Yet, you still haven't told us why that might be necessary. Couldn't he just have regenerated him?
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).
Why is this so difficult?
1. Thomas chose not to believe until he saw.
2. He saw with his eyes.
3. He believed in his heart.
4. He professed his belief with his mouth.
Is choosing not to believe in Christ because of your doubts a sin? If so, to indicate that God made Thomas doubt contradicts much of the biblical testimony about the holiness of God. If you mean that he may have blinded Thomas so that he would remain in doubt that is one thing, but scripture never indicates this as it does in other situations where God has a great redemptive purpose, so I see no reason to assume it. When God hardened Pharaoh's heart scripture is clear to indicate that.
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!
No, it is possible that Thomas believed at that very moment he saw Jesus because the HS regenerated him, but then why did Jesus say, "You believe because you see?" Seems a bit unlikely all things considered.
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.
Maybe not for someone so entrenched with Calvinism that they can't see the apparent contradictions and difficulties associated with it, but I think objective readers can see the difficulty in the concept that God made Thomas doubt and want to see in order to believe so as to make him an example for future elect people who would be effectually made to not doubt but certainly believe without ever seeing.
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.
The OP makes no such claim. Let's recap: