Why did Thomas demand to see in order to believe?

[glfredrick]

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.

There is a good case to be made that no one was "saved" until Christ was resurrected, at which time salvation was accomplished through His atoning. That fulfillment could then be applied to those who God had elected and who were righteous in faith, as described in Hebrews 11 and other places.

Some also suggest that it is possible to see that salvation did not arrive until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, but that remains open for debate. I only mention it because it is a position that some have argued and make no judgment on it myself (still studying that issue).

 

[preacher4truth]

I hadn't said anything yet. I stated Aaron's view regarding someone not choosing to believe (which you all disagree with prior to learning Aaron said it) and then asked a question. That is all.
Read his quotes and his arguments again.

And that is supposed to mean that Jesus revealing himself in physical form would certainly cause everyone to believe? Read it again more carefully. I was making the point that God COULD "do whatever outward sign that would remove all doubt from every unbeliever," regardless of what it was that would convince them to believe. It just so happen that seeing him in person was enough for Thomas. Nothing was said about that being sufficient to effectually cause everyone believe in Jesus, so let's get back on topic.

This is exhausting. I may have to bow out...so don't take it personally. Ok?

Yes, it's "supposed to mean that Jesus revealing himself in physical form would certainly cause everyone to believe" because that is what you said and argued for.

You can't even own up to what you plainly stated then add a question mark like it's my fault what you said?

You said you never said it, calling my saying you did say it a "far out" conclusion, and now that I prove you said it and you need to bow out? :laugh: Come on skan, that's ridiculous.

You said God could do this to make everyone believe, your words:

"He could do like he did with Thomas and physically reveal himself to every doubter, or blind every anti-Christian on a road, or have every rebellious believer swallowed by a fish, or do whatever outward sign that would remove all doubt from every unbeliever."

So yes, you did suggest this would be effectually sufficient to cause everyone to believe. Now that I've proved it, you're "exhausted."

Time and again you ask for proof over and over "prove who/I said that!!!!!...no one here denies that!!!!!!...no one here believes that, prove it!!!" then when it is proven time and again you go into a state of denial.

This time you use "I'm exhausted?" and "Don't take it personally, OK?" Come on.

It's not my fault what you said, no need to try and turn it personal.

 

[Earth Wind and Fire]

Because you have seen me you believed; Blessed are those who have not seen me but believe

 

[JesusFan]

There is a good case to be made that no one was "saved" until Christ was resurrected, at which time salvation was accomplished through His atoning. That fulfillment could then be applied to those who God had elected and who were righteous in faith, as described in Hebrews 11 and other places.That would fit into actual 'salvation" as in NT sense of term being actually accomplished at death and resurrection of the Messiah....

11 of the Apostles WERE indeed elected/predestined by God to become saved, but needed to have Jesu 'work" done in Time before they would get "saved"

Some also suggest that it is possible to see that salvation did not arrive until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, but that remains open for debate. I only mention it because it is a position that some have argued and make no judgment on it myself (still studying that issue).

i tend to see salvation in the NT sense of it actually being when the Body of Chrsit came into existence at pentacost, when the HS came in His role of placing us in Jesus spiritually. and at that time is when saints could "really" be seen as possessing fulness of their salvation....

 

[Skandelon]

He did... That He chose to use that particular means to accomplish the effectual calling is really not our business, is it.

So, your view is that God effectually calls some people through outward means (seeing, blinding light etc) while others like you and me are effectually called through an inward awakening? I thought you believed that what happened outwardly was ineffectual without the inward work of regeneration?

You ask "Is choosing not to believe in Christ because of your doubts a sin?" Your indication is that it is not.

No, just the opposite. You indicated that God may have made Thomas a doubter to use him as an example and I was making the case that God doesn't cause men to sin.

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.

What?! I'm not following this reasoning at all, maybe its based on the misapplication of the sin of unbelief mentioned above, so I'll move on... Maybe you can go back an re-read my post with that understanding in mind.

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 you just dismissed Jesus words, "You believe because you see," in favor of supporting the system which teaches that he believe because he was supernaturally and irresistibly regenerated inwardly.

One more word about your contention that I am so "entrenched..." I could very easily argue your position.

I'd love to hear that.

