How do Calvinists explain this passage?

If you notice I assigned 1 Peter 1:12 to the gospel coming by the HS's power. The idea of what you call "Gospel regeneration" is seen in James 1:18:

18 By His own choice, He gave us a new birth by the message of truth so that we would be the firstfruits of His creatures.

"Spirit of faith" is a short way of saying the Spirit that comes through faith as seen in Gal. 3:14. Plus look at the passage it speaks about belief as being what sets them apart as having that spirit, it never says that the spirit is what gave them the faith but merely that it is the spirit of faith....much like Christ is of God means Christ came from God as faith the spirit comes from faith. This only support Gal 3: 14.

"And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power," (Ephesians 1:19)

I understand this verse like its protrayed by the NLT:

19I pray that you will begin to understand the incredible greatness of his power for us who believe him. This is the same mighty power that raised Christ from the dead and seated him in the place of honor at God's right hand in the heavenly realms.

Plus, I'm not denying that fact that we would not believe if not for God's mighty power, I just don't take that to mean that his mighty power was only a provision for the elect to have faith.

"Who by him do believe in God, that raised him up from the dead, and gave him glory; that your faith and hope might be in God." (1 Peter 1:21)

Look at the verses before this and you can see that the phrase "by him" is in reference to Christ and his work of atonement on the cross. Again, I don't deny that it is "by Christ" that we believe in God. If not for Christ's work we couldn't have faith because their would be no gospel in which to believe.

Also, notice that it says "your faith and hope MIGHT be in God." If Peter is speaking to the elect here in the manner you suggest that he would use a bit more certain word than "might." It sounds as if they "might" not. Hmmm.

 

I beg to differ. Look at Eph. 1:13:

In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,

The "word of truth" is in reference to the "gospel of your salvation." I don't dispute that Christ is the Word, but notice that no translator capalizes "word" in James 1:18 as you have. This is most definiatly a reference to the gospel not to Christ Himself.

Also, notice here in Eph. 1:13 that belief comes before the Holy Spirit. It says "having believed" indicating that one is not in possession of the HS until after believing.

 

Here is a quote from the artical you posted:

I read the artical and though his textual gymnastics were entertaining they were less than convincing arguments, most of which can be summed up in his interpretation of the Greek word "logos" as compared to "rhema."

"Logos," which (in his view) is more often in reference to Christ, versus "rhema," which is more often in reference to the written or spoken word.

The problem is, as you can see in the quote I selected, that he failed to deal with Eph. 1:13 in which the phrase "the word (logos) of truth" is clearly set out to be the gospel message. This is significant and he fails to deal with it.

Plus, Roman 10:17 is often used by Arminians to show that faith comes from hearing, but is often rebutted by Calvinists who quote the second part of that verse which says "and hearing by the word of Christ" (some translations say God). The word in this passage is "rhema" which would contradict the Calvinistic assertion that hearing comes by an eternal working of Christ signified by the use of the word "logos" as apposed to "rhema." So, either way he contradicts his entire premise.

In other words, this argument doesn't stand even under the most casual observer's critique, much less under the lengthy scholarly rebuttals that have been published over the years.