A lot of Protestant criticisms of baptismal regeneration is caused, not
just be a lack of meaning biblical exegesis (e.g., Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation), but also an ignorance of
the difference between meritorious, instrumental, and other causes. Such
is exemplified by the likes of James White who thinks 1 Pet 1:18-19 is a valid
"proof-text" against the doctrine.
Here is a brief description of these causes:
Final cause: the purpose or aim of an action or the end (telos) toward which a thing naturally develops.
Efficient cause: an agent that brings a thing into being or initiates a change
Formal cause: the pattern which determines the form taken by something
Meritorious cause: the foundation
Instrumental cause: the means/instrument through which the action is brought about; it exercises its influence chiefly according to the form and intention of the principal efficient cause
To give a non-theological example of how some of these causes work together (and are not mutually exclusive), take a small child taking a shower:
Meritorious cause:
Paying of the water bill (by the child's parents)
Efficient cause:
The payer (parent)/the water
Instrumental: the child turning the taps/faucet
Formal: The child being cleansed of dirt
To translate this into the salvific efficacy of water baptism:
Meritorious cause: the atoning sacrifice of Jesus Christ
Efficient cause: the Spirit operating through the physical water
Instrumental cause: water baptism
Formal cause: the baptised person being regenerated and receiving a remission of their sins
Final cause: the glorification of God in the salvation of souls
Much of the "either-or" arguments against baptismal regeneration (e.g., "either it is the blood of Christ or water baptism!"), apart from being a false dichotomy, is easily answered once one understands the different causes and how they work together; it is not "either-or." This is also why critics of baptismal regeneration who try to salvage belief in its sacramental quality miss the boat when they write the following as if proponents of baptismal regeneration would take issue:
When I speak of baptism as a “means of grace,”
I simply mean to affirm that, in this rite, it is not only the humans involved
who are active (whether that be the baptized or the church) but that we can
also expect God to act. (Terrance L. Tiessen, “The church in God’s
program of salvation: A Baptist perspective,” in David G. Barker, Michael A.G.
Haykin, and Barry H. Howson, eds. Ecclesia
Semper Reformanda Est: A Festschrift on Ecclesiology in Honor of Stanley K.
Fowler [Ontario: Joshua Press, 2016], 91-113, here, p. 107)
