Why God uses faith

Of course. The Pharisees accused Jesus of casting out demons by the power of the devil. The blind man who was healed by Jesus understood who Jesus was by the healing itself, and expressed astonishment that others didn't immediately recognize that only God could perform such a healing.Jesus also told the parable of Lazarus and the rich man to illustrate that despite the common belief that a direct witness would be convincing, the fact is that it isn't. Jesus told the rich man that sending one who had died to warn his brothers of their fate in hell wouldn't convince them anyway, that if they hadn't believed Moses they wouldn't believe this witness either.It is illustrated throughout the Bible that people who witnessed miracles tend to forget them or forget their importance after a very short time. The incident of the golden calf while Moses was up on Sinai certainly shows that the people had already forgotten God's demonstrations of power that brought them out of Egypt, and turned to an idol god. The fearfulness of most of those who investigated the Promised Land the first time shows a similar loss of faith in the God of miracles despite that generation's abundant experience of miracles. Thomas is treated as inferior to those who believed without having to see, not made a "chosen one." Why is faith "hard work?" You read it and you believe it. You hear it and you believe it. Those who heard Jesus had risen from the dead were blessed because they knew immediately exactly what Thomas insisted on knowing the hard way.Reasons in general for saving us by faith:1) Faith is trust. Trust gives honor to the trusted one. It glorifies God to trust what He says and does to the point of acting on it, being willing to die for it.2) Faith is spiritual. The Kingdom of Heaven is spiritual. Seeing a miracle is a physical thing, a cerebral thing. Faith is of the substance of God Himself.3) Faith distinguishes the sheep from the goats. God is in the business of saving sheep. Goats can see a miracle same as sheep, but sheep believe and trust, and love God's goodness.If I think of more reasons I'll add them later.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-25-2006 10:12 PM

Seems like a very artificial distinction to me. To have faith in Jesus is to trust Him. One has faith in His character, in what He has promised, and trusts Him to be as good as His word. He said "come unto me all you who are heavy laden" for instance. Acting on that is faith in Him, is trusting Him. The two terms may have some shades of difference in meaning but I can't think of any at the moment. Yes, that was to evidence His identity, in order to give grounds for trusting Him. The faith itself, the trust itself is based on that of course. We believe He is God because of his demonstrations and miracles. We no longer need miracles and demonstrations because He proved who He is. Now we live by faith in Him. What a disgusting thing to say. Well, you aren't God and He didn't consult human beings about how to go about His business. You prefer to make your own rules, so fine, nobody's stopping you. You have the kind of God in mind you want. If it doesn't happen to be the God who actually exists, well, that's the breaks. I didn't say God doesn't also use cerebral work. Certainly he does.

Exactly. And He did reveal himself to me, and he has proven over and over and over to be worthy of my trust.

We don't have to get all uptight about the idea that Thomas' requirement was "inferior" in order to recognize that Jesus was VERY clear that believing WITHOUT seeing was BLESSED:

Yes I did mean to say that Jesus clearly identified the need to see, to have empirical proof, as inferior, but I didn't put all that weight on it. Clearly Jesus said those who trusted what they heard were blessed. At the very least this is because after He ascended, and all the witnesses to His resurrection had died, that would be all we had to go on for knowledge of the events of His life and death and teaching, and those who believed the testimony of those who witnessed it all would indeed be blessed. Those who continued to need proof would not be given it. This is also what Jesus taught in the parable of the rich man and Lazarus as I pointed out in my first post on this thread I believe.Some people had to witness the events in order to tell the others who would have to believe. Being a witness is necessary, I certainly wouldn't be criticizing any of them for that. But it is very clear that Thomas wouldn't believe what he was told, and Jesus graciously showed him and didn't criticize him for it either, but He did make it clear that believing what the witnesses tell us is precious faith, honoring to the witnesses, and honoring to God.This message has been edited by Faith, 02-28-2006 01:41 AM

I didn't demand proof, and the proof he gave me was not the kind of proof you are demanding.

