I got batized as Roman Catholic when I was still a baby. How can I respond to a Protestant who says baptism should occur when the baby is “grown up” to know and understand why he or she is being baptized.
How can I also respond when they say that even Jesus got baptized when he was older.
When the Apostles began baptizing, they baptized entire households.
It has been that way from the beginning and the example is in scripture. We have obeyed the simple instruction to baptize. Only later did people begin to theorize why we baptize. For Eastern Christians, it is a beginning of a new life in Christ and an acceptance into the community. It confers graces in a rather undefined way. Later, Latin Christians elaborated on that to state that original sin is removed at baptism. That’s not necessarily wrong or right from an Eastern perspective, but the nature of original sin has been traditionally understood differently from the east to the west.
The three sacraments of Baptism, Communion and Chrismation were called the initiatory sacraments. Often these would be given all together, by the bishop at the cathedral.
Later the Latin church began delaying Chrismation until the child would become older, because it was thought better to catechize the child (or adult) and that they make a conscious decision. The bishops retained the sacrament to themselves in most cases, while allowing priests to confer the other two in the parish system shortly after birth (or conversion). The bishops would do the Chrismation/Confirmation as they traveled the circuits from parish to mission to parish.
Meanwhile, later in the east, the bishops would give the Holy Chrism to the local priests, and the priests would be delegated to do all three sacraments at once shortly after birth (or conversion).
Also, the Latin west began to think that for one to be fit to receive Holy Communion one must be conscious of the difference between good and evil, in other words, one must be capable of sinning before being allowed to partake. In a sense confession replaced communion as an initiatory sacrament because it had to happen first. I am not sure what century that change took place.
So you see in two out of the three initiatory sacraments the west eventually decided to delay until the child was old enough to understand and be conscious of the sacrament.
So finally some Protestants of the sixteenth century, with their western understanding of original sin, decided that washing this sin away is only possible if one can make a conscious decision. It seems to be an extension of the logic applied to communion and confirmation.
But we know from history that babies were baptized routinely, so that theory does not match the evidence.
Lastly, why do Protestants get baptized on either River’s or Lakes?
Thank you and God Bless!
Actually, they are on very strong footing with this practice and the whole church definitely would be OK doing that, if possible.
The Didache, the oldest known instruction on the subject directs that we use “living water” or running water. That means streams and rivers and pools that are not stagnant. This is to be preferred, but already exceptions were allowed:
Now about baptism, baptize as follows: after first explaining all these points, baptize "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit*"
in running water. But if you do not have running water, baptize in other water. Now if you cannot in cold, then in in warm water. Now if you have neither, pour water three times on the head, "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"* Now before the baptism, let the baptizer and the one being baptized fast, and any others who are able. Require the candidate to fast for one or two
days previously.
Didache; ACW #6 pg 19
