# Unbelief vs. Nonbelief



## non dignus (Nov 17, 2011)

I wish to propound a distinction between unbelief and nonbelief. 

I submit that good paedobaptist ministers have never and would never knowingly baptise an unbeliever. He would, however, baptise a holy nonbeliever. What's the difference?

The unbeliever actually believes in something contrary to the gospel whereas the nonbeliever has no appreciable world-view. The unbeliever is akin the atheist who believes against Christ. The unbeliever believes much, but the unbeliever is deceived.

On the other hand, the nonbeliever is one who lives and thinks with lower level mental abilities. Nonbelievers would include infants, small children, mentally handicapped, brain damaged etc. Nonbelievers, quite simply, do not believe.

Thus paedobaptists would continue to affirm that the Lord saves the weakest among us, all the while shutting the kingdom to unbelievers.

Is this a difference without a distinction?


----------



## non dignus (Nov 24, 2011)

I would then hold forth that the sanctified spouse of 1 Cor 7 would be obviously disqualified for baptism because of unbelief. But a sanctified nonbeliever would be eligible, indeed commanded to be baptised in light of 1)the ancient promise to the covenant community to be "...God to you and to your children...." and 2) because 'it is not by might nor by power but by My Spirit'. God saves the infirm, the weak, and the humble. 

The sticky question of baptising households with children of various ages would be answered by the unbelief/nonbelief paradigm. I agree with the baptists that whole-household baptisms weren't necessarily involving every single member of the household. Older members who were indoctrinated into other religions, and whose consciences forbade them from embracing Christ were surely not forced into receiving baptism. And as the Baptist would agree, this doesn't negate the language that such and such households were baptised.

New candidates are disqualified from membership not because they can't grasp theology but because they DO grasp false theology. Candidates are given long probation times not so much to educate them but rather to ferret out false beliefs of which they have been poisoned, and to see their level of commitment.

It's really quite silly to take a little nonbelieving child and implant a few Bible facts into their wonderful little brains and then say, "There! This one believes and has enough speech capability to become a Christian!" Wouldn't that same little child just as easily believe, if indoctrinated, in a swiss cheese moon god? Of course. It is because the child is a non-believer and would believe anything thrown at him. But God loves the little children and has promised to save them. 

Now it's our turn as believers to believe Him and baptise the weakest among us.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 24, 2011)

I'd say the focus on "baptizing only believers or open professors" (amounts to the same thing, if we go by human judgment) is where the mistake lies.

We should baptize fundamentally by _commandment,_ and not by attempting to discern the internal qualifications of a candidate.

We baptize mature professors who profess their personal determination to be a disciple by the grace of God, because this is the commandment.
We (who baptize infants) baptize infants who belong to the one or more believing parents who present him as a disciple by the grace of God, because this is the commandment.

I also have some issue with what seems to me an unnecessary and unprofitable distinction between "unbelief" and "nonbelief." That strikes me as a creation of categories in order to solve a problem, rather than simply drawing from Scripture the concepts we need to speak to the subject. No, I'm not talking about the need to create technical terms like "Trinity." We need that term because we have a mountain of biblical data and references, and we need the shorthand summary terminology. But it seems like the categories you have instituted address more of a philosophical need to explain infant-baptism in relation to expressions of belief.

In bygone days, the Reformed would speak more readily of baptism answering to "infant-faith" engendered around the time of baptism. There isn't anything intrinsically objectionable to such a theological inference; however it was eventually dropped as a mainstay rationale for infant-baptism precisely because it is TOO rational, and not sufficiently biblical. There are enough people baptized in the Faith, who evidently were not regenerated at birth, or at baptism, or whenever relative to their baptism. Thus, a rationale that predicates the baptism of infants even on a presumed "seed of faith" sets the procedure on an uncertain foundation. This view did lead (say I) to the presumptive-regeneration stance in its least defensible expression.

We don't say that baptism makes or identifies "Christians-in-union-with-Christ," i.e. internally renovated, elect people. We DO say that baptism makes or identifies *disciples*, visible, external "Christians-in-name." Disciples are those who are subjects of Christ's discipline, at a minimum in the external function of his kingdom administration. Disciples are "members of the church." The church has an earthly existence/manifestation, as well as a heavenly existence. Children, even infants, are identified by Christ as citizens/members of his kingdom, Lk.18:15; Paul addresses them directly in his addresses to categories of membership, Eph.6:1-3; Col.3:20.

