Why did Thomas demand to see in order to believe?

Yes Aaron, there seems to be a misperception on Skans part that if Jesus would simply appear to everyone, that then all would believe and be saved. I disagree that all would believe by seeing.

People are either His, or are not His, and how ones responds to the truth of the Gospel is the determining factor, and if regeneration/faith/repentance never take place in acknowledgment of that truth, one will never be saved/prove they are not His elect.

 

Again, if we read to the end of that passage, we find that Jesus used Thomas as a teaching moment for the rest who would one day follow.

John 20:29 (ESV)
29 Jesus said to him, “Have you believed because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Is it so hard to believe that the sovereign God of the universe, in the person of Jesus Christ, might cause one person, Thomas in this case, to exemplify the doubts that Jesus knows that ALL humans have, and use Thomas as a teaching exercise that will pass down a more important truth for all posterity?

Why is it that I think the effects of Spinoza's rational liberalism have crept into many an individual, and that everything found in Scripture must be explained in terms that agree with human reason?

Is God not almighty, all knowing, all present, and supernatural, and as such (and more!) able to manipulate circumstances to His glory? Seems to happen all the time in Scripture, both OT and NT.





(Oh, and Skandelon, your invoking Aaron on the first page violated your early agreement. If that was part of your thinking in the OP, then you should have just said so openly right from the start.)

 

So you're teaching that Thomas became a born-again believer by choosing? He wasn't saved until here, is that what you are saying?

Aaron is simply saying "choosing" doesn't save, that grace does.

I know you did say it.

I got that "far out" conclusion from what you say here:

- Peace

 

Because the resurrected Christ let him see. Same as for all of us. His regenerated heart let him say, "Lord..."

I note this:

Romans 10:10 (ESV)
10 For with the heart one believes and is justified, and with the mouth one confesses and is saved.

Notice the order... Heart, then mouth. You seem to indicate mouth, then heart.

Romans 10:1-3 (ESV)
1 Brothers, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for them is that they may be saved. 2 For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. 3 For, being ignorant of the righteousness of God, and seeking to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

It could be either or both. Neither is beyond the capacity of God to accomplish and we are not told, so any argument otherwise is an argument from silence.

You are presuming to know precisely when God applies the effectual call. I make no such assumption. Coulr the effectual call be at the point when the Holy Spirit gives the gift of faith? Or is that out of the realm of possibility?

So, now you know the clear intent of the passage... I find that odd when it seems from reading the entire pericope that the clear intent is for Jesus to tell those coming later that sight is not the most important thing. That gives hope to future generations and does no harm whatsoever to Calvinism.

If you pull up short in the pericope and stop right at Thomas's declaration, then I can see where you would get your point, but the Scriptures do not pull up short, and we see the episode in context as a complete episode.

 

wasn't it already predestined by God though that Thomas would indeed come to "believe" that jesus was risen?

Thomas wanted his "proof" jesus supplied it , so?

 

Thomas already would have had faith in jesus before that, didn't jesus Himself already declare that Thomas and other 10 Apostle were saved and His?

 

No. They never believed the report of the women, and Thomas never believed the report of the disciples. They (and he) believed their eyes.

You never doubted someone's story before? You never said, "I"ll believe it when I see it." Did you choose to doubt the story, or did you simply doubt? And could you with the certainty that you believe your eyes have simply chosen to believe the story of someone you didn't trust?

I'm saying seeing is not believing, not truly, and I'm only going with Christ's words on that. Without a knowledge of the Scripture, I'd probably be as misdirected as you are on this account.

 

So, you didn't believe the story, you believed your eyes.

 

Faith is rational, it is based on evidence and sound reason.

Let's say a stranger approached you and said the bank was giving a $100 bill to everyone who walked in. Would you believe it? Probably not, as you do not know the person and the offer seems too good to be true.

Now, another stranger approaches and tells you the same thing. Now do you believe? Perhaps now you are half convinced and consider going to the bank.

Now, ten people approach and tell you the same, do you believe? I would say most would believe because of the overwhelming evidence, it is highly unlikely so many people would lie to you for no reason.

But let's say your mother called you and told you the same, would you believe? I know I would, because I know my mother would not lie to me.

Belief is a choice determined by evidence and reason. If a person known to be a liar tells you something, you are hesitant to believe, but if a person you know to be very honest and reliable tells you something, you are very willing to trust them and believe.

But belief is a choice, you can choose to believe or not.

 

I'm late coming to this thread, but some questions have popped up in my mind.

Does anybody here really believe that Thomas was not saved until he saw the resurrected Jesus in the flesh? If so, then you must believe that all the other disciples were also lost. And so was Mary Magdalene, who came to the tomb on that Sunday morning to prepare the body. She had no thought she'd find the tomb empty. And the men were getting ready to go back to the jobs they had before they joined Jesus as his chosen twelve.

In Luke 24, Jesus joined Cleopas and his friend on the road to Emmaus. Only after their eyes were opened (v.24) did they recognize Jesus. They went back to Jerusalem, found the eleven and told them they had seen him. Were they lost up to the moment they were convinced he was alive? Surely, nobody would argue that.

In the OP, Skandelon asked why Thomas demanded that he see Jesus before he would believe. He asserted that Thomas chose not to believe.

Actually, the other disciples made the same choice. Mary Magdelene chose not to believe he would rise from the dead. She (and the eleven) acted on that belief. But this does not mean they were not saved. It simply means they didn't believe he was alive until they saw him alive.

 

He did... That He chose to use that particular means to accomplish the effectual calling is really not our business, is it. Unless, of course, you stipulate that some one particular means must be used in all cases (and you have argued something close to that before, i.e., your discussion of judicial hardening of certain portions of Israel rather than seeing the spiritual rejection of God in all men).

You ask "Is choosing not to believe in Christ because of your doubts a sin?" Your indication is that it is not. My Bible says that it is. In fact, it is THE sin (not sinS) that separate us from God. Perhaps this is the point of disconnect between us. ALL lack of belief in Christ is nothing other than sin. How can it be otherwise?

And, your proposition that follows your false premise concerning our sin leads you to blaspheme God by suggesting that He is somehow the author of sin. That is also not true. Thomas was already condemned as a sinner. His doubt was just evidence of that fact. As Christ explained to Nicodemus in John 3, He had come to save, in this case, Thomas. And He did, effectually.

What we know is that Thomas was yet in sin by his doubt. I would suggest that a vast horde of the human race is in similar circumstances. And, as I suggested above, Christ used the case of Thomas to give the rest of us, who doubt, but cannot "touch" the resurrected Christ, a means for hope -- that we can be saved by the same means as Thomas, but without the physical presence of the resurrected Christ. Praise God for His mighty works!

Only if you continue pressing a flawed proposition. The resurrected Jesus is
God, whether in physical form or by the Holy Spirit, and the process is the same. Thomas was one of the extremely rare few that had the opportunity to actually touch Messiah, something that all the rest of us who are His long for, but the process of salvation is identical, by faith, by God, by God's work.

I am probably the least "entrenched" Calvinist that you have ever debated with. I care not a whit about Calvinism per se. My theology derives from the text of Scripture and just happens to match to many of the tents of Calvinism. And, note that I am not making the same claim as some here do, i.e., that it is just me and Jesus and the Bible. I have been educated at a high level in theology, doctrine, church history, biblical languages, etc., but never was there a time when Calvinism came first above all things as you presuppose.

In fact, I would argue (and have) that we are LONG past the time to set aside terms like Calvinism, Arminianism, etc., for they have become nothing more than descriptive pejoratives and serve no real function in the Christian world except to divide God's people in ways that He would (and does) not approve. I only argue Calvinism for the sake of the Scriptures, which demonstrate to me -- fully -- that God is King and that we are not. And more, the sort of King that God is, is sovereign over everything, and in that sovereignty, even the very universe is contingent upon His sustaining power, He alone is the necessary being, all else is by His divine and perfect will.

One more word about your contention that I am so "entrenched..." I could very easily argue your position. In fact, I believe I could do a better job of arguing your position than you do, but even the suggestion of such will be seen as pride and I know that I will be called out by all the normal ones that wait to pounce on just such things.

In any case, it is not my "entrenched" status that brings forward my points, it is the actual text of Scripture in context, and not a brief phrase, taken out of context, and used as a battering ram against a doctrine that you despise. So, let's please leave off that line of reasoning here.

If you are going to continue these debates, you SHOULD have something positive to bring to the table in reference to your stated position instead of making your main thrust a negative attack against someone else's position. And, I have yet to see you make a POSITIVE statement in regards to your own doctrine. That smacks of weakness to me, and that is based on the countless theological debates that I have read in texts and journals, where the true experts in the field go head to head in organized debate. The one who can only "pick off" the other's work is the weaker in the debate and eventually either concedes or just goes away angry and begins another attack to somehow prove himself right. I see you falling into that camp.

 

You have violated Scripture, which says:

Heb 11:1 (ESV) Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

You cannot get "rational" and "evidence" from the plain reading of the text.

As Paul instructs in Ephesians:

Eph 2:8: "For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God"

There is no human element involved, save that we are the "pots" that the Master pours faith into, for our sake.