"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.

The Baptists carry out the logic of their denial in a rather original way: "It would be a mistake to assume that by this time (II-III centuries) the teaching on the baptism of children had taken the form of a dogma. On the contrary, as early as the fourth century, the baptism of adults was a common church rule." [10] A strange contrast! For the Orthodox, even now, the baptism of adults is "an ordinary church rule"! And how can the baptism of adults cancel the baptism of children? The Church still baptizes adults, but this does not mean that the baptism of children in our country has not yet "taken the form of a dogma"!

Protestants often make the same mistake: on the question of the baptism of children, they cite the positive testimonies of the early Christians about the baptism of adults. But no matter how much evidence there is from the early and later Fathers about the importance of consciously entering into the Covenant, they can in no way be related to the question of infant baptism. Such statements are present both among those who spoke favorably about the baptism of children, and among those who did not write about it. And in the present 21st century, we continue to affirm everything that the Church has said about the baptism of adults throughout its history. (Here, for example, is the thesis of the modern Orthodox catechism: "The salvific effect of the sacrament depends on the moral state of man. He is required to have faith, an awareness of the importance of the sacrament, and a sincere desire and readiness to accept it. If this is not the case, the reception of the sacrament serves to condemn the person"[11]).

The purpose of the ritual aspect of the sacrament of baptism is "to be drunk with the Holy Spirit" (1 Cor. 12:13). Up. Peter: Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins; and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit (Acts 2:38). As we can see, there is a clear distinction here: what is a means and what is an end. Repentance and faith are the means of rejecting prejudices, superstitions, and sinful habits. The latter, in turn, is a condition for the forgiveness of sins. The purpose of all of the above is communion with the Holy Spirit. The infant has no unbelief, prejudice and personal sins, therefore these means are not needed for him. And the infant has the ability to receive the grace of the Holy Spirit, therefore, there is no reason to deprive him of the purpose and value of the sacrament of baptism – the sanctification of the Holy Spirit.

Samuel Waldron puts it differently: "(baptism) is the promise of the Holy Spirit (verses 38, 33). The second point is the definition of those to whom it belongs. It is not an unconditional, unconditional promise addressed to all Jews, to all their children, and to "all those who are far off." It is a promise whose condition is repentance (verse 38). Therefore, it is extremely important not to ignore the second part of verse 39. The promise is given only to those people who, having been called of the Lord our God, have repented and received forgiveness." [12] But this view does not take into account the fact that repentance is a change in the wrong state. Babies do not have this sin, and therefore, on the pages of the Bible we see children who receive the Spirit without repentance (more on this below).

"To repent before God, that is, to recognize one's sins," writes Jacob Kozlov about the same thing, "to understand the teaching of the Gospel, to believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, and then to accept water baptism and join the local church can only be done by an adult person." [13] This is true, but repentance, teaching, and faith are necessary for an adult only in order to open himself to God, to get rid of prejudices, pride, etc. He is accessible to the action of divine grace just as if he had died, then, of course, he would not have become wise and would not have repented, but he would have been a partaker of the Kingdom.

Baptists believe that "infant baptism is completely incompatible with the ideal of spiritual Christianity." [14] However, if by "spirituality" we mean not a rational knowledge of Christian truths, but union with the Spirit of God, then the ideal of spiritual Christianity will rather presuppose this spiritual means of knowing God than reject it.

For what makes children capable of receiving saving grace? Their underdevelopment or their purity of heart? Of course, the latter! Christ says: "Of such is the Kingdom of God" and immediately adds: "Whoever does not receive the Kingdom of God as a child will not enter into it" (Mark 10:14-15). An adult should receive the grace of baptism with the same pure child's heart. For the Holy Spirit of wisdom withdraws from deceit and turns away from foolish speculations (Wisdom 1:5), and therefore only the pure in heart, like a child, is able by the grace of baptism to enter the Church, which the Lord, having cleansed with a bath of water, presented to Himself as a glorious Church... that she may be holy and blameless (Eph. 5:27). If Baptists have children in the House of God without baptism because of the purity of their hearts, then adults must be accepted into the Church "as children" for the same reason, i.e. without baptism. Christ says in another place about the necessity of such a state of soul in adults for grace-filled union with God: "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will not enter the Kingdom of Heaven" (Matt. 18:3). Thus, the words of Christ: "Such is the Kingdom of God," understood in the Protestant way,[15] make the baptism of adults superfluous.