"Reformed" Ordo Salutis In Essence

Is the "Reformed" view of "regeneration" and salvation "before faith," of "regeneration before justification," the Hyper Calvinist or hybrid "ordo salutis," whereby they follow the post reformation "hair-splitting" theologians in separating "regeneration" from "conversion," or the "new birth" from faith and repentance, not the cause of the novel view that divided up the "new birth" into distinct stages, either two or three, the first being "regeneration," the second being "conviction" or "awakening," and the third being the "new birth," or "deliverance"? I have a strong hunch that it is the cause.

I have said before that men like James White, and others who promote the "regeneration before faith" heresy, or neo-Hardshellism, really preach this paradigm model although they do not do so in so many words. They are inconsistent in saying that regeneration and the new birth are the same thing and yet teach that they are not really the same, for one is not yet "delivered" or saved, not yet converted, justified, or forgiven, until he has, after his "regeneration," come to believe, repent, and obey the gospel.

Many of these "Reformed" Baptists and Presbyterians promote the idea of "monergistic regeneration" and often refer people to the monergism.com website for articles on "Regeneration."

But, I have before posted these facts about the founder of this web page, facts which show that he believed in the Old Regular Baptist and Hardshell, or Kuyperian model of the "birth," which has these "stages" in it.

In an article titled - "Biblical Regeneration and Affectional Theology" - by John Hendryx, the writer said:

I. Regeneration is described as a spiritual new birth.

1. This is affirmed in the following New Testament passages: John 1:12-13; 3:3-8; I Corinthians 4:15; Philemon 10; James 1:18; I Peter 1:3,23; I John 2:29; 3:9; 4:7; 5:1,4,18.

2. The embryonic stage of regeneration is what is called "quickening", and it is the work of the Holy Spirit alone.

3. The final stage of regeneration is delivery or birth, and it is the work of the Holy Spirit in dependence upon the Word as a means. Consequently, the spiritual knowledge conferred by illumination is the spiritual content or revelation (holy Scripture).

http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/spirit_affections.html

Where is any of this scriptural? Where is the "new birth" divided up into these stages?

Notice that Hendryx makes the "first stage" a work "without means," that is, without the gospel or word of God.

This is the same view that Samuel Richardson espoused, and is the view of the first founders of the "Hardshell Baptists," and of the "Old Regular Baptists." The only difference seems to be that some of those who hold this model believe the word of God IS a means in all three stages of this "process," while others limit the use of the word of God to the third or final stage. It is the view of the so called monergists and of many in the "Reformed" camp, either Baptist or Presbyterian.

This is really the view of Steve Camp, in essence. It is the view of Tom Ascol and James White, in essence. Will they deny it? Would they not be more consistent to deny that "regeneration" was the same thing as being "born" or "delivered"?

Besides, why would they refer people to this web site, which clearly promotes the three stage birth model, and which make regeneration, essentially, something different from the new birth?