You and Your Children

Covenant Theology, Children of Promise, and the Baptist Rejection of Mixed Membership

Well, this morning we will conclude our time in Genesis 17 and begin Chapter 18 next week,.

Lord willing.

Of course, this has been somewhat of a topical detour as we've considered covenant theology. And we've been doing this really not just for the past several weeks, but throughout our time in Genesis. Back in Genesis 3, or in Genesis 9, we've considered the covenant that God made with Adam and with Noah, and also with Abram in Chapter 15, and then the elaboration of that in Chapter 17.

Over the past two weeks, we've been really focusing and using Galatians 3 and 4 to better understand the Baptist rejection of a mixed covenant of grace founded, or identical to, the Abrahamic covenant.

That is what we reject as Reformed Baptists. That is what our confession rejects in comparison to the Westminster Confession of Faith. We cannot see any biblical warrant for holding Abraham's mixed posterity together for Scripture forcefully contrasts the children of the flesh and the children of the promise.

And so we spent some time last week considering the implications of that for the church. Galatians 3 -7, therefore know, only those who are of faith are the sons of Abraham. Now this morning, we're going to look again at the implications or the outflow of our approach to covenant theology as Baptists, largely in terms of family.

So last week we considered it in terms of the church and baptism and identifying the body of Christ, the New Covenant community, but now we're going to consider the implications for the family. And this is because, of course, our Paedo-Baptist friends, our Presbyterian and Congregationalist friends, they speak of their children, if they're believing parents, or at least one believing parent, as children of the covenant, or covenant children.

Baptists do not use that kind of language because we don't believe that their children are in the covenant of grace, whether internally or externally, until they have a circumcised heart and they have received the Spirit of God and have been born again.

As we've said, as Baptists, we hold to regenerate church membership. Only those who are in the body of Christ are truly children of the covenant, sons of God.

By faith.

Again, just to give an out view, outside of being united to Christ by faith, all fleshly children remain in darkness and under the curse of the covenant of works. But when God calls a sinner to faith by His Spirit, they are reborn as children of faith.

They receive the second birth, the new birth, and they're adopted by the Spirit of God to be beloved sons and daughters of God. Thereby, they are united by faith to the true seed of Abraham, which is Jesus Christ.

They become heirs with Him to the promise. As many as are led by the Spirit of God, these are the sons of God, Romans 8 .14. For you all are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus. For as many of you as were baptized into Christ have put on Christ.

And if you are Christ's, then you are Abraham's seed and heirs according to the promise, Galatians 3 .26 and 29. Whoever does not then have saving faith is not a child of promise, but rather a child.

Of the flesh.

Even if that flesh is a very godly parent, unless they have come to saving faith in Christ by the Spirit of God being born again, they are none of His.

So this is the vital issue.

Every human being is either in Adam or in Christ. You're in Adam by being born. You're in Christ by being born again. Every human being is either in Adam or in Christ, which means every human being, per their covenant head, is either in a covenant of works or in a covenant of grace.

There is no neutrality, no third area, no gray, no mixture. This is what we've been pursuing now for several weeks. Every human being is either in Adam, dead, in trespass and sin, or in Christ, made alive by the Spirit of God.

When you belong to the new covenant, which is the covenant of grace, fully manifest, fully concluded, it is not possible to be cut out of it as it was with the old, for you are in Christ. Your covenant of grace was His covenant of works.

He fulfilled the fleshly dimension to bring about the promises. Only those who are of faith belong to Christ. As we've said from Acts 2, chapter 39, and it's the title of our message this morning, only those who walk by faith have been called by His grace into His grace.

And this is what Peter teaches in Acts 2, verse 39. One of the favorite verses, and a verse we want to tackle head on, of our Paedo-Baptist friends. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all who are far off, as many as the Lord God will call.

The promise, as we said last week, is for you, and it's certainly for your children, and it's certainly for all who are far off. The promise is for everyone who God will call. It's as many as the Lord God calls that receive the promise.

And this is why we essentially deny that children of believers should be baptized apart from a credible profession of faith, because the promise, which is for us and for our children and for those who are far off, belongs to those whom God has called, effectually called.

Peter says, if we go back a few verses in Acts chapter 2, Peter says that this promise is the remission of sins and the receiving of the Holy Spirit. What we saw last week are these are emblematic of the new covenant blessings, that we receive the Spirit of God who circumcises our hearts.

