Hmm, concerning RC, maybe I will have to research this a little more. It could be that RC allows for the regeneration of John the Baptist before birth. I doubt he is taking this to be a general rule, but may mention it as a possible exception. The problem is that I am not sure what he is teaching.
As a General rule, Presbyterians do not teach any sort of regeneration before faith (time wise), but most PCA and OPC Presbyterians teach the same thing as Regular Baptists (I am a Regular Baptist--some use the term "Reformed Baptist"). We both teach that regeneration precedes faith logically in that regeneration is the cause of faith (1 John 5:1), and personal righteousness (1 John 2:29). Also, that justification is on the basis of the gift of faith (Phil 1:29). However, RC might recognize that God can make exceptions, such as John the Baptist.
The problem is that I do not have context and can only speculate on what RC is saying. If he is saying that the normal practice of regeneration precedes faith in time, then he is in error.
I am loosing the context of your statement here. Nevertheless, I read the sermon in which Spurgeon is accused of denying Calvinist doctrine, and he actually affirmed it.
Some of what you are saying is historically wrong. Calvin did not use terminology "Limited Atonement." Had he been born 75 years later, he would have been using that terminology though.
The terminology of "Limited Atonement" did not come until the 1600s after the "Remonstrance." In the Remonstrance (Original Arminians) they postulated a different theory of atonement. They denied the penal substitutionary atonement and affirmed what is called a General Theory of Atonement. They said the cross work of Christ did not forgive the individual sins of men, but rather it satisfied the general sense of God's justice. That is what is meant by the term "Unlimited Atonement" historically. It is a denial of the ability of Christs shed blood to save to the uttermost and completely. In satisfying the justice of God for all men, it brought about a situation in which God could offer salvation to all men, and all men became savable. This of course is not penal or substitutionary. Then the cross of Christ saves no one, but makes all men savable.
So then, historically, Calvin taught the penal substitutionary atonement, but never use the terms "limited atonement." After the Remonstrants taught General Atonement, and used the term "Unlimited Atonement," the Dutch Reformed conference of Dort, responded to the concept of a General Atonement which does not save, and developed the terminology "Limited Atonement" to say men are actually and really saved to the uttermost by the shed blood of Christ. So then, historically, the term "limited atonement" speaks of an actual salvation to the uttermost (Penal and substitutionary), as opposed to a hypothetical possibility of atonement for all men everywhere (General Atonement)
You said...."Limited Atonement, as I understand it, the limited atonement that Calvin taught, says this. Christ died for All men and His blood is sufficient for the saving of all men.....
Unfortunately, I have not read much of Calvin. I believe I remember Calvin using the term "all men" in a way similar to the Bible. Calvin was not referring to all men without exception, but all men of all kinds. All men then equals men of every tribe, tongue, and nation.
Concerning Spurgeon and the phrase "could not believe".... That is a little different. Spurgeon and Calvin and myself probably see the biblical teaching in the same way. This may sound like double talk, but if you think about it, it is not. Any man has the ability to choose to believe. On the other hand, no man will chose to believe because all men are rebels and sinners by nature. So then, while any man has the ability to believe, we universally reject Christ by nature. We are all children of wrath by nature (See Eph 2:3) and dead in our sins and trespasses (Eph 2:1).
I need to say more, but I have to go... later.