Our children are taught to believe the Christian faith: the gospel and everything connected to it. We fully expect them to take it, and retain it, by the grace of God, Holy Spirit working his ordinary work in them by means of the Word. We aren't seeking after a faith-declaration in some minimalistic gospel-content, after which we can begin the work of "discipleship" upon them. The young children of disciples, being necessary adjuncts of their parents, are disciples themselves.


Finally, there is the matter of the components of faith itself. Classically, faith is defined as tripartite: Knowledge, Assent, and Trust. As significant as Knowledge is, pure knowledge is not faith; nor is faith wholly knowledge, especially in the propositional sense. The simplest defense of this idea is the intuitive admission that my knowledge of my wife is not reducible to propositional categories. And the biblical use of the word "know" to describe marital relations only underscores this fact.

Babies are data vacuums. But everything they are learning is not propositional; in fact in the beginning virtually nothing they know is propositional. But just because they could not articulate their relationship to Mother in terms of language symbols, does not make the inception and development of this relationship less real, because it is non-propositional. Likewise, a baby disciple is encountering the manifold grace of God from the moment he comes into the world (and perhaps before, since hearing, unlike sight, does not begin to function only when light first dawns on a newborn's eyes). "Faith comes by hearing."

But the newborn is also stimulated by touch. He learns his mother's caress, as well as the sound of her voice. He learns to distinguish between hot and cold, between a hand and the breeze. And lo, the child is caressed by water. We confess that in some mysterious way not reducible to propositions, God ministers himself to ADULTS in the "visible Word" of the Lord's Supper. And we may say the same of baptism of adults, because the sacraments convey the same grace as in the Word, and no different (only a different means). In the case of an infant, who does not yet process language symbols, the ministry of the Word nevertheless comes to that child also--in the preaching of that Word, AND in the tactile impression of the waters of baptism.

We might even say that for a child of only a few days birth, the "sensible sign" of the gospel in the water speaks with MORE clarity to that child than verbal syntax can do. What is baptism saying? Well, it is the gospel in a "sensible sign." How is baptism presenting the gospel? Well, I don't _entirely_ know. I don't exactly know how Christ is ministering his body and blood to me in the Lord's Supper either; but I confess that he is. There is the intellectual aspect that has laden the signs with theological freight, which I ascertain more and more as time goes by (just as I can cognitively relate more and more to my wife, the longer we live together). But still what I ascertain in the intellectual department does not exhaust my knowledge of Christ, which is principally _personal_, not just rational.

The assent and the trust of faith are more than simply knowledge of the facts, but a consent and a resting in the reality expressed in the facts. The infant child "knows" very little about his Mother, but he still consents and rests in her arms, in pure childish confidence. Assent and Trust for the child are the greatest things about his faith in her. Now, who then should claim that a child CANNOT be given sufficient knowledge--even through the caress of water-droplets--enabling him to assent and trust in the God who provided such a thing? A God who condescends to work by lowly, unfashionable means.

Without faith it is IMPOSSIBLE to please God, Heb.11:16. How can a permanently mentally disabled person have the necessary faith to please God, if that faith must attain some minimum level of cognitive quality before it will "count," and allow him to assent and rest in the Lord? The fact is, God is able to give him all the spiritual apprehension of his Savior that he needs, which will allow him to assent and rest in him. Those who are not capable of being ordinarily called by the outward and ordinary means of the preached Word are not cut off from the true core of saving faith. What is true for the mentally disabled is also true for an infant. The difference is, that a normal infant should develop in his mind to the point where his intellectual gifts become a strong support for his faith, as his knowledge feeds into assent and trust. He will need that development as he moves toward independent operation in the world.


Jesus made it clear: no one demonstrates or illustrates the helpless faith of the saved better than a child, Mt.18:2-3.


----------



## non dignus (Nov 26, 2011)

Thank you, Rev. Buchanan,
for your thoughtful and detailed reply. I was hoping you would offer your opinion on this. I've never seen this distinction before and that's why I wanted to bounce this around.