We equated Ezekiel 36 with Deuteronomy 30. And the forgiveness of sins, the lavish, abundant, free, and unconditional forgiveness of God's people's sins, which we saw in Jeremiah 31. So these new covenant realities, Peter is saying, this is for you, these promises, this reality that you're beholding, this is for you and for your children and for all who are far off being Gentiles, as many as God will call.

That same word, far off, same phrase, makron in Greek, we find it in Ephesians 2, verse 13, and you who were far off, God has brought near by the blood of Christ. You see, we or our children or those who are far off remain far off, in other words, remain estranged from the grace of God until they're brought near by the blood of Christ, which is for Paul emblematic of salvation itself.

And so, who is this promise for? Is it for us?

Yes. Is it for our children? Yes.

Is it for any who are far off?

Yes.

As many as God will call. And if they respond to God's call, if they respond to the Gospel call, then the promise is for them, just as it is for you, just as it is for those who are far off. Repentance and faith is the fruit of this call, this effectual call.

Baptism is the public profession of this repentance and this faith. We should no sooner baptize our children before they've shown this effectual working of repentance and faith than we should baptize those who are far off before they show repentance and.

Faith.

We don't go grab a Gentile off the streets and baptize him and say, maybe now you'll start showing faith and repentance. No, we wait until they've done so, until it's become manifest that they have answered the call of God's grace.

Then and only then do they receive the sign of the covenant they've entered into by faith. The covenant belongs to the children of promise, not the children of the flesh. There is no mixture. There is no fleshly inheritance.

When Presbyterians use the term covenant child, we ask, a child of what covenant? What covenant could possibly open up this gap, this gray area, this third alternative between Adam and Christ? A covenant child is not a physical, fleshly, blood-related descendant of a believer any more than Ishmael was a covenant child, according to promise.

Any more than the sons of Keturah via Abraham were children of the covenant. Those who are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God. The children of the promise are counted as the seed, and the children of promise are only those of faith.

So that's the overview. Now how does this bear out in terms of family life? Well, from the past several weeks, it should be evident that our view of baptism does not rely upon exclusively proof texting from the New Testament.

A Presbyterian, a Congregationalist, they might say, well, we can understand. You've looked at baptism in the New Testament. You don't see any clear examples of infant baptism. We can debate about household baptisms, and we understand that's how you come to your conclusions as a credo-baptist, a believer-baptist.

But once you come to understand covenant theology, then you begin to understand how all these things relate and why it's proper for the children of believers to receive the sign and seal of baptism. Well, I hope now you have at least some grist in your meal that you could say, no, actually it's because of covenant theology that I would never baptize someone who doesn't have a credible profession of faith.

So Douglas Wilson, one of my favorite Presbyterians on most things, not on everything, he says this, and this is generally true. Many Christians come to Baptist solutions because they simply took a Bible and a concordance and they looked up every incident of baptism in the New Testament.

So that's the charge, right? New Testament only, a lot of Baptists are dispensational, so they're already fixating on the New Testament, and they're just looking up baptisms and they're going, I don't see any babies, therefore we're not going to do it, sola scriptura, case closed.

And Wilson says, this is objectionable, not because they studied the passages concerned with baptism, but because they did not look up all the passages that address parents, children, generations, descendants, promises, covenants, circumcision, Gentiles, Jews, olive trees, and countless other important areas.

In other words, the subject is bigger than it looks. To that we say amen. And that's why we've spent now several weeks looking at parents, children, generations, descendants, promises, covenants, circumcision, and the like.

We have not relied on proof texting baptism in the New Testament. Our covenant theology leads us to these conclusions about who belongs in the body of Christ and the sign they receive thereof. So the first point this morning, I've titled Erring with the Baptists, and you'll see why momentarily.

Erring with the Baptists. In other words, walking in error with the Baptists. It's a little tongue-in-cheek, folks. Erring with the Baptists. But before we unpack that, let me turn to a passage that I think is vitally important for us to discuss.

First Corinthians 7, beginning in verse 12. Paul is addressing marital issues in the church at Corinth. So much of what he's addressing is topical, issues that are either brought to him by the church, reported about the church to him, or issues that he is seeking to address to the church.

And in chapter 7, largely he's dealing with issues related to marriage and relationships. He says this, beginning in verse 12. If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her.

And a woman who has a husband who does not believe, if he is willing to live with her, let her not divorce him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband.

