Baptists completely reject “infant baptism,” and do not consider it real or regular baptism. According to them, this “theological and literary background” is that “God did not command it in His Word,” and that children, therefore, “cannot believe, or repeat, for themselves, the Creed” (Herschel Hobbes, The Doctrine and Message of the Baptists, p. 173; Robert A. Baker, Baptist History, pages 13 and 26; Finley M. Graham, Systematic Theology, pages 296-299; The Word, Issue 8, November 2000, page 9).

This introduction summarizes a strange position in which Baptists included hideous expressions and unfair condemnations. Including their description of infant baptism as “misguidance” (J.M. Carroll, History of the Baptist Churches, p. 34). And that “there is no deviation among the inventions of paganism and delusion more harmful and blasphemous than these” (Baker, M.N., p. 26). And also, “As for today’s church, its entrance is the font of infant baptism. People enter it by force and inheritance, without having tasted the taste of repentance and death, and subsequently without knowing the meaning of resurrection” (The Biblical Position, No. 5).

We will ignore the heinousness and condemnation, and calmly try to explain the truth that God has revealed. This requires us to respond to the two main points of Baptists’ rejection of infant baptism. I mean to show, first, the validity of what the Word of God says in this regard, and to answer, next, a question assumed by their second argument, which is: Is there an obligatory necessity that requires a newborn child to believe?

Regarding the first point, Baptists know that many scholars have shown that infant baptism is confirmed by the teachings of the Scriptures, and that not performing it is what requires biblical proof. This is supported by the fact that the first apostles believed that the “promise” was for adults and their children (Acts 2:39), and that they themselves baptized some families (Acts 16:15-33, 18:8; 1 Corinthians 1:16). If Baptists assume that these families did not include young children, we see that it is a Muscat assumption that is supported only by their suspicions. However, if they want not to contradict logic, they can take a neutral position, that is, neither deny the existence of children within these families, nor confirm it. The truth requires us to see, along with many, that what the Lord said: “Let the little children come to me and do not forbid them, for the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these” (Matthew 19:14), and what His Apostle said: “But (your children) now are holy” (1 Corinthians 7: 14), relating to early infant baptism. Baptists know, therefore, that the Lord’s commandment to His disciples: “Go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them...” (Matthew 28:19) cannot be fully fulfilled if the disciples neglect what exists in their environment, its laws, and its laws. They must have been inspired by their heritage, which stipulates that membership in the People of God is not attained by males born to Jewish parents without being circumcised on the eighth day of their birth (Genesis 17:12; Leviticus 12:3). This means that there is unity between the parent and the newborn under the covenant. If this applies to circumcision, it also applies to baptism (Colossians 2:11-12).

As for the content of the second point, it is no secret that what the Baptists assume does not appear anywhere in the books of the New Testament as a whole. They concluded that God requires adults to believe and repent, before their baptism, and they dropped the request to children. It must be said, in the context of the response, that the Orthodox Church does not perform baptism for a child for fear that he will perish before being baptized. The basis of this baptism is that it is a request from God who saved the world without asking anything from anyone. If we establish it, we will not force faith, nor will we neglect what is sacred. God the Savior is the one who decided. We obey him. The godfather is only evidence that baptism requires that the baptized person live within a straight framework. The godfather’s faith is not a substitute for the child’s desired faith. If the Church arranges for the godfather to recite the Creed at the service of the baptism of a child, then she does not want, in this case, an alternative. The faith of the godfather is a necessity assumed by the common life that the Church requires of all the baptized. No one understands that a person is born (isn’t baptism a new birth?) and then grows, understands, and learns. No one learns the basics of faith unless a devout scholar teaches him. The godparent is required by the Church to be a committed believer, so that he helps the child (along with his family) to love the God who loved him first (isn’t the baptism of a child an expression that God loved the world first?), and to remain faithful to his baptism, advance in the life of righteousness, and be able to reject every strange teaching that attempts to His pioneers try to make him believe that it is true.

Then we need to respond to the Baptists’ claim that they do not find “a reference to the baptism of a single child until the year 370 AD” (J.M. Carroll, M.N., pages 33 and 40). It is sufficient, for those who love the truth, to mention that Saint Polycarp (+155) responded to the governor, who asked him to curse Christ in order to free him, by saying: “Eighty-six years I have been serving Christ, and he has not done anything wrong to me, so why should I curse my God and my Savior?” (Martyrdom of Saint Polycarp 9:2). This statement can only mean that he was baptized as a child. Saint Irnaeus, Bishop of Lyons (second century), affirmed: “Jesus came to save all people by himself. I say all of them, that is, those through whom are born again to God (in baptism), infants, children, boys, youths, and mature men” (Against Heresies 2-22-4; also: 3-17-1). In his precious liturgical collection, the Roman priest Hippolytus (+ 235) wrote: “At the crow of the rooster, those seeking baptism approach the water, which must be running and pure water. Then they take off their clothes. Children are baptized first. If these people are able to answer on their own behalf, then so be it. Otherwise, let their relatives, or one of their family members, answer on their behalf” (Apostolic Tradition: 21). As for Saint Cyprian of Carthage (+ 285), he said: “If the elderly who fell into major sins, and if those who sinned greatly against God and came back to faith, are given the scoop of sins, and no one is deprived of baptism and grace, then how can we deny baptism to a newborn child?” Birth did not make a mistake (…). Therefore, dear brother, our opinion, in the council, was that we should not prevent anyone from baptism and the grace of God, who is merciful and loving to all” (The Epistle to the Epistle to the Phaedos 50: 5 and 6). This is some of what shows the error of their claim.

Infant baptism is not a “pagan invention,” or people’s interference in the church “forcibly and hereditarily,” nor is it “misguidance.” This is the opinion of the Baptists, who we regret refuse to let “their children receive the promise”! Infant baptism is the clear expression that God's love does not distinguish between one face and another, or between young and old. It is the shining proof that adults do not stand in the way of children attaining the salvation that God has freely given to the world.