I have been very frustrated trying to find Reformed arguments against the Lutheran view of baptismal regeneration. This is one of the reasons I joined Lutheranism; the arguments for baptismal regeneration were very convincing and I could find no Reformed argument against them. I just recently picked up John Murray's book on baptism which I have been told is the best book from a reformed perspective on the subject. John Murray is certainly a competent scholar, and I learned much from his Redemption Accomplished and Applied, as well as his Romans commentary. However, when he addresses the issue of the efficacy of baptism in the last chapter of his book, he has a footnote stating that he will not address the issue of baptismal regeneration. He points the reader to Charles Hodge's systematic theology Volume III.
I read Hodge on this issue a couple years ago, and recently read it again. Hodge gives a very brief overview of the Lutheran view. He then refutes baptismal regeneration. However, when reading this section, I found that I agree with most of what he says. He only argues against the ex opera operato view of the Roman Catholic church. He does not even address the Lutheran view in his opposing arguments. I suppose that one could attribute this to mere ignorance of the Lutheran position, however, he clearly acknowledges its existence earlier in the volume.
So what is it? Why can the Reformed not even address the Lutheran view? It is as if our theological opinions are not even given a second glance. For the Calvinist, one is either a Calvinist or Arminian, believes in a Roman Catholic view of baptism or a symbolic one, holds to transubstantiation or denies the presence of Christ's human nature. This is why after 500 years leading Reformed theologians claim that Lutherans believe in consubstantiation, the local presence of the human nature of Christ in all places, the absolute necessity of baptism for salvation, synergism, etc. I have found that even in Reformed treatments of the Theology of Paul, the statements in his epistles on baptism are not even addressed. If they are addressed, the issue of baptismal regeneration is not.
If you are Reformed and reading this blog; there are other theological stances. Being a monergist does not mean you must be a five point Calvinist. Believing in Sola Fide does not mean that the sacraments are not efficacious.