speratus,

Sorry, but I am going to have to strongly disagree with your view that those who were "pricked in their hearts" were not regenerate. I offered biblical evidence to support my view and you have, as seems to be your manner, ignored them completely. I am beginning to wonder if you even know what "exegesis" really means; e.g., you stated once that a sermon by Martin Luther is exegesis. <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/rolleyes2.gif" alt="" />

But, just for the sake of argument..... let's assume that those who were pricked in their hearts and asked what they should do (noting that I vehemently disagree that they were 1) not regenerated and 2) they were seeking to be saved by works). The fact still remains that these same people believed first and then were baptized. Unless you are wanting to posit that belief precedes regeneration, aka: semi-Pelagianism, it would appear you have a serious problem trying to prove that regeneration occurred at their baptism. [Linked Image]

Quote
Man's role in salvation is always passive, receiving regeneration and faith through the means God has chosen: Word and Sacraments.
This is totally false. Man is passive in regeneration, but the result of regeneration very much includes and must include activity on a man's part, e.g., repentance and faith in Christ, aka: conversion. You aren't going to find many here, if any at all, who are sympathetic to such hyper-Calvinistic statements as that. But, we've already covered this error in another thread, didn't we? <img src="/forum/images/graemlins/evilgrin.gif" alt="" /> No man CAN come to Christ UNLESS the Father draw him. And all who are drawn, DO COME.... i.e., there is movement which man makes as a result of being given the ability to do so.

In His Grace,

[Linked Image]

simul iustus et peccator

[Linked Image]