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.

"There is not the slightest mention of the baptism of children anywhere in the early Apostolic Church... Examining Church history, we find that the first to mention the baptism of children was Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons (about 200 A.D.)" [8] say the Baptists. To this it should be noted that the very method of such a "study of Church history" (to consider the first mention of it as the beginning of practice) is incorrect and entails a mass of absurd research. For example, the baptism of the elders was first mentioned by the same Irenaeus, and in the same quotation.

Thus, Origen speaks of the baptism of infants not as a private theological opinion or innovation, but as an apostolic Tradition: "The Church received the Tradition from the Apostles to teach baptism to infants as well." [9]

The denial of infant baptism in the first century was not a "self-evident" proposition, for there is evidence of the second and third centuries about infant baptism as primordial. It would be unreasonable to suppose that, without any controversy or debate, in the second century it became self-evident that in the first century it was denied on the same principle.

Fourth, it is impossible to deny infant baptism on the basis of what is prescribed for baptism by an adult. Analogous: if it is said to the people: "When crossing the river, sing "Hallelujah!", then this in no way can mean that babies should stay on the bank, because they can neither cross the river, nor sing "Hallelujah!" A commandment given to adults should not be the judge of infants. All the Israelites crossed by land until all the people crossed the Jordan (Joshua 3:17). The Apostle Paul commands: "Therefore, whether you eat or drink, or whatever else you do, do all to the glory of God" (1 Corinthians 10:31). The commandment is for all, the commandment is holy and reasonable, but it would be absurd on this basis to forbid infants to "eat, drink, or do anything else" until they can do it to the glory of God.

The words of the Savior about faith and repentance should not be applied to children on an equal footing with adults, also because this phrase has its continuation: whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, and whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16). These words of Christ can only be applied to adult people, who, of course, had to believe before receiving baptism, since their unbelief would make them incapable of receiving the grace of God. Unbelief is not as the absence of a positive action of the soul (faith), but as the presence of a negative one. Thus, for example, in the case of Peter, whose unbelief made him incapable of walking on the waters by the grace of God. Not only did he begin to drown, having lost faith, but having gained doubt (Matt. 14:30). But infants, having no faith, have no unbelief. Therefore, they cannot be considered incapable of receiving grace just because of their lack of faith.

If we apply the demands of Christ (Matt. 28:19) to both adults and children (as Protestants do), then this double-edged sword will hit the little ones very hard. It turns out that they are all convicted. Whoever does not believe will be condemned (Mark 16:16). The unbeliever is already condemned because he did not believe in the name of the Only-begotten Son of God (John 3:18). He who believes in the Son (an adult) has eternal life, but he who does not believe in the Son (a child?!) will not see life, but the wrath of God remains upon him (John 3:36). Absurdity? This means that we are not talking about children, and it is very short-sighted to refer to the Savior's command to teach and baptize adults as an argument against the baptism of children.

Christians are saved not by teaching, but by the grace of God. Therefore, regardless of awareness, the child needs union with Christ. The teaching is called upon to adapt the soul to the reception of this grace, to show the heart the path of its purification, to help make the soul childishly receptive. Because the infant does not understand the teaching, he does not get rid of the ancestral damage. A child, being pure, strives for Christ by nature. Only the evil will of man deviates him from the Source of life. Therefore, in order to refuse baptism to children, one must be sure that their evil will opposes communion with God, does not want to dwell in the people of God. Such a thought is unacceptable from any point of view.