My own definition of an infidel, according to which I have used the term for many years, is one who rejects the miraculous element in Bible history. I would not include in the term one who for special reasons may doubt or deny the occurrence of some one or more of the miracles, on the occurrence of which nothing of moment depends, while admitting the reality of the miracles in general. But he who makes a sweeping denial of miracles in general, as being either impossible or incapable of proof, is an infidel.

      Does this definition identify infidels with the unbelievers or disbelievers who, according to Christ and the apostles, are doomed to perish if they die in that condition? I think it does, for it is he who disbelieves the gospel that shall be condemned, and, according to Paul, one of the essential facts of the gospel is the resurrection of Christ. He who denies the miracles must deny this one, while he who believes this believes miracles in general, and he believes the gospel. He who denies this is yet in his sins (1 Cor. 15:12-19), and dying so he perishes.

      There is a difference between the infidel and the skeptic, or the doubter; yet it is a difference of degree. While the infidel disbelieves, the doubter can not yet believe. The latter is in the more hopeful condition, inasmuch as he has not yet decided against the gospel; but inasmuch as it is necessary to believe in order to be saved, he too must perish if he remains where he is. [183]

[SEBC 183]