Just a simple restatement of what you think we actually believe would be nice. Start with our view of John 6 regarding the drawing/enabling of the HS. What exactly is our view on that?

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.

Awww, here we go again. The shift from the topic to the personal attack and questioning of motives. If positive means "agreeing" with you, then I don't think I'll ever quite measure up with this expectation. Sorry. :love2:

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.

Do I need to go back and link to all my so called positive views of what we do believe? When you are dealing with an either "this translation" or 'that translation" you have to deal with both.

I believe I have presented what you call the "negative" by addressing what I see as the error of you translation, but then I almost always supply the "positive" which would be what we consider the right translation. So, once again you have diverted the topic to discuss irrelevant issues and try to paint me in a negative light rather than just deal with what you have now dismissed as a "negative" attack. Revealing.

 

[Skandelon]

Yes, it's "supposed to mean that Jesus revealing himself in physical form would certainly cause everyone to believe" because that is what you said and argued for.

You can't even own up to what you plainly stated then add a question mark like it's my fault what you said?

Ok, brother, no offense but when I have to start debating you about what I believe because you can't seem to understand my very clear and simple explanation, it is time to end it. I'll end our discourse with this:

As stated the first time and the second, I was making the point that God COULD do whatever outward sign NECESSARY that would remove all doubt from every unbeliever.

I did not say, as you falsely accuse me of saying, that if Jesus appeared in physical form that everyone who saw him would certainly believe. If I believed that I then would also have to believe that EVERYONE who saw Jesus in person is now a believer in Heaven. It's so ridiculous and I'm not even sure why I'm taking the time to explain it to you again. I guess there is just a part of me that thinks you are really trying, but just made an honest mistake and misunderstood.

Either way, I think I am going to need to cut our discussion off. I have to get off the merry-go-round. I'm getting dizzy.

 

[glfredrick]

For the record, the quote above in Jesusfan's post is not all mine.

The bolded part is what I wrote.

Originally Posted by glfredrick
There is a good case to be made that no one was "saved" until Christ was resurrected, at which time salvation was accomplished through His atoning. That fulfillment could then be applied to those who God had elected and who were righteous in faith, as described in Hebrews 11 and other places.That would fit into actual 'salvation" as in NT sense of term being actually accomplished at death and resurrection of the Messiah....

11 of the Apostles WERE indeed elected/predestined by God to become saved, but needed to have Jesu 'work" done in Time before they would get "saved"

Some also suggest that it is possible to see that salvation did not arrive until the coming of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, but that remains open for debate. I only mention it because it is a position that some have argued and make no judgment on it myself (still studying that issue).

 

[glfredrick]

So, your view is that God effectually calls some people through outward means (seeing, blinding light etc) while others like you and me are effectually called through an inward awakening? I thought you believed that what happened outwardly was ineffectual without the inward work of regeneration?

Your missing my point almost has to be deliberate by now, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say, no. As I said above, the mechanism is the same (inward regeneration) only the outward means visible to us changed. That was my exact point, in fact.

Whatever outward means God uses, they would only be efficacious by themselves if your anthropocentric view is in place and they somehow caused the man to trust God first before God then regenerated them. Otherwise, and in my view, they are but one circumstance or another that God orchestrates in order to accomplish His purpose, which happens by the Holy Spirit in an inward manner, and those outward events could be different for every single elect human, but the justification, adoption, regeneration, etc., are as God dictates, and likely something that we will never (nor need to) understand. That is what faith is all about, contra Winman, who said in another thread that faith is "rational evidence."

Awww, here we go again. The shift from the topic to the personal attack and questioning of motives. If positive means "agreeing" with you, then I don't think I'll ever quite measure up with this expectation. Sorry. :love2:

No, actually, it would be a great exercise for you to stop snipping at someone else's theology for a while and present a positive view of your own. No attack involved.

 

[DHK]

Ok, brother, no offense but when I have to start debating you about what I believe because you can't seem to understand my very clear and simple explanation, it is time to end it. I'll end our discourse with this:

As stated the first time and the second, I was making the point that God COULD do whatever outward sign NECESSARY that would remove all doubt from every unbeliever.

