OT: The Reformed View of the Ordo Salutis

Note: I'm not posting this here to debate the merits of the Reformed view. If anyone is interested in that please start a different thread. I'm only interested in clarifying the facts of what the Reformed view is in response to another poster.

You are very correct we are a bit off subject. My post may be
beneficial to a reader so I will respond.

Concerning "saved in order to believe" is
imprecise"

Unless a person from the reformed perspective wishes to a say a
person is not saved by regeneration, then they must conclude you are saved in
order to believe. Since according to them regeneration precedes faith.

The problem is “salvation” itself can be an ambiguous term.
Notice that the term “Ordo Salutis” implies that the term “salvation” refers to
all the individual aspects (in the Reformed view: effectual call, regeneration,
repentance/faith, justification, def. sanctification, adoption, prg. sanct.,
and glorification). Thus, as John Murray says, “when we think of the
application of redemption we must not think of it as one simple and indivisible
act. It comprises a series of acts and processes” (Redemption Accomplished and
Applied 79-80).

So “saved in order to believe” is an imprecise (incorrect) statement
because it confuses a part (regeneration, which I assume is what you mean to
stand in for “saved”) with the whole (salvation or redemption). It might make
sense to say that God regenerated a person in order that they may believe, but
regeneration is *not* coterminous with salvation. Furthermore, the statement is
incorrect because it confuses the means with the goal. The goal is not
believing, it is salvation and belief (or faith) is an instrument towards that
end.

Regeneration is progressive.. Sanctification is the technical
term for it

It seems to me that you think each of the parts of the ordo
salutis is synonymous with the other parts. How is that possible? I don’t see
how it is, at least not in the reformed view. Is effectual calling the same as
adoption? No, to say otherwise is just a category mistake. Again, I think I’m
in agreement with the common Reformed view. So John Murray, “These are all
distinct, and not one of these can be defined in terms of the other. Each has
its own distinct meaning, function, and purpose in the action and grace of God”
(ibid 80). Regeneration, in the Reformed view, is *not* progressive. So John
Murray: “Regeneration is the *inception* of being made holy and sanctification
is the continuance.” (asterisks added; ibid). Sanctification itself can be
broken down into definitive and progressive aspects (cf. Reymond’s NSTCF ch. 19). The Westminster Confession of Faith, probably the most popular Reformed confession, (in XIII.1) and the 1689 Baptist Confession of Faith (X.1-2; XIII.1) also distinguish or separate sanctification and regeneration.

Calvin in his commentaries spoke about regeneration being
subsequent to faith and also he spoke about progressive regeneration in ICR.
What is really interesting is Augustine held to a progressive justification.

Calvin does speak of being “regenerated by faith” (Comm. on
Gen. 17:4, Isa. 44:5 and elsewhere), but, while I’m no Calvin scholar, it seems
that he often used “regeneration” in a less technical sense (or loosely) than
what more contemporary Reformed theologians do when speaking of the order of
salvation. For instance, he sometimes uses it to refer to what persons like
Murray would call glorification (the final state with the resurrection) and he
sometimes used it to refer to sanctification (III.III.21; III.XI.1). However,
he also uses it to refer to “the commencement of the spiritual life” (ICR
II.III.6) and “our first power to act aright” (III.XIV.5). I think he would
agree that this latter sense precedes or is the source of faith; for he says, “the
[effectual call] brings with it the spirit of regeneration” (III.XXIV.8) and
clearly the call of God precedes faith. Furthermore, in his commentary he
address the issue of which precedes which directly and says “I reply, that both
statements perfectly agree; because by faith we receive the incorruptible seed,
(1 Peter 1:23,) by which we are born again to a new and divine life. And yet
faith itself is a work of the Holy Spirit, who dwells in none but the children
of God. So then, in various respects, faith is a part of our regeneration, and
an entrance into the kingdom of God, that he may reckon us among his children.
The illumination of our minds by the Holy Spirit belongs to our renewal, and
thus faith flows from regeneration as from its source” (comment on 1:13).

Finally, I would note here that Calvin is not the only
representative of Reformed theology. As Muller notes, it is a mistake to
approach current Reformed theology “as if Calvin were the only source of
post-Reformation Reformed theology and as if the theology of the
mid-seventeenth century ought for some reason to be measured against and judged
by the theology of the mid-sixteenth century. Because the orthodox systems do
not mirror Calvin’s 1559 Institutes, they are labeled “distortions” of the
Reformation. The genuine historical and theological issue, of course, is one of
development and change within a broad tradition, of continuity and
discontinuity with the thought, not only of Calvin, but also of Zwingli, Bucer,
Bullinger, Musculus, and Vermigli” (PRRD v. I 45–46).

On that note I think the scriptures are clear.. We believe and
are saved the logical order is faith then regeneration unless one holds that
you are not saved by the regeneration  (Titus 3:5 says
otherwise)

 I fail to see how Titus 3:5 says anything relevant to
faith preceding regeneration. You’ll have to spell that out.

One more question, I noticed you say sola fide. Looking at the
reformed perspective, how can a calvinist hold to sole fide if they have the
logical order of salvation

(regeneration then faith )? That always puzzled me, unless they
say that regeneration and being justified can be separated.

They say they are logically distinguished, but not necessarily
chronologically or temporal separable and certainly not coterminous.
Regeneration pertains to newness of life. Justification is simply God’s legal
imputation of Christ’s righteousness to the sinner. Sola fide is the instrument
of that justification. To see where Calvin logically distinguishes them in the same way see my comment below.

The problem with that understanding is all the Church fathers
including Calvin seen being justified and being regenerated as two sides of the
same coin.

First of all, I’m not even sure what you mean by “two sides
of the same coin”. I can think of senses in which Calvin (and Murray and myself)
would agree that they are “two sides of the same coin” (if, for example, the “coin”
is salvation in all of its parts). But I can also think of senses where Calvin
(and Murray and myself) would disagree that they are “two sides of the same
coin” (if, for example, you mean they are interchangeable or coterminous). For
example, Calvin would clearly disagree with this later sense, for he says “Now
after God has stretched forth his hand to his elect, it is still necessary that
they should confess their own want and nakedness, as to justification; for
though they have been regenerated by the Spirit of God, yet in many things they
are deficient...” (Commentary on Habakkuk, 2:4; cf. Comm. on John, 3:36).

Secondly, I doubt "all the Church fathers" held to one view here.

One is the inward act of being saved and the other is the
outward act of being declared righteous.

Again, you’re using the term “salvation” too
ambiguously. In general, there is nothing wrong with using “salvation” loosely,
but we need to be more precise when discussing more technical issues like the
ordo salutis. Regeneration and salvation are not coterminous.