Brief Rebuttal of James White on Baptismal Regeneration

I was sent the following article by James White attempting to refute baptismal regeneration (White, as many knows, is a Reformed Baptist—while they hold [credo] baptism [by immersion] to be important, they do not believe in its salvific efficacy):

A Brief Rebuttal of Baptismal Regeneration

White’s main reason for rejecting baptismal regeneration is his belief in Total Depravity, the T of TULIP. I have a discussion of this and many of the errant theological presuppositions of Calvinism at:

An Examination and Critique of the Theological Presuppositions Underlying Reformed Theology (see the section beginning with the text, "It is common for many Calvinists to cite Rom 9" for a discussion of Rom 9:22; Eph 2, and other common "proof-texts" for the "T" of TULIP)

White, being Reformed, is a strong supporter of imputed righteousness (see his 2001 book, The God Who Justifies, for e.g.) and such plays an important role in his rejection of baptismal regeneration. For a thorough discussion of this doctrine and why it is anti-biblical, see:

Response to a Recent Attempt to Defend Imputed Righteousness (this is a thorough review of John Kauer, “Are You Considered as Good as Jesus? The Imputation Approach," in Eric Johnson and Sean McDowell, eds. Sharing the Good News with Mormons [Eugene, Oreg.: Harvest House Publishers, 2018], 273-81, 339; it also links to a 7-part series I did on λογιζομαι in texts contemporary with the Greek NT)

Contra White, that man, even before regeneration, has the ability to accept, not merely reject, the gospel can be seen in John 1:12:

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.

Both ελαβον ("received") and πιστευουσιν ("believe") are in the active voice, denoting the personal decision of the individual, as opposed to the passive which would mean that they were made (by God's infallible decree, a la Reformed theology) to receive and believe.

White then tries to provide an interpretation of 1 Pet 3:21 and Acts 2:38. However, as with many other attempts by Reformed apologists to answer these and other key texts, he fails. I have discussed such passages in detail previously; be sure to see:

Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation (discusses 1 Cor 1:17, a common "proof-text" against baptismal regeneration, as well as Acts 2:38/1 Pet 3:20)

Baptism, Salvation, and the New Testament: John 3:1-7 (discusses John 3 as well as some of the overwhelming patristic evidence supporting baptismal regeneration)

Indeed, it should be noted that White, as with many Protestants, are unaware of the difference between meritorious and instrumental causes. Commenting on 1 Peter 1:18-19 (NASB: "For you know that it was not with perishable things such as silver or gold that you were redeemed…but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.), White then writes: 

Peter directly teaches that we are cleansed by the blood of the spotless Lamb of God, Jesus Christ. Do we then have sufficient basis to identify the waters of baptism with the blood of Christ? Surely not. Sins are remitted through our participation in the death of Jesus Christ–it is by the “one time offering” of Jesus Christ that we are made whole (Hebrews 10:10-14).

A related text critics of baptismal regeneration also cite is that of 1 John 1:7:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all in.

No one denies that the meritorious cause of salvation is the sacrificial death of Jesus. As noted earlier, White ignores the distinction between instrumental means of (initial) justification and the meritorious cause thereof, a common error one finds amongst those who deny baptismal regeneration (not just Reformed Baptists). Indeed, in water baptism, it is not the water per se, but the God working through the water and applying the merits of the atonement to the individual that brings about the remission of one’s sins. Such is explicated in passages such as Acts 2:38 (see Refuting Douglas Wilson on Water Baptism and Salvation).

As for Heb 10:10-14, see the exegesis of this pericope and other texts (e.g., Heb 2:17 and the use of the present infinitive ἱλάσκεσθαι and 1 John 2:1-2 and Jesus being a present ιλασμος for the then-future sins of believers, etc) at:

Full Refutation of the Protestant Interpretation of John 19:30

Instead of being a proof-text for the Reformed view of the atonement and perseverance, Heb 10:10-14 is a very good refutation thereof, especially when one realises that White, following John Owen, has a nonsensical interpretation of Heb 10:29 (White believes that the one sanctified is not the Christian but Jesus himself, a view that his fellow Reformed apologists, including Robert Bowman, reject as eisegetical and strained; see James White (and John Owen) on Hebrews 10:29). Hebrews is not a friend to Reformed theology.

White's arguments against baptismal regeneration rests upon reading into biblical texts Reformed theology, in particular, Total Depravity, and then using that and his ignorance of the difference between instrumental and meritorious causes to argue against this biblical doctrine.