1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Why did Thomas demand to see in order to believe?

Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by Skandelon, Aug 10, 2011.

  1. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    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.
     
  2. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Can I take that as a statement of agreement with the question I posed...that Thomas (and some of the others) chose not to believe UNTIL they saw?

    How is that possible considering that belief is a "state of being" and not a choice? How can they say, "I will not believe it until I see it," if indeed belief is not a choice?

    So, are you arguing that Thomas didn't really savingly believe in Christ after seeing him?

    Or are you saying that his belief was not a result of his seeing and touching Jesus despite the clear implications of this story?
     
  3. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I'm sitting right here P4T, you can ask me. :) The OP makes no such claim. Let's recap:

    1. I simply restated Aaron's view concerning "belief not being a choice" and then followed it with a very simple question regarding Thomas apparent choice to "not believe until he saw."

    2. You requested that I provide quotes showing that someone supports the view that people don't choose to believe or not and so I did. Such as: "to become a believer is not a choice. One finds that he either believes or he doesn't, and he will act accordingly." -Aaron

    3. You then deny that Aaron actually believes that people don't choose to believe despite these quotes.

    4. Now, from all this you draw the FAR OUT conclusion that I believe that Jesus' mere physical manifestation to everyone would cause them all to believe and be saved? Wouldn't that imply that I believed that everyone on earth who saw Jesus was really saved? I don't understand why you might say this???

    Where did you even get that? I know I didn't say it, so I'm just trying to understand how you read these things into my posts and then make arguments that are completely unrelated? I'm trying to believe its not intentional and to assume that is was a simple misunderstanding, but it is difficult when this kind of thing seems to keep happening over and over. Please help me understand what I said that made you draw this conclusion?
     
  4. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.)
     
  5. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    I was just about to quote this exact same verse. Notice Jesus CLEARLY states, "you believe because you have seen me." Why does he believe?

    Because of an inward work of irresistible regeneration or because he saw Him? Jesus answered that question.

    So, now you are speculating that God caused Thomas' doubts? Or do you just mean that He drew attention to them as an example?

    If the latter, then what purpose would this example serve considering that doubts would have no real effect if election is unconditional and the call is effectual, would they?

    I'm not attempting to explain them in terms that agree with human reason, I'm trying to understand how someone can explain them in terms that agrees with Calvinism without completely changing the clear intent of the passage.

    Yes, as the OP on THIS THREAD addressed, but those unique works of divine intervention don't in any way prove God's active determination of all things in the way some here seem to believe.

    I'm sorry, what agreement is that? I wasn't wanting to bring Aaron into the discussion, just the topic regarding "the choice to believe." It was only when requested by several posters to produce statements of those who believe this that I quoted Aaron. What is the problem with that? I didn't attack him or anything and it was on topic. What is the problem? And why are we whispering? :)
     
  6. preacher4truth

    preacher4truth Active Member

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2010
    Messages:
    8,121
    Likes Received:
    17
    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
     
  7. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.

     
    #27 glfredrick, Aug 11, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 11, 2011
  8. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240
    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?
     
  9. JesusFan

    JesusFan Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2011
    Messages:
    8,913
    Likes Received:
    240
    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?
     
  10. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    JF, go back to your last response to me. Push the edit button. Put my words in quotes (that is a box like this [] with the word "quote" in it before and after my words. The one at the end has a / before the word quote.")

    Once you make those corrections I will respond. :)
     
  11. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    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.
     
  12. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sure. I've doubted the bible before.

    Sure.
    I just doubted, but then I considered the source, weighed my options, studied the information and chose to believe despite those doubts.

    I don't think I would choose to trust a story of someone I didn't trust, that would be unwise. However, I might choose to trust a seemingly hard to believe story from a trustworthy person though. Like when my mom told me about Jesus. She had never lied to me before so, though I thought the story was a bit "hard to believe" at times I trusted her testimony and now I have experienced it for myself and am sharing it with my children...in fact I baptized my oldest son two weeks ago. :)
     
  13. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    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?
     
  14. Aaron

    Aaron Member
    Site Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2000
    Messages:
    20,253
    Likes Received:
    1,381
    Faith:
    Baptist
    So, you didn't believe the story, you believed your eyes.
     
  15. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yet, you still haven't told us why that might be necessary. Couldn't he just have regenerated him?

    When did I indicate that? How can a mouth profess something the heart doesn't yet believe?

    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.

    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.

    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.
     
  16. Skandelon

    Skandelon <b>Moderator</b>

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2003
    Messages:
    9,638
    Likes Received:
    1
    Huh? I chose to believe the story despite my doubts. My ears heard the testimony, my eyes saw whatever evidence might have been available to support the story, my mind reasoned and deliberated with all the information available in consideration. I made a choice.
     
  17. Winman

    Winman Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 8, 2009
    Messages:
    14,768
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
    #37 Winman, Aug 11, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 11, 2011
  18. Tom Butler

    Tom Butler New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2005
    Messages:
    9,031
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  19. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
  20. glfredrick

    glfredrick New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    2
    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.
     
Loading...