This has nothing to do with unbelievers.
Tom already alluded to the correct answer. Go back and read his post.
Remember that all of these disciples had been with Jesus for three years. They had been taught and discipled by him. They had heard his words and seen his miracles. Peter made his great confession: "Thou are the Son of the living God; thou hast the words of eternal life." Jesus confirmed it. He said that flesh and blood had not revealed this to Peter, but My Father in heaven. Peter knew that Christ was the Messiah. He was a saved man, as were the others, except for Judas Iscariot. This has nothing to do with salvation.

Mary told all the disciples. As a whole, they did not believe.
The ones traveling on the road to Damascus did not recognize Christ and did not believe until they recognized Christ when he broke bread.
Mary of Magdalene thought that she was speaking to the gardener and supposed that he was dead.
When they were gathered together in one room and Jesus appeared to them, they were afraid for they thought he was a ghost.
They just did not believe!!

Does that make them unbelievers!! NO. It makes them doubters of the resurrection of Christ, which was an astounding event at that time. Thomas was not present with the eleven at the first appearing, so he, like the others, doubted. But what did he doubt? His salvation? No. He doubted that Christ had risen from the dead. That was the talk of all the town.

When Christ appeared the second time and Thomas was with them, Christ gave the invitation to come and see. Thomas was amazed. He fell down and exclaimed: "My Lord and my God." Was this a confession of salvation? No. He already was saved. It was worship. He was worshiping the one who had risen from the dead, and now he had every reason to believe as Christ stood right before him.

When the Day of Pentecost came the same disciples were endued with power, transformed completely. Not only had the Holy Spirit transformed them, but it was the power of a resurrected Christ, one that they were now willing to die for.
The entire passage has nothing to do with salvation. It centers around belief in a resurrected Christ. Just after he arose, and before their knowledge of it, they doubted if he had even risen from the dead. They disbelieved. It took a physical appearance of Jesus to make them believe. Remember that he appeared to over 500 before he ascended back into heaven.

 

[preacher4truth]

Ok, brother, no offense but when I have to start debating you about what I believe because you can't seem to understand my very clear and simple explanation, it is time to end it. I'll end our discourse with this:

As stated the first time and the second, I was making the point that God COULD do whatever outward sign NECESSARY that would remove all doubt from every unbeliever.

I did not say, as you falsely accuse me of saying, that if Jesus appeared in physical form that everyone who saw him would certainly believe. If I believed that I then would also have to believe that EVERYONE who saw Jesus in person is now a believer in Heaven. It's so ridiculous and I'm not even sure why I'm taking the time to explain it to you again. I guess there is just a part of me that thinks you are really trying, but just made an honest mistake and misunderstood.

Either way, I think I am going to need to cut our discussion off. I have to get off the merry-go-round. I'm getting dizzy.

While you step off the merry-go-round of your own device all can still see what you clearly said. But that's OK, I understand why you must now step away from clear refutation. No need to say I "falsely accused" while stepping away, I gave clear evidence in what you said. Perhaps what you should step away from is saying I'm falsely accusing when it is apparent I am not.

 

[JesusFan]

This has nothing to do with unbelievers.
Tom already alluded to the correct answer. Go back and read his post.
Remember that all of these disciples had been with Jesus for three years. They had been taught and discipled by him. They had heard his words and seen his miracles. Peter made his great confession: "Thou are the Son of the living God; thou hast the words of eternal life." Jesus confirmed it. He said that flesh and blood had not revealed this to Peter, but My Father in heaven. Peter knew that Christ was the Messiah. He was a saved man, as were the others, except for Judas Iscariot. This has nothing to do with salvation.

Mary told all the disciples. As a whole, they did not believe.
The ones traveling on the road to Damascus did not recognize Christ and did not believe until they recognized Christ when he broke bread.
Mary of Magdalene thought that she was speaking to the gardener and supposed that he was dead.
When they were gathered together in one room and Jesus appeared to them, they were afraid for they thought he was a ghost.
They just did not believe!!

Does that make them unbelievers!! NO. It makes them doubters of the resurrection of Christ, which was an astounding event at that time. Thomas was not present with the eleven at the first appearing, so he, like the others, doubted. But what did he doubt? His salvation? No. He doubted that Christ had risen from the dead. That was the talk of all the town.

