Orthodoxy is Protestantism. Touches of polemics Baptism of children 

"From baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful, good and forgiving to all, we should not remove anyone. This must be observed and observed both in relation to all, and especially, we believe, in relation to newborn infants, who deserve our pre-eminent participation and God's mercy."

Cyprian of Carthage.

The main obstacle to infant baptism is that they do not have conscious faith. It is also not necessary to baptize children because the Kingdom of God is of such (Luke 18:16). Thirdly, children are fully sanctified by their parents (1 Cor. 7:14). And in general: the Savior did not give a direct command to baptize children!

This is a dry set of arguments of any Protestant denomination, usually accompanied by an abundance of high-flown phrases and feelings that draw "sensual" people away from a sober approach to business. But I believe that the main reason for the removal of children from the baptismal font is still the same - it is that their parents are Protestants! However, in order not to remain unfounded, let us analyze the teaching of the Protestants according to their main points.

First of all, it should be noted that there is not the slightest mention in the Bible of infant baptism. "The information that we have at our disposal does not give us the right to assert either that the baptism of children was performed in apostolic times, or that it was not performed." [1] The Scriptures of the New Testament are decidedly silent about this.

Nevertheless, we see that the Lord Jesus Christ always spoke clearly about important subjects. The fact that the Lord did not emphasize the baptism of infants can only indicate the immutability of the position of infants in the people of God. Therefore, there was no need for the Saviour to touch upon this question, just as, for example, there was no need to discuss the omnipotence or omniscience of God. What has not changed has not been discussed (cf. Matt. 5:21-48).

So, the first argument of the Orthodox: the Bible is silent about the baptism of children. In all the places where the Scriptures speak of baptism, it is about the baptism of adults. But Protestants also point to this, and draw a completely opposite conclusion from this. "There is not a single scholar," we read in the "Basic Principles of the Baptist Faith", "who would assert that the Holy Scriptures prescribe infant baptism. The Scriptures are completely silent about this. However, certain conclusions were drawn from this silence." [2] "The New Testament does not contain any indication of infant baptism. However, it does not prohibit such practices." [3]- Alistair Magrat believes. One cannot but agree with this. This fact itself is obvious, but the Scriptures do not draw either positive or negative consequences from it. The main thing is what conclusion we will draw from this silence. On this basis, Protestants conclude that child baptism is inadmissible. However, this conclusion is made contrary to the following important provisions.

First, as mentioned above, the Bible is not a sum of theologies, nor is it a collection of commands and instructions on all matters for all occasions. She is equally silent about prayer for the elderly and children. There are no commands in it to worship the ark, to write the Gospel, to print brochures, etc. "We do not encounter a case of infant baptism in any book of the Holy Scriptures." [4] This circumstance seems to confuse Baptists. But have they encountered in the Scriptures cases of the distribution of color comics about Christ, the establishment of catechetical courses, etc.? Have there been cases of erecting a cross over prayer houses? Jehovah's Witnesses deny the trinity of God with the same pathos, correctly noting that the word "Trinity" does not exist in the Bible. "Ask yourself," they write, "is it possible that the Bible would only hint at the main point of its teaching: who is God? The Bible, which so clearly interprets the basic dogmas of Christian teaching, is silent about the most important thing? Could not the Creator of a universe have left a book which testifies to the supremacy of the Trinity?" [5] As we can see, the logical scheme of Jehovah's Witnesses is no different from the Protestant one. And if such arguments do not embarrass Baptists, then their indignation at the lack of a description of infant baptism is unjustified.

Secondly, the general Protestant principle of "Scripture alone" does not allow you to protest against what Scripture itself does not protest against. This is what the Baptists themselves think, saying solemnly and correctly: "We reject in the most critical form everything after which it cannot be said: "Thus saith the Lord." [6] And for Baptists, it is important that the Lord "thus speak" on a line of Scripture. But is there something similar in the Bible: "Thus saith the Lord, Children shall not be baptized"?

Thirdly, in the absence of a new instruction, the situation remains the same. For example, Leviticus' prohibition of incest was not repeated in the New Testament. Nevertheless, Ap. Paul even judges Christians for what (in the Epistles) he did not forbid (1 Cor. 5:1-2). The Old Testament statement on incest in the New Testament remains unchanged. In the New Testament, all the changeable moments from the Old Testament have always been considered down to the smallest details, which now seem quite obvious to us and self-evident (the meaning of circumcision in Christianity, the eating of blood for the Gentiles, the Jewish division of food, the fulfillment of the precepts of the law, and even the observance of days, feasts, fasts, etc. cf. Gal. 2:16-21; 3:10; 23-25; 4,4-5; 5,2-6; Acts. 13,39; 15,10; Rome. 2,25-29; 10,4; 8:2-4, etc.). The Old Testament concept of entering the Covenant (i.e., the Church) assumed the participation of the whole family without exception. Against this background, the absence of a reservation on the part of the apostles would be more correctly regarded as an indication of the immutability of the conditions for entering the Covenant regarding any age restrictions.

"Nowhere does the Scripture teach us that infants should be baptized. Moreover, the dedication of the child by the parents to the Lord should be preferred to the baptism of infants"[7] writes G.K. Thyssen, fitting in two sentences two different approaches to the relationship between Scripture and dogma. Infant baptism is denied because "the Scriptures nowhere teach us this," and the dedication of the child by the parents to the Lord is immediately recommended, although there is not a word about this in the New Testament either! In addition, the dedication of a child to the Lord must be specific, like the child himself in the eyes of God. It cannot be equated with the dedication of gifts from the garden or household items. Baptism in this case is the best way for the parents to consecrate the child to the Lord.