Otherwise, your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in this case. So this is another passage that Presbyterians turn to to say that there's some distinction, there's some way in which the children of at least one believing parent is made holy.

They're not unclean. They're somehow standing in this grace of God, even if they haven't pressed into the substance of it, even if they haven't actually laid hold of Christ by a faith of their own. So how are we to understand this?

One of the points that I want to make throughout this morning is that our children are, according to 1 Corinthians 7, if we're believers, if at least one parent is a believer. You certainly can't deny that.

That's clearly taught in Scripture. What we would deny is the implication of Paedobaptist theology, that the children are holy because of their parents' faith, if by holiness we mean receiving salvific grace, or being sealed into a grace they will inevitably conclude.

And the reason we say that is we have to understand what Paul says also about the unbelieving spouse. In English translation, this is harder to see. It's not hard to see at all in the original. The word sanctified, which here is a verbal action, is in root the same word as what's being used as a noun, holy.

But now they are holy. Sanctified and holy come from the same root, hagios, hagiosmus. And so if you could understand the connection in this way, the unbelieving husband is made holy by the wife. The unbelieving wife is made holy by the husband, otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy.

Now once you establish that connection, you realize that you could say nothing about the children of at least one believing parent that you should not also be able to say about the unbelieving spouse.

Clearly we're not talking in terms of salvation here. Paul says already that the spouse is an unbeliever, and yet the spouse is made holy. In other words, we're going back not to salvation understanding of holiness, but rather what it means to be holy as set apart, distinct.

There is something distinct about being in a Christian marriage or growing up in a Christian.

Family.

In a certain way, you are set apart. In a certain way, you are restrained from certain things, put on a course in a certain way, exposed and held to and urged to things that if you weren't in that marriage or if you weren't in that family, you wouldn't be.

We're not denying that for a moment. In fact, that's crucial to where we're going this morning. So the key that I want to point out is that we too, and this is not something that's always granted to us, we too believe what Paul says in 1 Corinthians 7, but we're a little more consistent with what it means because the children being holy is not any different from the unbelieving spouse being made holy in the context.

And so if you're not going to baptize the unbelieving spouse, neither should you baptize the child. That's not what holiness is meaning in this context. But let it be said, there is something different about being a child or being a spouse with a believer and praise God for that, that God uses these things.

Now it should be noted, we've had some, you know, some fire, I guess, some friendly fire over the past couple of weeks. Let me try to be a little more ameliorating, a little more welcoming to our friends.

It should be noted that apart from the issue of baptism, children of believing Baptists and children of believing Presbyterians are by and large taught the same scriptures in the same way, disciplined in the same way, loved in the same way, taught to pray, encouraged.

In the faith.

By and large, day to day, these things look identical, praise the Lord. Certainly, as Baptists, we are not surprised that God often determines to call His elect from within believing families. It is no surprise, in a certain sense, that because no one can come to faith in Christ except through the hearing of the Gospel, that those who are constantly exposed to the Gospel, day by day in their homes, Lord's day by Lord's day in their churches, may indeed be called unto saving faith.

We don't see that as an anomaly, we see that as part of God's design. Now, this makes it hard sometimes for us to discern, and we'll talk about this momentarily, whether our children are consciously, actually walking in a faith that God has given them or whether they're mimicking in their curiosity what they see their parents saying and doing.

It's going to be really hard for me in another five years, but already with Elsie, who's only five, I find it very hard if I'm driving and she's in the back seat, and she starts spontaneously talking about why Jesus had to die on the cross, and I say, well, why.

Is that, Elsie?

Well, it's because of our sins, Daddy, and I'm thinking, could it be that she has the gift of faith, and she goes, I love chicken fingers, and I'm like, okay, I don't think she really understands yet.

Presbyterians, thank God, reject presumptive regeneration. In other words, Presbyterians, according to their confession, according to their understanding of Scripture, unlike Catholics, unlike Lutherans, they reject the idea of an infant automatically being born again through baptism.

Sometimes this is called baptismal regeneration. So they don't administer the sprinkling of water, which we deny is a proper mode, but that's a separate issue, they don't administer that thinking this now is saving the child, this now is making them regenerate.

That's how Catholics and Lutherans approach the issue, they hold to baptismal regeneration. Part of a long history in the church, beginning especially in the third century, of a terrible misunderstanding and misapplication of 1 Peter 3, and the baptism that now saves you.

