Actually, I don't think I was evading anything, but I did notice that you evaded (perhaps unintentionally) my question of whether you would have brought your little child to Christ to be blessed.
Yes. I thought you were posing a rhetorical question.
Far from evading anything, I was simply demonstrating an aspect of the Gospels where children were receiving grace from Christ that they didn't understand.
Receiving a blessing is not the same as receiving grace. I like to think that those children later were saved, that they became stalwarts of the early church. But we have no indication of this.
The Church was very different in the early years, in that the focus was on the conversion of adults. We believe that with the onset of families coming into the Church, all were baptized in many cases, but I can't prove that.
Honest enough.
I would also point out that the only practice that is criticized in the patristic writings (although sometimes it is also recommended) is the practice of waiting a long time for baptism -- even at one's deathbed (such as the Emperor St. Constantine) out of concern that this was one's only shot at a full forgiveness of sins.
But it was long after the time of Christ and the apostles that we see deathbed baptisms and infant baptisms. From
Wikipedia which seems pretty neutral in its overview:
Scholars from the traditions that practice infant baptism contend that indirect evidence for baptizing children exists within the New Testament. They cite occasions from the Book of Acts when whole households were baptized, in the words "The promise is for you and for your children." Advocates of believers's baptism counter that such passages do not necessarily include infants and young children.
The earliest extra-biblical reference to baptism occurs in the Didache (c. 100 A.D.), the Epistle of Barnabas (c. 130 A.D.), and the Shepherd of Hermas (c. 150 A.D.). Some scholars argue that all of these works describe the practices surrounding baptism in ways that imply it is adults that are baptized. The Didache, for example, directs that candidates for baptism be instructed and fast for two days:
"Concerning baptism, baptize thus: having first recited all these precepts, baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. ... Before a baptism, let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so. And command him who is baptized to fast one or two days beforehand"[1]
The proponents of infant baptism counter that these passages illustrated adult baptism but do not exclude infant baptism. They also point to discussions of infant salvation in the first three centuries and the observations of later writers that infant baptism was the tradition of the church strongly suggests that the practice was established in the earliest days of church history.
The earliest uncontested historical record of infant baptism is recorded in the works of Origen (185-254 A.D.):
"Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin... In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous."[2]
From the 3rd century until the 16th century, infant baptism was practised by almost all Christian churches. In the 16th century the Anabaptists challenged the biblical warrant for this practice, starting the debate between pedobaptism and credobaptism which continues to be a source of disagreement between Christians.
If we observe the Didache, it seems unlikely that infants were instructed in scripture and doctrine or that they fasted for two days prior to their splashings by clergy. Given how widespread the Didache was among Christians at that time, it is most peculiar that it makes no mention or provision for baby-splashing.
My point is that while there was controversy about how long one waited, there is no record of any controversy about the baptism of infants. Again, this is a passive witness, not an active one, even if you were inclined to look at history as a useful tool in understanding the Apostolic practice.
There are a great many practices of the early church as well as more modern churches which would not be forbidden by this standard. Yet, you Orthodox would no more approve them than would a Baptist. This isn't really a serious argument, IMO.
Baptists are being consistent in their practice of adult baptism only if the criterion is whether it is explicitly spelled out in Scripture. I would ask, though, that you take every other aspect of Baptist practice and mentally apply the same criterion. Imagine things about how you worship and live the Christian life, that if you were to change them, people would raise a ruckus -- and then try to find whether they are explicitly spelled out in the NT in the life of the Church.
Baptists do a pretty good job at being literal and observing New Testament practice. When we exceed that simple faith, we do generally note it and observe that it is not biblical. For instance, many local Baptists are installing e-Sword software to aid in bible study. It's not forbidden nor advocated in scripture. Yet, would a novelty in scripture study that aids the ordinary Christian in study be contrary to the Word? No. And it would uphold scripture's injunction to study the Word and use it as the litmus of our worship practice and spiritual life.
Maybe you have a practice of people coming forward and kneeling at the front of the church -- is that in the Bible? Is having a specific church building at all in the Bible? Are having crosses on steeples in the Bible? Are having rows of pews in the Bible? Is having a pulpit in the Bible?
Is there a single instance of someone leading another person in a "sinner's prayer" in the Bible? By your criteria, if it isn't explicitly spelled out in the Bible, it shouldn't be done. Given the centrality in most fundamentalist practices of leading someone in the sinner's prayer -- it is the defining moment of when someone was saved -- wouldn't the NT look much different, and have some explicit examples of this being done?
Coming forward is considered a bit suspect in some Baptist churches. Many Baptist churches are house churches. Many Baptist churches have no steeple or cross. As for leading someone in the sinner's prayer (Romans Road to Salvation), it seems a sound practice in that it is an orthodox confession of sin and proper doctrine, one which I doubt the Orthodox would find controversial in the slightest. And the use of scripture to confess one's sin and need of a Savior is by no means controversial. Given that Baptists are so closely wed to scripture (being otherwise deliberately impoverished), to take a new convert directly for scripture for doctrine and the form of prayer is hardly unscriptural. Baptists are very much wed to scripture and this is a fitting start in a Baptist's Christian life.
There is a difference between following scripture and recognizing that many practices were not recorded in scripture because they had not yet been written at the time of the events depicted in scripture. Yet, Baptists adhere to a broad method of preaching the Word, just as exampled in scripture by the apostles and early Christians. If you think about it, I think you'll see why Baptists are unlikely to overthrow the preaching of and use of Romans Road To Salvation simply because Paul hadn't yet written it at the time the events of the Gospels occurred or, later, were recorded.
Actually, Didache is dated anywhere from 60 to 100 AD, and there are some other "inconsitencies" in the way the authors of that work worshiped as compared to "standard" praxis. One that comes to mind is the fact that Didache does not mention Real Presence, and also reverses the order of Eucharitic reception, more in line with the Judaic practice: wine first, then bread.
Didache is by no means a Church-wide dogma. It probably reflected the practices of some Jewish Christians at the time when the Apostles still walked the earth and were busy writing Gospels.
Can we assume that simply because Didache does not mention anything about infant baptisms that other communities didn't practice baptisms of entire families, as there is evidence to that effect?
Didache may be an insight but by no means a "Bible." Children were not really much of a subject in those days unless they were children of kings, or were the targets of someone's slaughter, and even then the records if often lacking. In other words, chlidren were not given the important role of decision making, but simply followed what their parents did.
You will also notice in the quote that it says "let him who baptizes and him who is baptized fast, and any others who may be able to do so" but it doesn't say that those who may not be able to do so cannot be baptized! Obviously, children were not expected to fast, as they are not expected now.