When Christ appeared the second time and Thomas was with them, Christ gave the invitation to come and see. Thomas was amazed. He fell down and exclaimed: "My Lord and my God." Was this a confession of salvation? No. He already was saved. It was worship. He was worshiping the one who had risen from the dead, and now he had every reason to believe as Christ stood right before him.

When the Day of Pentecost came the same disciples were endued with power, transformed completely. Not only had the Holy Spirit transformed them, but it was the power of a resurrected Christ, one that they were now willing to die for.
The entire passage has nothing to do with salvation. It centers around belief in a resurrected Christ. Just after he arose, and before their knowledge of it, they doubted if he had even risen from the dead. They disbelieved. It took a physical appearance of Jesus to make them believe. Remember that he appeared to over 500 before he ascended back into heaven.

Question...

Would ANY of the 11 Apostles really had Unbelief in the sense doubting jesus was the messiah/Christ, or that they had moments of doubt in sense not sure of if they could keep following Him?

peter said that jesus ALONE had words of life, and they ALL would follow Him...

jesus said NONE of them would be "lost/not saved" EXCEPT Judas, per scripture...

Since jesus pretty much said they were ALL safe and secure in Him already, why would their be doubt as to ANY of their actual spiritual status? ALL were saved and kept by power of God! regardless of any doubts or evidence proofs they requested/needed!

 

[DHK]

Question...

Would ANY of the 11 Apostles really had Unbelief in the sense doubting jesus was the messiah/Christ, or that they had moments of doubt in sense not sure of if they could keep following Him?

peter said that jesus ALONE had words of life, and they ALL would follow Him...

jesus said NONE of them would be "lost/not saved" EXCEPT Judas, per scripture...

Since jesus pretty much said they were ALL safe and secure in Him already, why would their be doubt as to ANY of their actual spiritual status? ALL were saved and kept by power of God! regardless of any doubts or evidence proofs they requested/needed!

That is correct. You have affirmed what I have posted. They didn't doubt their salvation; they doubted that Christ had risen from the dead. There were many things about the crucifixion and resurrection that they did not understand right up to the time that Christ was going to the cross, even though it seems that Christ had told them plainly.
We need to understand that from our perspective hindsight is better than foresight. We weren't there.

 

[Skandelon]

Your missing my point almost has to be deliberate by now, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt and say, no. As I said above, the mechanism is the same (inward regeneration) only the outward means visible to us changed. That was my exact point, in fact.

I understand your point now, but if you go back and re-read what you wrote, "He chose to use that particular means to accomplish the effectual calling," that suggests that the effectuality is within the the outward means and not the inward work of regeneration, don't you think?

Plus, Jesus points only to the outward means as being the cause for Thomas' belief, thus you are the one who must presume something into the text that is not there.

No, actually, it would be a great exercise for you to stop snipping at someone else's theology for a while and present a positive view of your own. No attack involved.

By attack, you mean "debate" of course. Yes, your hands are completely clean of that dirty practice. You are just acting as the Bastian of truth, here to defend against the man-centered, small god believing, non-gospel holding, negative debater ....we get it... we get it... enough said.

 

[JesusFan]

I understand your point now, but if you go back and re-read what you wrote, "He chose to use that particular means to accomplish the effectual calling," that suggests that the effectuality is within the the outward means and not the inward work of regeneration, don't you think?

God is enabling His own to be actually able to place faith in Jesus, thus saving them
That its... Sinners unable to come to Jesus, and God graciously "opens them up" to be able to hear and freely respond to accepting Jesus!

Plus, Jesus points only to the outward means as being the cause for Thomas' belief, thus you are the one who must presume something into the text that is not there.

jesus already foretold that he would be saved and kept by power of His Father, so was he NOT saved until after seeing jesus?

By attack, you mean "debate" of course. Yes, your hands are completely clean of that dirty practice. You are just acting as the Bastian of truth, here to defend against the man-centered, small god believing, non-gospel holding, negative debater ....we get it... we get it... enough said.

have to give you credit for not getting "caustic" in your remarks while debating cal, unlike others here on the BB!

 

[Skandelon]

JF, go back to your last post and push the edit button and look at the changes I made to format your post. Notice where the {quote} boxes are and how they surround my quotes but not yours. You need to learn this feature. Practice.