So at least on paper, our Reformed friends, they would deny that baptism somehow brings about the new birth, or that you can presume upon your children's regeneration. That's a wonderful thing, that they assert that, and an honest Presbyterian will be very clear about that.

They're viewing their child as a child of the covenant, but they're not assuming their child is regenerate, if they know their traditional doctrine. They certainly understand that ordinarily God works through families.

Sometimes they press this ordinary way a little too far, and they see Esau's and Ishmael's as the very rare exceptions, Isaac's and Jacob's are going to be the rule, and so even an Esau and an Ishmael who's 40 years old is still a covenant child, keep praying they're going to come around.

Now here's something striking to me. I can't verify this with hard data, because the churches that would be included, you don't know if they're really true churches, and every case is different, but by and large, there's fundamentally no quantitative difference between the baptized children of believers who fall away, versus the unbaptized children of believers who fall away, whether you're Presbyterian or Baptist.

Baptists baptize children after a supposed profession of faith, and those children end up falling away very often at the same rate as baptized infants in the Presbyterian churches, and so there's really no quantitative difference between the two.

If the Presbyterians had a 99 retention rate of baptized infants, we all might be going, maybe there's something here, but they don't, and neither do we, and hence there are some differences, and the consequences of these differences are very important.

Alan Strange, who is a Westminster Presbyterian, Presbyterians, he says, do regard baptized youth as in the visible church, they make a distinction between the visible and the invisible church. Remember, Baptists, we too understand that there's mixture because of false professors and deceit and ignorance and limitations on those who are discerning, but we say, no, there really is, in truth, only the regenerate church membership, right, that's who belongs in the church, whereas both Ishmael and Isaac belong in the church according to Presbyterians, according to their understanding of the visible-invisible distinction.

Presbyterians do regard baptized youth as in the visible church, and thus eligible for what appertains, however, they may not come to the table until they profess their faith in Christ, because they are not presumed inherently to believe, amen, that's exactly where we are.

Now, we administer baptism at a very different point in time, but we both can agree, until there's a credible profession of faith in Christ, you are not welcome to the table. So notice the similarity here, notice the overlap.

But where we're saying amen, we immediately have to say no. They may not come to the table, however, until they profess their faith in Christ, for they are not presumed inherently to believe, amen, but by virtue of their birth, no, to have an interest in and a right to the covenant of grace, no, you're not born in Adam with a right to the covenant of grace.

Rather, Strange says, we treat baptized youth as those to whom the promise is given, again, something we would reject, but at every point, we are encouraged never to be presumptuous, but to rest and to trust in Christ alone, so amen.

Notice there's so much overlap here, but there's these differences that a splash in the water eventually becomes a tsunami in the church. Put in more approachable language, Douglas Wilson, this is recent, in his church he says, we can accommodate differences on baptism, but we don't want to accommodate ungodly extrapolations, in other words, what comes out of them, whether from Baptist premises or from Presbyterian premises.

An example of the Presbyterian would be, yes, he's serving five to ten for armed robbery, but he's a good boy, he was baptized once, and hopefully that grace will kick in. An example of the former would be, daddy, I love Jesus, let us be the judge of that kid, don't you remember that lie you told three years ago?

So obviously these are extreme examples, but both are real problems among the Baptists and among the Presbyterians. Now where I'm staking, notice that I titled this point, airing with the Baptists. If I'm going to air between those two, I'm going to air with the Baptists.

I'm not going to have the covenant child serving five to ten for armed robbery, I'm going to have the little girl saying, daddy, I love Jesus, be a little more patient until that faith becomes a little more manifest and evident in her life.

If I'm going to air between those two, neither of which are ideal, I'm going to air with the Baptists. Now let me make a case for that. Presumption easily follows the Presbyterian view. This is what one minister stated, and this is an example to me of the presumption that I'm warning about.

Grace is a sovereign implanting, amen. The wind blows where it wills. So is everyone that is born of the Spirit. Surely Scripture gives examples of the Spirit's work even in the womb. Children of believers are under the umbrella of the covenant.

No, no, no, remember, we're rejecting this idea of this covenant that welcomes Isaacs and Esau's indiscriminately. Children of believers are under the umbrella of the covenant. What covenant? Remaining so even to adulthood until they prove to be covenant breakers.

Do you see the presumption that follows that? You're in it until you prove otherwise. You're in it until you break it in some very obvious, very open and public way. You're in it. You're assumed to be in it.

