It is a question accompanied or formed by several objections that support the position of some of those protesting against the establishment of early baptism who did not know the straight heritage or did not accept it. Among these objections: that Jesus was baptized at the age of thirty, that the New Testament does not explicitly mention the baptism of children, and last but not least that young people do not understand the meaning of the sacrament and its requirements in their lives.
What seems certain to scholars is that the issue of infant baptism was raised in the Apostolic era, and that it was raised sharply after that during the time of the Pelagian debates (fifth century) due to which this baptism was confirmed. However, its issue was not put aside permanently, and that is because some Shiite movements raised this issue from new.
We will address the objections one by one in order to respond to them, albeit briefly. We begin with the first and say that the Lord’s baptism was “private,” and it cannot be taken as an argument to object to the baptism of children. This is because Jesus, as a man who came among a people with his own beliefs and laws, had to wait, according to the law to which he subjected himself (Matthew 3:15; Galatians 4:4j), to reach the age of thirty, which is the age at which every Jewish man has the right - According to the law - to enter the synagogue and teach (Luke 4: 16-30). When the legal time came, then, the Lord came to John the Baptist - who was not in need of the baptism of repentance that the former had called for - to indicate, at the beginning of his missionary mission, that he had come to “fulfill all righteousness.” His baptism was an occasion in which God the Father revealed - with the full support of the Spirit - His sonship to Jesus, for He is His beloved Son and His delight who will fulfill His Father’s will to the end. This complete submission to the will of the Father, which Jesus will demonstrate in his entire mission, he wanted to demonstrate from the beginning through symbolic death in water.
In the New Testament, there are several places that indicate that the apostles baptized entire families (Acts 16:15-33; 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16), but some of those protesting against early baptism believe that these places do not confirm the baptism of children, but we We say that, without a doubt, it does not deny it. This controversy - over these biblical verses - may find an end if we return to some ancient practices or systems that help us in our research. What is beyond doubt is that holy baptism is the Lord’s commandment to the church. The first disciples, who came from an environment with its own laws and laws, must have, in carrying out the Lord’s command: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit” (Matthew 28:19), must have been inspired by the ancient law that said that membership in the people of God was not... Males born to Jewish parents receive it without circumcision. We see that the New Testament shows circumcision as a form of baptism (Colossians 2: 11-12), and it was performed on children eight days after their birth (Genesis 17: 12; Leviticus 3: 12). It must be noted, therefore, that the pagan intruders and their boys could have become members of the people of God through circumcision, which was accompanied by “purifying washing” that was performed on women and children as well. We find it inconceivable that the first disciples neglected this “Jewish approach to circumcision and accepting intruders” without being affected by it.
This hypothesis (I mean: the comparison between baptism and circumcision) is highly likely by Father Nicholas Afanasyev. However, on the other hand, he emphasizes the incompatibility of circumcision with the sacrament of baptism, because circumcision in the church, as he says, “is a denial of Calvary and the resurrection of Christ, that is, a denial of the church itself,” because it does not give anyone membership in the Kingdom of God, this is what came. With all power in Christ Jesus. Father Nicholas therefore considers that the word “sanctified” which the Apostle Paul applied to children in his first letter to Corinth, when he said: “But (your children) are now sanctified” (7:14), means that they are “baptized.” This is also what the great scholar Oscar Coleman says, who confirms that it is the non-baptism of infants that requires biblical proof, not their baptism. There is no doubt, therefore, that many commentators saw that the words of the Lord in the Gospel of Matthew: “Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such” (19:14) is related to early baptism. We also show that in the eras subsequent to the Apostolic era, there was no problem regarding the completion of the baptism of children, but opinions differed exclusively regarding the age at which children were brought for baptism. In the days of Cyprian of Carthage, they used to say that it was not permissible to postpone baptism until after the eighth day, and this is what was proven. The Christian West, while the East believed that baptism was completed on the fortieth day.
As for understanding, there is no doubt that it is always required, especially by those who have the ability to do it. However, children’s lack of understanding of the holy mysteries is not an obstacle to their progress to God, because God, who saved the world with His love and free will, has given all of us, including children, the inheritance of eternal life for free. Understanding, despite its importance, does not add anything to the free and saving will of God. This is His personal decision that He completed on the cross without referring to anyone or asking anything from anyone. There is also no doubt that the Holy Church, when baptizing children, stipulates that in order for the sacrament to be completed, there must be “a firm hope that...the child will be raised in the Orthodox faith” (see the Pastoral Guide to the Sacraments, p. 35), and this presupposes that his father be Orthodox and his mother be Christian and that he be chosen. He has a sponsor who “belongs to the Orthodox Church, knows the basic principles of faith, and has a life worthy of the Christian faith” (ibid., p. 37), and all of this is in the hope that he will maintain his faith in the Triune God in order to deepen his love for the one who loved him first and be faithful to the one he chose for life. New.
The love of God, which includes children and adults, is our only belief. Everything that is said or done in the church is a translation of this saving love that does not prevent anyone, whether young or old, from inheriting eternal life.
From my parish bulletin 1997
