St. Dionysius (IV century) points to the proposed practice of the Church as apostolic. "Our divine teachers have deigned to admit infants to baptism under the sacred condition that the natural parents of the child entrust him to one of the faithful, who would instruct him well in Divine matters and then take care of the child as a father... It is this man, when he gives a promise to guide the lad in a pious life, that the hierarch compels him to pronounce renunciations and holy confession." [45]

If an infant cannot enter the Church of Salvation on his own, he must be carried there in his arms. Moreover, according to the Apostle Peter, baptism saves us in the image of Noah's ark (1 Pet. 3:21). Think about it: is it worth throwing children overboard?

The angel, without asking Samson, made vows on him (Judg. 13:14). The same is true of John the Baptist, on whom vows were also imposed without his knowledge (Luke 1:15).

Everything to which baptism is compared invariably includes children: the crossing of the Red Sea: all passed through the sea, and all were baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea, and all ate the same spiritual food, and all drank the same spiritual drink (1 Cor. 10:1-4). The burial (Rom. 6:4), the flood (1 Pet. 3:20-21), the bath (Titus 3:5). And at least once the apostles mentioned that children in the circumstances of the New Testament are excluded from these types.

From a legal point of view, the following question to the Orthodox is also significant: why do you baptize children with unworthy godparents? For in this way you almost consciously multiply the number of unworthy members of the Church, (for baptism is an entrance into the Church). "In most cases, the godparents are not even aware of what they are pronouncing and do not believe in the meaning of these words and do not even try to fulfill in the future the guarantee they have taken upon themselves and the appropriate upbringing of the child." [46]

Such accusations grow out of a false concept of baptism. In contrast to the Catholic understanding of baptism, in the Orthodox Church, children and adults are baptized in order to be members of the Church, particles of the Body of Christ. Nothing happens automatically. The baptized (regardless of age) gets the opportunity to become an Orthodox Christian. But he also retains an equal opportunity not to be one. And the degree of realization of this potential depends on him. The presence of a child's baptism in an adult atheist does not make him Orthodox at all, but only indicates that he has taken advantage of the freedom to trample on the seed of Christ planted in him, to freeze His leaven, to make himself a withered branch on the tree of the Church, which, like flesh without the Spirit, is of no use (John 6:63). However, when he repents, he no longer needs a second grafting to this tree.

The above question arose from the false Catholic premise of automatic membership in the Church. Protestants themselves picked up this myth that the baptized is a real member of the Church. And they themselves propose to resolutely fight this by abolishing child baptism.

As for unworthy godparents, even their lack of churching cannot be a reason for refusing to baptize those they bring. In the act of baptism, of course, a firm decision, a "promise to God," is necessary, but this is not baptism, but only its circumstance, which is necessary for the cultivation of the fruits of baptism. All subsequent life is called to be the transfiguration of the soul, the beginnings of which are instilled at baptism. By the growth and fruiting of the seed that the infant receives into himself. What should the "steward of the mysteries of God" (1 Corinthians 4:1) do at the sight of unskilled gardeners asking to be sown in their field? This is indicated by the Scriptures: Behold, a sower went out to sow, and while he sowed, another fell by the wayside... some fell on stony places, where there was little earth... some have fallen into thorns... some fell on good ground and bore fruit (Matt. 13:3-8). Thus, the sower knows beforehand that only one seed out of four sown by him will not be in vain. However, this does not force him to remain inactive. Like this way of sowing the word, the priest approaches the sacrament of baptism. No one will give him an absolute guarantee that the seed of Christ's resurrection "will sprout and bear a hundredfold fruit" (Luke 8:8). But, like the sower of the Gospel, the priest serves this sacrament with prayer and faith that although not all, but the seeds of Christ's transfiguration will sprout.

Of course, sowing in such "fields", or rather, with such cultivators, is a forced practice. For as the farmer is, so is the cultivation (Ezra 9:17). Baptism is not magic. We understand this even without reminding the Protestants. Unity of spirit, faith, and determination to lead the infant into the saving life in Christ are necessary. It is no accident, therefore, that Ap. If Paul baptized infants, it was only because he saw the determination of those around them (whole families (Diary 16:15; 33; 1 Corinthians 1:16). The weakness of the Orthodox catechetical courses is the external malaise of the Church. For the Orthodox, this is one of her most noticeable wounds. It's strange, but Protestants manage to accuse us of this! Consider: are reproaches appropriate in case of indisposition? Is it Christian?

The theological level of the following argument is also not serious: "Let us see how the Gospel teaches, Christ Himself. – suggests V.F. Martsinkovsky, – Let us remember His personal example: He was baptized for 30 years." [47] First, the Lord was baptized not at all for what we accept it for. And not in order to indicate the optimal age of baptism (after all, Baptists are baptized earlier).

Secondly, He could not have been baptized earlier, for John the Baptist went out to preach only half a year before the Baptism of the Lord.

Thirdly, "His personal example", in this case, cannot be accepted by Christians, because Jesus Christ did not repent of anything at baptism, did not promise God a good conscience, did not experience the "birth again" necessary for Christians immediately before baptism, etc. Although it should be noted that the dogmatic understanding of the Baptists of the Baptism of the Lord is much more competent than the polemical one.

Relying on the natural holiness of children, Baptists carry out the following thought: "Ap. Paul says that children are sanctified by Christian parents (1 Cor. 7:14) and as such do not need the sacraments as long as they are children." [48] "In the Christian family it (infant baptism) is unnecessary, because that which is born of the saints is holy (1 Cor. 7,14)”. [49]

The Apostle Paul in his Epistle to the Corinthians writes: "An unbelieving husband is sanctified by a believing wife, and an unbelieving wife is sanctified by a believing husband, otherwise your children would have been unclean, but now they are holy" (7:14). The words of the Apostle - otherwise your children would be unclean - indicate that the children of Ap. Paul called them saints not by nature. In order to interpret this verse correctly, it is necessary to go back to the previous words about the sanctification of an unbelieving husband by a believing wife and vice versa. It cannot be assumed that a pagan husband was made a saint only by marital cohabitation with a Christian wife. The Apostle further explains the words under consideration: "Why do you know, wife, whether you will not save your husband?" Or do you, husband, know if you will not save your wife? (v. 16) Consequently, the sanctification of an unbelieving husband by a Christian wife must be understood in the sense that the wife can convert her husband to Christianity and thus bring him to the number of those sanctified in the Church of Christ. In the same sense, we must understand the holiness of children born to Christian parents.