Of course. I believe this is disingenuous of you with respect to the Thomas passage as Jesus didn't call Thomas blessed but did call those blessed who had believed exactly the same thing Thomas had been told, but without needing to see it. Nobody is condemning "the empirical method of reaching belief" but certainly showing that those who demand it will be forever frustrated.Let me see if I can make this point clearer. The events of Jesus' life were one-time events. They cannot be replicated. When it comes to the resurrection those not in a position to have empirical proof of it MUST believe (or disbelieve) the reports of it. We have no choice.What proof could be given of those same events now? If you saw a miracle of some sort, would that prove that Jesus had risen from the dead? No. You weren't there to witness the events, the crucifixion. You weren't there to appreciate the implications of the empty tomb. You HAVE to trust what those who did witness it say about it.That is the same situation for us as it was for those in that time who for one reason or another didn't get to see Jesus at any point in His life and death, or those who witnessed some of it but not the risen Jesus. The rich man in Hades wanted Jesus to send someone from the dead to warn his still-living brothers away from his own fate. Jesus answered that since they wouldn't believe Moses they wouldn't believe such a witness from the dead either. It's exactly the same point as the Thomas point.ABE: Sorry, not Jesus, Abraham. Luke 16:19-31.Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-01-2006 01:29 AMThis message has been edited by Faith, 03-01-2006 01:32 AM

Well, the subject of our discussion happens to be limited at the moment to Thomas' refusing to believe Jesus had risen from the dead unless he saw the physical proof of it. And far from it not being important, scripture tells us that we MUST believe He rose from the dead.Of course, there's much more to the Christian life that follows from that. We must also believe many other things and live it all too.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-01-2006 02:35 AM

Of course, but the New Testament has been given for this very purpose, to persuade her, and wanting other evidence, which may not exist, is just going to leave her as an unbeliever. At the very least Jesus was certainly telling us in the Thomas episode that we are to believe His witnesses. Yes, and the point is clear. The man is burning in Hades and doesn't want his brothers to suffer the same fate, and Jesus says they have Moses to warn them away from it, and wouldn't believe a witness from the dead anyway. It's quite clear. With the rich man burning in Hades, and the poor man comforted "in Abraham's bosom" you think this needs to be "stated?" Jesus is clearly saying that it does. Our job is to figure out what he meant, not argue with Him.

Been believable sincere writers. And since I believed them Jesus Himself has proved Himself worthy of my trust, answers prayer, guides me when I need it.This is the case with historical events. You either trust the witnesses or you don't. There is often no other evidence. Perhaps I only come to trust Him then after knowing Him a while, but it seems to me an artificial distinction in this context.

Not at all. The subject is why God uses faith and Thomas' refusal to believe without evidence, meaning believe unto faith, faith in the witness testimony, faith in Christ too on account of that, is right on topic.This is absolutely on the topic. Faith is first in the preached gospel. And the witness of lives is important, also, but it is the gospel you must believe. I believed without running into a single living Christian. And WHAT I believed is that Jesus died on the cross for sinners and rose from the dead and ascended into heaven for sinners.Lots of people live nice clean lives. Mormons often make wonderful witnesses as far as their nice clean friendly helpful and compassionate lives go. But unfortunately they witness to a false gospel that won't save anybody. There's a limit to the value of personal witness.If I were willing to die for you maybe then you'd believe? I'm called to do that if God puts me in that position.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-01-2006 01:47 PM

A true believer will no longer lead a materialist life, by definition.Many a skeptic has been saved. I was one. I was rather aggressive about it too at one time. But you can't remain a skeptic ABOUT THE RESURRECTION and be saved. Grace enables us to do all of it. It's all through the power of God, all though trusting in Him, all through faith you might say.

Do you consider yourself a Christian?Would you, just for the record, please write out in detail, just what you hate/think false about my beliefs and my being a bad witness? Thanks.

There are other criteria besides sincerity. I'm not familiar enough with Homer to know whether he presents his writing as fiction or fact but that makes a difference. Or Herodotus. But as a matter of fact I don't have a problem with "gods" or even Gryphons. Strange creatures which are probably demonic are represented in many cultures. I believe someone who told me that a being once appeared to her that was half angel half ugly demon -- like representations in some Eastern religions.Joseph Smith on the other hand is a known fraud. However, I can believe that an "angel" did appear to him along with all the fraud, a demonic being. Just as I believe it was not the angel Gabriel but a demonic impersonation that appeared to Mohammed.Edited this a great deal to add thoughts.This message has been edited by Faith, 03-02-2006 01:36 PM

Sure, the "angel" he talked to contradicted the Bible, in which the true angel Gabriel has a part.