Why did Thomas demand to see in order to believe?

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).

 

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:

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.

 

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

 

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....

 

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

The bolded part is what I wrote.

 

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."

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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!

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

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