Yes, I am seeking to satisfy a philosophical problem, but I am also seeking common ground with our Baptist brethren on household baptisms. My thanks to you for clarifying that the commandment is the most important thing in view here. 

My philosophical problem lies in the charge that Paedobaptists baptise unbelievers. A more precise rendering, given the distinction between prefixes is that, no, we baptise _non_believers. We serve a precise God. We make the distinction between the agnostic and the atheist, for example. We might baptise an agnostic spouse, whereas we wouldn't baptise an atheist spouse. This is not an arbitrary distinction but one based on clear thinking with a view to do the right thing absent overt directives. 

In this way we can agree with our baptist friends that it is wrong to knowingly baptise an unbeliever, that is, someone who cannot, because of conscience, receive the sign of covenant entrance. And then hopefully, they can meet us in the middle and accept that incomplete assent doesn't necessarily disqualify members of households. But we could also agree that proper household baptisms don't necessarily involve all parties. This clarifies the debate somewhat which, I think, is beneficial. 

I never liked the rational 'seed-faith' doctrine. I'm glad that's passe. And I don't believe it is wrong to presume God has the best intentions for my children. And while I do presume that my children are elect I certainly do not baptise them on that ground. Again, it is because of commandment. 

Funny, a quick first-read of the gospels inclines one to think that children are the most eligible for baptism given their simple nature. Ironic isn't it?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 26, 2011)

Of course, the "charge" can be reversed: Baptists _also_ baptize unbelievers.

Oh, but they don't _intend_ to baptize an unbeliever; they must operate on the basis of what people say about themselves. And some, who feel that a person's say-so isn't enough, make the putative convert wait for months or years before baptizing them. They wait for "fruit," by which to know them.

This, they say is the distinction between them and us. WE, say they, knowingly baptize un/non-believers, because an infant "can't" believe. And what they mean by faith in that case is primarily intellectual. It would be ridiculous to say the infant doesn't have any faith in anything while it suckles. Its trust is virtually the whole of its faith, such as it has. But is its faith in a proper object? I guess that depends on the quality of the mother, but if the mother be trustworthy, then the faith is sound.

So, can an infant trust in Christ? I would argue that the infant John trusted in Christ on the basis of Lk.1:44. And thus, the possibility is established (cf. Ps.22:9; 71:6). So, the objection cannot stand on the basis of an "intrinsic impossibility." But we aren't baptizing on the basis of known faith (which we cannot); forseen faith (which we cannot); or probable faith (which claim is presumption of acute insight).

So, to predicate baptism _on the presence of belief,_ said or otherwise, is to establish individual baptism on the basis of human action rather than simple commandment. Even if the human action is true, the case of baptism still has been predicated on a human work. Individual baptism is set forth as a "statement of faith," an "act of obedience," a claim to the work of grace on one heart. A Baptist will deny that a baptism has taken place, or that it had any meaning, if the individual is not spiritually invested (thus, repetition of the act becomes necessary, even if it is not called a "re"-baptism).

Because we do not base an individual baptism on the sure presence of belief, we affirm a baptism HAS happened, if the commandment of Christ has been followed. "Let God be true, and every man a liar." There isn't any efficacy to baptism for the baptized _apart from faith_. But that faith can be present later, and the baptism will still be a witness to it. We believe baptism is fundamentally a gospel-declaration, not a faith-declaration. We say baptism says something more about what God does to save people (the thing signified), than it says about any particular recipient of the sign pointing to God. Salvation is more dependent on what God has done, than it is upon what I say about God's doing.

I still need to say/profess what it is God has done, and believe it was _for me,_ before his grace will benefit me. That's the necessity of faith in this matter.

I guess I can happily assert that I never knowingly baptize an unbeliever or a reprobate. But I doubt whether that will bring a Baptist any closer to consenting with me on our practice.


----------



## Grimmson (Nov 26, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Of course, the "charge" can be reversed: Baptists _also_ baptize unbelievers .



Yes but the main difference is that we baptize on the basis of a credible confession of faith by the individual. Not an imported confession towards the individual based on the head of the household the person in question is a part of. Therefore there a major difference between the unbelievers baptized by Baptists and those by Paedobaptists. It is reflected even further in the area of discipline, where the unbeliever is placed under church discipline for his unbelief; such is not necessarily the case as a child grows up continuing in unbelief until the unbeliever leaves the household they are a part of.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 26, 2011)

David,
We treat ALL baptized members of our church as subjects of church-discipline.