You're regarded in it. You're treated in it. So you can have a room full of polite, well-taught, catechized, unregenerate unbelievers. And as long as they don't do anything too outlandish, they're treated as covenant keepers.

And they live and move and have their being as though they're within this covenant of.

Christ.

That's a tremendous problem. As we reject a covenant child status apart from being united to Christ by faith, we consistently believe that children are born unregenerate. And that doesn't matter if their parents are Baptist missionaries or OPC missionaries for that matter.

They may well be elect, but parents have no guarantee that their children will come to.

Faith.

There's no right automatically by birth to the covenant of grace. Of course, as we've said, God works within families. He's often pleased to do this because He's a good God and He's a merciful God. Children raised in believing households are more likely to be exposed constantly to the means of grace, exposed to the gospel, having heart-searching concern from their parents and hopefully their siblings and brothers and sisters in the church of God, having a witness before them at all times of a faith being lived out.

That's a blessing. That's a tremendous blessing. It's not a right and it's not a guarantee. We remember the truth of Tulip beginning with T, total depravity. Children are born in Adam. If you're born, you're born in Adam.

You're only born again when by faith, by the Spirit of God, you're united to Christ. Children therefore are born at enmity with God because they're born in Adam. In Adam, David says as much, in sin did my mother conceive me.

While they are in Adam, no amount of teaching, no certain upbringing can give them saving.

Faith.

Only God can give saving faith and He gives it where and when He will. Every Presbyterian would say amen to that if they rightly understand their doctrine. The problem is when they tiptoe toward presumption because their theology is a little blurry.

Now why would I want to err with the Baptists? Don't we all want to say if you believe in Jesus, come then five-year-old daughter and be baptized? Of course we do. But if I already know that faith is a gift from God and I've been trying to fan that faith into flame and though there's wonderful fruits and buds and signs of His grace, I don't know that it's fully credible yet.

I don't know if the Gospel's been fully understood and I'm more concerned about her soul becoming falsely assured than I am about a genuine gift being delayed. A genuine faith being temporarily put on hold.

If I'm going to err, I'll err there. I don't believe that any child that is truly born again by the Spirit of God will ultimately be turned away from that grace if it's been given by God simply because we do not know fully the hearts of men.

Because we must witness that profession, we must be convinced that it's right for them to be baptized and welcomed into the visible covenant community. We understand what hopefully that child understands is baptism means nothing.

It's signifying what has already been true and it's our job to discern if it is indeed.

True of you.

And so wait and pray with patience. Pray that this faith that God has given you will begin to flower and manifest fruit. Work it out. So it's evident and manifest. See this as a great opportunity to find that full assurance even as you approach the baptismal.

Waters.

As a church, we want to weed out false professors. We want to prevent false assurance. Now this is an extreme. I almost don't even want to bring this up because I think it paints the picture in a way I don't want to.

But I hope you appreciate the sentiment and the reality of this and keep in mind if this seems harsh, this man is concerned about his children's souls.

His name was J .C.

Philpott.

We would disagree with some of his theology. He was a variation of Baptists that we don't really go with but he was a good godly man. And his son J .H. Philpott wrote a book, Banner published it some years ago, called The Seeders.

And J .H. Philpott was recounting how his father raised him and his siblings. He said, by early influence and example, you can bring up a child to be a little patriot, a little Catholic, a little Calvinist, a little Bolshevist, a little citizen of the world.

No power on earth he would have maintained, he's saying dad, no power on earth can make him a child of God unless his name has been written in the Lamb's Book of Life. He took care that we, as his children, attended the means of grace, never missed chapel or family prayer, but he was never expecting anything more than for us to be little heathen.

Now that's the part that might seem a little harsh to us, but you see the man's concern. Attend to the means of grace that you might be saved. You're born in Adam and until you're showing that faith and that repentance, we cannot say that you've been born again in Christ.

And so we do not baptize unbelievers, whether they're little babies or full-grown adults or elderly folks, we do not baptize unbelievers. It doesn't matter the size of the sinner, we only baptize believers when there's a credible profession of faith, when they've begun to exhibit the reality that baptism is a sign of then they receive the sign of baptism.

So the reason I titled this first point, Airing with the Baptists, comes from an article that was written some years ago by David Murray. Some of you have heard of David Murray. He's Dutch Reformed, he's a Paedo-Baptist, and he's a very good and godly man and a very good writer, and he's written some wonderful books.

