Two Begettings?

If I understand the "reformed view" of the "ordo salutis," a sinner goes through certain well defined stages or steps in his salvation, rebirth, or conversion experience. First, a man is "regenerated" or "born again." This being completed and an accomplished fact, the man next, either "immediately" ('instantly'), or a "a few seconds later" (Wayne Grudem), or perhaps several years later, but nonetheless, still "later," the man believes and repents, post facto, after he has been fully regenerated. Then, after he has believed and repented, or been converted, he is then justified, joined to Christ, sanctified and washed, and forgiven of sin.

Now, these same people, who promote this order, and insist that this order is crucial, will nevertheless come back and say - "this is simply logical order, not temporal or chronological order."

Well, if there is really no temporal or chronological order, then why insist on an order? Is it not silly for a man to say that one must be first born again before faith, and then say, "well, really, it is not before in actuality"? Only in theory? Then what was the whole purpose of insisting on a logical order if there were no temporal or chronological order? If in actuality, or in actual occurrence, regeneration comes with faith and repentance, then why make all this "noise" about insisting that one must come first? Really, the Arminians laugh at those Calvinists like White who attempt to fool people in this manner.

Now, this "ordo polutis" of the Hardshell and Reformed brethren, creates a number of incongruities, many of which I have already recently pointed out. Notice the strict ordo given above. Is there not more than one "begetting"? Notice how a man is begotten to life and then this life begets faith. Is that not two births?