And in my post I denied that the confession of faith (whether it is an adult baptism or an infant) is properly _*the basis*_ for any baptism; you attribute the Baptist principle to us in your second sentence, where you speak of that basis as "an imported confession towards the individual...." There is profession of faith present at the baptism of an infant (especially the ostensibly believing parent's), but it is not basic.

A profession of faith may be a sign that a person is a proper candidate for baptism, but a profession is not the only possible indicator (say we). We baptize disciples--i.e. those who are under the discipline. Your example of a child, who persists in unbelief until it shows itself, is no more intractable a problem for us than one of your baptized adults persisting in his unbelief until it shows.

Many, perhaps most, children tend to believe the things they are taught are true, especially when they can see that their teachers believe the same, and operate consistently with those statements. The combination is a powerfully persuasive mechanism. We identify such teaching as an ordinary means God uses to ingraft his Word in disciples, even little ones. So, if one never refuses to believe what is presented him as truth, and instead only embraces it more and more his whole life, how can it accurately have been said of him that he was once "unbelieving?" I won't question that each individual passes from death to life at some historic moment. But when that event happens may be wholly indiscernible. Such is the privilege of many people (not necessarily baptized as an infant) who cannot recall an age of unbelief.

I deny the premise: that waiting until it is possible to acquire a self-profession of faith is a more reliable method of preserving the "purity" of the church's membership. It may be intuitively agreeable to you, but I do not believe the practice can be demonstrated to be any special guard against infidelity in the ranks.

All views and attitudes toward children in the church have consequences.
If the general view of them is that they are unbelievers until they prove/say otherwise, that will reflect in the church's practice.
If in general they are viewed as perfect little angels, that will affect the church's practice.
If they are presumed to be regenerated, usually around about their baptism, that will affect the church's practice toward them.
If they are simply judged as disciples, as much as any adult is, they will be discipled accordingly. They will be exhorted all their lives to believe in the gospel of salvation.


----------



## non dignus (Nov 26, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> I guess that depends on the quality of the mother, but if the mother be trustworthy, then the faith is sound.



Now I'm finally getting it. Our faith is sound when Christ is surety. 




> .... we aren't baptizing on the basis of known faith (which we cannot); forseen faith (which we cannot); or probable faith (which claim is presumption of acute insight).



I'm seeing it, WOW.



> So, to predicate baptism _on the presence of belief,_ said or otherwise, is to establish individual baptism on the basis of human action rather than simple commandment. Even if the human action is true, the case of baptism still has been predicated on a human work. Individual baptism is set forth as a "statement of faith," an "act of obedience," a claim to the work of grace on one heart. A Baptist will deny that a baptism has taken place, or that it had any meaning, if the individual is not spiritually invested (thus, repetition of the act becomes necessary, even if it is not called a "re"-baptism).


 Do you see a strain of Pietism working here?




> Because we do not base an individual baptism on the sure presence of belief, we affirm a baptism HAS happened, if the commandment of Christ has been followed. "Let God be true, and every man a liar." There isn't any efficacy to baptism for the baptized _apart from faith_. But that faith can be present later, and the baptism will still be a witness to it. We believe baptism is fundamentally a gospel-declaration, not a faith-declaration. We say baptism says something more about what God does to save people (the thing signified), than it says about any particular recipient of the sign pointing to God. Salvation is more dependent on what God has done, than it is upon what I say about God's doing.



Yes, it says more about His promise to us, rather than our promise to Him. 

Amen Rev. B.


----------



## Grimmson (Nov 26, 2011)

Contra_Mundum said:


> David,
> We treat ALL baptized members of our church as subjects of church-discipline.


I do not believe that based on personal experience with churches in the PCA or PCUSA. Children are treated differently when it comes to the area of church discipline and confession of faith. 


Contra_Mundum said:


> And in my post I denied that the confession of faith (whether it is an adult baptism or an infant) is properly _*the basis*_ for any baptism; you attribute the Baptist principle to us in your second sentence, where you speak of that basis as "an imported confession towards the individual...." There is profession of faith present at the baptism of an infant (especially the ostensibly believing parent's), but it is not basic.