And he too titled his article, Airing with the Baptists. And this is a point that he saw growing up in a believing family in a Presbyterian church. He was aware of the fatal danger of presumption and how as a parent he was very keen to air with the Baptists.

And so this is what he has to say, while most Reformed believers will shudder at the thought of saving faith being imparted at baptism, an increasing number seem to believe that baptism plus Christian parenting will automatically do the same thing.

You know, let's all realize that this is cutting pretty close to home. We all can very easily creep into a certain presumptive mindset that because we're doing certain things that other churches, other Christians, the culture's not doing, that this equals regeneration.

Because we're sacrificing to homeschool, because we're using certain curriculum, because we're putting in the work, we pull the lever and out comes a regenerate child. So listen very carefully to what David Murray is saying.

Some, an increasing number seem to believe that baptism plus Christian parenting will automatically do the same thing, lead to regeneration. As long as children are baptized, raised by Christian parents, taught by Christian teachers, trained in Christian behavior, and don't reject Christianity, it is presumed, presumed, that they are Christians.

I don't see too much difference between baptismal presumption and parenting presumption. Both presume that the baptized children of Christian parents are born again. They only differ in time. This presumption makes a huge difference to our parenting.

Instead of repeatedly telling children that they are born dead and trespassed and sinned and must be converted to Christ, my own childhood experience of Presbyterianism, they're told, you are a Christian, now just act like one.

You're in.

Just act like it.

Don't do these behaviors that are causing undue attention. Suck it up and act like a Christian. Increasing amounts of external discipline and rules are then used to conform the children to Christian norms, and as long as, notice, as long as they match up externally, they are told and assured that they are believers.

Sounds a lot like the Judaism of Christ's day, doesn't it? And we know that he preached about presumptuousness then, don't we? But what if these baptized children are still in the flesh and of their father the devil?

The parents have a great confidence, though it's often more in their parenting skills than in the grace of Christ, but the children are unregenerate and they're going to hell. They may look, they may act like true Christians, but they've never been told that they need a new heart and that they must be born again and that they must be converted.

That's for those unbaptized heathen outside the church. That's why I, David Murray says, I would rather err with the Baptists. During my parenting years, I may not enjoy the same degree of confidence in God's promises, but at least my children don't suffer eternal torment through my false confidence in my parenting skills, giving them false confidence that they are saved.

He would rather err with the Baptists.

So would I.

Now, let me say as a caveat to that, God forbid we set the bar so high that children that are professing faith and showing some of the fruit of that profession are kept outside of the church and away from the waters, God forbid, my heart, and I'm sure Tony and Marty would agree with this, as soon as it becomes apparent, even where there's still shades or shadows of doubt, if there's something credible there, our heart would be to baptize and to welcome and to build up that faith, even where perhaps there's little pockets of shakiness due to age or ignorance.

We don't want to set the bar so high that at age 34, they can finally be baptized. They've been professing Christ for 20 years. No, certainly not. We don't want that child to be discouraged in a faith that God has given them.

But if we're going to err, we'd rather them be temporarily discouraged and led along and discipled a little bit further than to be filled with false confidence and proven time to have been a false confessor, to have baptism because of their parents' faith and their mimicry of it rather than their own.

And so we don't set an age limit. Baptist churches that do that, that is so foolish and ahistorical. You know, we won't even consider baptism until age 12. A six-year-old, a seven-year-old could be brought to saving faith and manifest some understanding of the gospel, show some sorrow for sin.

That would be no reason to withhold baptism. We also have to be careful that we don't expect conversion, especially in Christian households, to always be after a pattern of so-called crisis conversion until they have that breakthrough, that one night where they've totally surrendered and they, from that moment on, know that they belong to Christ.

That is not often the normal pattern for believers that grow up in Christian homes, where because the means of grace were not like lightning strikes in the sky, it's a lot more gradual. They believe, but they don't quite understand.

They understand, but they don't quite believe. It takes time to work these things out and say, what's really mine rather than what I've seen or what's been given to me? What's mine? What is my life about?

What does my heart confess? And so we, as a church, we want to take time. As parents, you discern these things. You look to the heart as much as God enables you to do so. You consider the trajectory. As the years have gone by, how has the training transformed?

Does it seem to be evidence of saving grace? Does there seem to be a sorrow for sin? Does there seem to be a love for Christ? Does there seem to be a hunger for the Word, whether that's punctual or gradual?