large number of people read the Bible wrong ). What's wrong, then, with checking the conclusions you reach based on one methods on the basis of another? Ideally, we should expect the three to lead us to the same conclusion. If they don't, you're free to give primacy to your reading of the Bible if you are convinced that it is the correct one. But if your reading of the Bible happens to be in line with people's moral intuitions and deductions, surely that would bolster your case, wouldn't it? And again, it would also mean that you have arguments to convince even people who don't fully trust the Bible as a moral guide.

Moral intuition ought to be checked against Scripture by the other way around. God has written the Law on our hearts, but man is damn good at shoving it down to the depths. Pro and anti abortion Christians both have moral intuitions yet they passionately disagree.

Where do your Christian first principles come from? One has to get their information about God from somewhere, whether that's Scripture or tradition or 'revelation'. Appealing to first principles just kicks the issue down the road a bit.

[TDAS04]

How do you keep from worrying about a loved-one not being one the elect?  I suppose Calvinism teaches that you just leave it to and trust in God or something.

Also, IIRC, you believe that hell is eternal separation from God; that it's not a literal burning fire but that the separation is worse than the burning nonetheless.  Is that correct, and is that what most Calvinists believe?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Moral intuition ought to be checked against Scripture by the other way around.

I'm not sure I understand this sentence. Did you mean "not the other way around"?

If so, why not? I understand and respect your belief that the Scripture itself is infallible, but surely you won't deny that people's reading of it can be fallible. As I said, wouldn't Calvinists be the first to claim that the vast majority of people read the Bible wrong? Since both moral intuition and Biblical interpretation are fallible, why not try to check each against the other? Again, if there's a contradiction you can't resolve, you're free to err on the side of interpretation, but I don't see why that makes the process itself illegitimate.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I mean, yes, Christian dogma ultimately comes from the Bible (and, to some extent, the Councils of early Christianity, if my understanding is correct). My point was that some aspects of the Christian dogma are prior to others. Like, God's omnipotence, omniscience, benevolence, and status as the Creator of everything would come first, right? Soon after, I imagine, come the Trinity and Jesus' atonement. If we accept these propositions as true, we might logically deduce other propositions from them, which might potentially conflict with the conclusions we draw from reading the Bible. Again, you're free to side with your reading of the Bible if you're so inclined, but that doesn't mean it's not worth discussing at all.

[RFayette]

As an addendum to Strobel's Case for Christ discussion, what is your opinion of the Bayesian argument for the resurrection?  Do you think that prior probabilities can be reasonably assumed for the reasoning to be valid?  I recently read this, which I found immensely fascinating (the notation is such that taking a course in probability theory in college would make it easier to understand, but one could probably Google the formulas and figure it out, as the math is fairly straightforward and the article can be understood without full knowledge of it).  
http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrectionarticlesinglefile.pdf

[DC Al Fine]

How do you keep from worrying about a loved-one not being one the elect?  I suppose Calvinism teaches that you just leave it to and trust in God or something.

There's a John Piper quote about one not being a true Calvinist unless it's made you weep for the souls of your loved ones. I think there's a lot of truth to that. I have family I think are probably going to hell and it sucks. Pastoral help for this issue is almost always "You don't know who's elect, and life is long. They might be saved in the end". I've found that helpful, but this issue still bothers me from time to time.

Also, IIRC, you believe that hell is eternal separation from God; that it's not a literal burning fire but that the separation is worse than the burning nonetheless.  Is that correct, and is that what most Calvinists believe?

Yes. This isn't about "softening" God's image for modern folk. Fundamentalists* do God's wrath a disservice when they say it's a literal fire. I'm not sure about the proportions. There's not any polling on it I could find. I would guess it's about 50/50 in my congregation, but I have no idea if that's representative, or even correct for my congregation

*Meaning independent fundamental Baptists and the like, not the other two uses of the word

[DC Al Fine]

Interesting. I had a convo with a catholic guy one time who was very adamant that all protestants were deterministic, lol. I guess that was just his bias talking.

Or is Protestantism different from Calvinism/Reformed? 

The funny thing is that Catholicism never settled the means of grace controversy between Jesuits and Dominicans, so being a determinist is explicitly allowed within Catholicism, and in fact, some would argue a more faithful interpretation of Aquinas than the libertarian one.

This isn't false but I think it's important to point out that the non-libertarian Catholic position is compatibilist rather than "hard" determinist.

Indeed, but I'm not sure why you think the same is not true of Calvinism. To use only a representative quote from the Westminster Confession of Faith (Chapter III, 1-2):



I. God from all eternity, did, by the most wise and holy counsel of His own will, freely, and unchangeably ordain whatsoever comes to pass; yet so, as thereby neither is God the author of sin, nor is violence offered to the will of the creatures; nor is the liberty or contingency of second causes taken away, but rather established.

II. Although God knows whatsoever may or can come to pass upon all supposed conditions; yet has He not decreed anything because He foresaw it as future, or as that which would come to pass upon such conditions.

Honestly, most of what I know about the details of Calvinist theology I know either through DC or through an overview in a class that, while not outright hostile, was probably slanted by the professor's Arminianism-Wesleyanism.

Yeah, only a very small minority, the hypercalvinists are determinist.

I've noticed this trend. In Arminian or Catholic/Orthodox education, Calvinists are determinist, and in Calvinist education, only Calvinists and Lutheran monergists have the right idea and Arminians/Catholics/Orthodox are all Pelagians in denial.

[DC Al Fine]

As an addendum to Strobel's Case for Christ discussion, what is your opinion of the Bayesian argument for the resurrection?  Do you think that prior probabilities can be reasonably assumed for the reasoning to be valid?  I recently read this, which I found immensely fascinating (the notation is such that taking a course in probability theory in college would make it easier to understand, but one could probably Google the formulas and figure it out, as the math is fairly straightforward and the article can be understood without full knowledge of it).  
http://www.lydiamcgrew.com/Resurrectionarticlesinglefile.pdf

I don't think highly of applying Bayesian probability to history. Richard Carrier used a similar method to 'prove' that Jesus probably didn't exist and he was laughed out of academia. The problem with these things is that history isn't a tenth grade math problem. We aren't pulling different coloured balls out of a bag. The probability for the variables in the equation is either arbitrary or has a huge margin, of error, meaning the writer can setup his calculus to produce whatever he or she wants.

It's not a good path to go down for apologetics. You'd be far more likely to convince someone by arguing for the validity of the Gospel accounts than trying to 'prove' the resurrection with mathematics.

Tony, I'm not ignoring you. I haven't had much time to post off mobile, and your response will require some formatting that I can't do on my phone. I will respond to you when I can.