John Calvin's Order

So aparantly there are certian people (Anabaptist and Arminians - perhaps) who would consider that John Calvin was not truly a Calvinist. If I may regurgitate their argument myself: They say that Calvin's view on Regeneration and Faith and Repentance is not the order that later Calvinist instituted. They claim that somewhere around book 3 chapter 3 around sections 6-10 that Calvin's order is that of Faith - Repentance - Regeneration (New Birth). Thus they claim Calvin's order falls more inline with either the Anabaptist or the Arminians (I wish to lump them together). However, this looks pretty considering the fact that they even made up arguments for this reading. But, the thing is that they are not reading Calvin as Calvin, instead they are reading Calvin as Anabaptist or whatever.
Although, Yes in the Institutes this seems to be the order in which Calvin does use. But, however, is it truly the order in which Calvin purposed? This question is not clearly asked so I will make it clear. The question one needs to consider is What is the focus of Calvin's writing. The problem with trying to put an order to Calvin's system: Faith - Repentance - Regeneration due to the apparant logic by which he wrote is that it does not truly do justice to his writings. Part of the problem is that one is trying to read Calvin in a temporal logical order in which case of course they will end up reading into Calvin what is not there. In some sense it is related to the decree of God. Although in the mind of God the decree is one, they are often viewed as multiple due to the finite mind as decrees. Further, how the decree is played out in time is different from how God ordered the decree in His mind. So although there is a logical order to the decree, the decrees itself is eternal. This is my point which is to say just because one orders something in a particular way does not mean that they are pressing the order in a temporal way. The purpose of Calvin's thought is to show that Faith and Repentance is the New Birth. When one is Born Again (Regenerated) they have a new mind and a new will (hence I once was blind but now I see). Often times one may say Repent and Believe, sometimes the order may say Believe and Repent. As Louis Berkhof said Calvin's thought of regeneration is very comprehensive, which is different from how the Westminster Divines for example had sat up their Confessions.
Therefore, one should not read Calvin's thought in light of another system. The divines were not dumb, and so to say that one person can affirmatively 'debunk' them would bring them down to our level of thinking. We simply live in a different period (not to say we can never truly understand the way they understand); but it is ridiculous to say for example one can read one or two works by John Owen and proclaim that they know better than him. When Owen wrote his works he was 17 of age who wrote on different subjects. It is often times rare today to find a PHD doctor to write on different subjects at the age of 30.
Although with this being said I would say that most calvinist today have watered down what Calvin had said. J.V. Fesko's work Diversity In the Reformed Camp is great. He says that later Calvinist have watered down the thoughts of John Calvin. What do I mean? I mean that Calvin was a Supralapsarian in the deepest sense, whereas most Calvinist and Confessions are Infralapsarians. Of course there are reasons for this but that is for another post.

What is the cheif end of Man?

"Man's chief end is to glorify God and enjoy him for ever."


Lee Williams - Chapter and verse?
 
Mark Austin - I think Kirk was quoting the first question of the Westminster Catechism. It provides biblical references.
Man's chief end is to glorify God (1Cor. 10:31; Rom. 11:36) and enjoy Him forever (Ps. 73:24-26; Jn. 17:24-26).
 
Lee Williams - I knew the origin of the quotation. I question that the context of those passages will support the interpretations of the Westminster Confession. The 1st Cor. and Romans passages do not speak of glorification as the "chief end" of mankind, nor can the end of "enjoying" God be derived from the passages from Psalms and John.
 
Mark Austin - Mr. Williams, fair enough. I take this as an opportunity to learn. So, wIth all respect, what is the chief end of man? Or even, Is there a chief end of man?
 
Lee Williams - Perhaps we could clarify purpose by looking at the words of God in Gen. 1:26-28. It would seem that part of our "chief end" is to display the purposive understanding of the image of God.
 
Mark Austin - I can see how Gen. 1:28 could be seen as purposive. Yet, that is far from a chief purpose of man. The question remains, is there no chief purpose of man? Based upon your response, is it then better to look at each imperative given to humanity in order to determine man's purpose(s)? As for Gen. 1:26f, that is a statement of ontology *not* teleology. Are you grounding man's teleology in his ontology?
 
Lee Williams - It would seem to me that, teleologically, man was to represent God to the creation, since man was created in the image of God. This is possible because, ontologically, God is the Creator and Sustainer of that creation.
 
Mark Austin - I agree with you. So then, in light of Gen. 3 and say Jn. 1 what are the new teleological implications for man (especially in light of the ontology and teleology of Jesus)?

Objections to the Doctrine of Decrees

Objections to the doctrine of Decrees - Berkhof says that one objection is that it makes God the author of sin. In reply to this he says, "It may be said, however, that the decrees merely makes God the author of free moral beings, who are themselves the author of sin. Sin is made certain by the decree but, God does not himself it by His direct action."