I made a clear difference on who we baptize as Baptist. I did not deny there isn’t a confession of faith for the infant, what I was saying is that profession was taken by the parents and imported to the child. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> Your example of a child, who persists in unbelief until it shows itself, is no more intractable a problem for us than one of your baptized adults persisting in his unbelief until it shows.


 It is more of a problem of you because that child did not confess faith as a believer, unlike the unbeliever in a Baptist church that did with that person’s own voice. 



Contra_Mundum said:


> All views and attitudes toward children in the church have consequences.


I agree, which is why I think all children need to hear the gospel.



Contra_Mundum said:


> If the general view of them is that they are unbelievers until they prove/say otherwise, that will reflect in the church's practice.


The general belief that is present is the need for the individual to hear and understand the gospel, then look to Christ making a confession of faith. 


Contra_Mundum said:


> If in general they are viewed as perfect little angels, that will affect the church's practice.
> If they are presumed to be regenerated, usually around about their baptism, that will affect the church's practice toward them.


I agree on both accounts.


Contra_Mundum said:


> If they are simply judged as disciples, as much as any adult is, they will be discipled accordingly.


I know of ministers within the PCA and OPC, one of them being a seminary professor, who has admitted to the lack of church discipline on children with their denomination. If they are to be treated as disciples then they need to be treated as such, including discipline. If such is not taking place and there is the claim that all baptized are treated the same, then something must be done in that church’s presbytery and denomination. Otherwise there is a ninth commandment violation as seen in the Westminster Smaller, Questions 76-78; not to mention for your own souls because of the oaths taken at the infants’ baptism.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 27, 2011)

David,
--I can't say whether there's a general failure or not, or just the perception of one. I just know that where I serve, the elders recognize a pastoral duty to the entire membership, including the youth. Now in the cases of the littlest members, the shepherding will respect the parental-relation. But that doesn't mean that the elders don't seek the health of the lambs.

--I also don't know what the people you've spoken to denominate as "discipline." Do they admit that discipline is 24/7 to every member? Do they admit that front-line discipline is the pulpit preaching ministry of the church? Do they admit that discipline is both positive and negative, and that it takes form in every setting and interaction? Or are they just thinking of discipline in the way of correction and strictures?

--As to your response to my reaction to the way you characterized our position in your first post, I quoted you as attributing someone's (else') profession as the "*basis*" for baptism in our scheme--this in relation/contrast to your self-proclaimed "basis" in the baptized's profession on your scheme. Your original "second sentence" is actually a fragment, and so may be taken as an extension of the first sentence, in order to make it's argument clear. So, my quote is accurate, as far as your words have plain meaning. Your latest (above) doesn't especially clarify what you meant to convey originally; it just seems to deny that I quoted you accurately. For my reading comprehension, you still haven't finely juxtaposed the two positions you were trying to compare. Right now it's apples to oranges.

--I'd like to see an argument spelled out that reveals where you see the actual difference in the nature of the problem of baptizing unbelievers, when the unbeliever is self-professed at the time of baptism, versus when the unbeliever was a non-professing infant at baptism. What makes your preferred situation "better" or easier to treat? Just restating the _viva voce_ difference, and pronouncing your preference for it as superior doesn't explain anything respecting church discipline. There's nothing "self-evident" there.

--Everybody needs to hear the gospel, frequently. "I love to tell the story, for those who know it best/ Seem hungering and thirsting, to hear it like the rest." The gospel that saved "the hour I first believed" is the gospel that keeps on saving, and maintains the long-time believer in the faith. The gospel is indispensable to everyone 100% of the time. That why (as part of ordinary church-discipline) the gospel is preached every Sunday in our pulpit, and it is preached to everyone from the 6-month old, to the septuagenerians.

--I expect the children of the congregation to believe what I'm preaching to them, and that in due time they will articulate it back to their parents and eventually the elders as owned. I expect Christ to make himself know to them long before they can put their hope in him into words. (I don't expect them as babies to be able to put the love they have for their parents into words either, but I don't doubt they have it without good reason).


----------

