JPII now baptised by proxy by LDS

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

…continued.

zerinus:

That depends on who is talking. I don’t think so.

This much is obvious.

zerinus:

For answer see this post, and surrounding discussions.

I am not a Jew.

But you should be.

First of all, a man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code.

Furthermore, we Christians are Jewish through our adoption into God’s family via baptism-- being ‘born from above’. In other words, Jesus fulfills our Jewish identity for us when we are baptized into his name. No one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to Spirit.

zerinus:

Baptism is not the same as circumcision. The theology of baptism is vastly different from the theology of circumcision.

Perhaps not in Mormon theology. But in Catholic theology, the theology of baptism is not very different from the theology of circumcision. Many non-Catholic groups agree with us on this too, such as Eastern Orthodox, Anglican, Lutheran, etc.

The effects of the baptism may be observed in different ways from each denomination’s perspective, but the theology, on the whole, is not very different at all. Unlike Mormon theology (which bears a striking similarity to Baptist theology on this point), it is we who are the circumcision, we who worship by the Spirit of God, who glory in Christ Jesus, and who put no confidence in the flesh

Christ himself is our peace between Jew and Gentile, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations.

His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.

He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and aliens, but fellow citizens with God’s people and members of God’s household, built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.

zerinus:

The answer still remains the same—because the Lord has commanded us not to.

zerinus

And based on the Scriptural texts I’ve provided, I’d say the Lord did not command you to do anything of the sort. You’ve inferred this from things Jesus didn’t actually say.

More to the point, it seems as through you don’t even understand the difference between John’s baptism for the remission of sins and the baptism in the Lord which comes by the the Spirit.

The only one who received the revelation of the Holy Spirit’s approval through John’s baptism was Christ himself.

John the Baptist would not have known him, except that the one who sent John to baptize with water told him, ‘The man on whom you see the Spirit come down and remain is he who will baptize with the Holy Spirit.’

In other words, John’s baptism was done in order to reveal to all of us, including himself, who the Christ was. Christ himself did not require any baptism to remove sins. Christ had no sins. Christ was baptized for our benefit-- not his.

Consequently, after Jesus’ baptism, John’s baptism generally fades into the distance.

There are people who later meet the apostles and note that they had John’s baptism. But the apostles are also clear that John’s baptism is insufficient. Unlike Jesus, they did not receive the Holy Spirit in John’s baptism.
Matthew 3:11:

I baptize you with water for repentance. But after me will come one who is more powerful than I, whose sandals I am not fit to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire.

Notice how John himself says that Jesus will baptize us with the Holy Spirit and with fire?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

Well that is not what I read into it. Jesus never baptized little children, nor commanded that they should be baptized. He just laid hands on them, prayed for them, and returned them to their mothers. He said that “of such is the kingdom of God”. That means that they are already citizens of that kingdom. They don’t need to do anything else to go there.

zerinus

What does the Scripture say?

Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness.

Now when a man works, his wages are not credited to him as a gift, but as an obligation. However, to the man who does not work but trusts God who justifies the wicked, his faith is credited as righteousness.

David says the same thing when he speaks of the blessedness of the man to whom God credits righteousness apart from works:

Blessed are they
whose transgressions are forgiven,
whose sins are covered.
Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness.

Under what circumstances was it credited?

Was it after he was circumcised, or before?

It was not after, but before!

And he received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

So then, he is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.

And he is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

From our Catholic perspective, being heirs with Christ our brother, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit.

Those who live according to the sinful nature have their minds set on what that nature desires; but those who live in accordance with the Spirit have their minds set on what the Spirit desires. The mind of sinful man is death, but the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace; the sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so. Those controlled by the sinful nature cannot please God.

You, however, are controlled not by the sinful nature but by the Spirit, if the Spirit of God lives in you. And if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Christ. But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness.

And if the Spirit of him who raised Jesus from the dead is living in you, he who raised Christ from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through his Spirit, who lives in you.

Therefore, brothers, we have an obligation—but it is not to the sinful nature, to live according to it.

For if you live according to the sinful nature, you will die; but if by the Spirit you put to death the misdeeds of the body, you will live, because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.

For you did not receive a spirit that makes you a slave again to fear, but you received the Spirit of sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” The Spirit himself testifies with our spirit that we are God’s children. Now if we are children, then we are heirs—heirs of God and co-heirs with Christ, if indeed we share in his sufferings in order that we may also share in his glory.

 

[zerinus]

You are wasting your time. Your post is unnecessarily lengthy, disjointed, and for the most part irrelevant. I am not going to waste my time answering all of it, but just the first couple of paragraphs:

Obeying the commandments of the Lord to baptise entire nations in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit is logical.

Okay this is the quote from the scripture verses you had linked to. I suggest you read it more carefully:

Matthew 28:18-20 (NIV)

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

Did you hear that? Before you baptize them, you are first to “make disciple” of them; and also “teach” them to “obey everything I commanded you”. How are you going to “make disciples” of infants, “teaching them,” and “commanding” them to “obey everything I commanded you”? The commandment applied to adults, not to infants.

Inferring that Jesus commanded people to not baptize children when he said to let the little children come to him, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these is not logical.

I did not say that that scripture contains a “commandment” not to baptize. I said that it teaches the theology. The “commandment” to us comes from what the Lord has revealed to us in modern scripture and revelation to the Church.

Circumcision is not the same as baptism. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed after him. Faith and repentance was not required to accompany that sign. God never said, “He that repents and is circumcised” shall enter into the covenant. To the candidates for baptism the commandment was, “bring forth fruit meet for repentance” nobody ever said that to those presenting themselves for circumcision.

zerinus

 

[majick275]

amgid would have you believe that children are born into the kingdom of Heaven and live there until they are 8 when they are kicked out much like Adam and eve from the garden and have to have baptism to return.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

In essence He did. When He said that “of such is the kingdom of God,” that means that they are already saved, therefore nothing more need to be done to save them.

So what?

Abraham was already saved before he was circumcised too.

I’ve explained this in detail in the posts above for you if you care to check it out.

zerinus:

Yes, but what did it mean for them to “come to Him”? They were brought to Him so He could touch them and bless them, not baptize them; which is what He did. Big difference between the two.

Not really.

First of all, the Israelites were certainly blessed by God through their circumcision.

Blessed is the man
whose sin the Lord will never count against him.

Is this blessedness only for the circumcised, or also for the uncircumcised?

We have been saying that Abraham’s faith was credited to him as righteousness.

Under what circumstances was it credited? Was it after he was circumcised, or before?

It was not after, but before!

In addition to this, Abraham received the sign of circumcision, a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

So then, as the Scriptures testify, Abraham is the father of all who believe but have not been circumcised, in order that righteousness might be credited to them.

And Abraham is also the father of the circumcised who not only are circumcised but who also walk in the footsteps of the faith that our father Abraham had before he was circumcised.

Saying that Abrham had faith in God before he was circumcised does not negate the fact that God clearly commanded Abraham to be circumcized anyway.

The sign of circumcision is a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.

Consequently, if sign of circumcision is a seal of the righteousness that people have by faith while they are still uncircumcised, then how can little children be circumcised by your logic?

According to your own logic, since children cannot believe when they are babies (since they don’t know enough to believe), then the whole idea of circuimcising them is rendered foolish.

Furthermore, since circumcision was also a sign of repentence in joining God’s family, how could little children repent before they were circumcised?

Adults certainly repented before circumcision before they entered into the forl of the Israelites. So too with people becoming Christian as adults before they join the Church.

However, just as children werwe not expected to either beleive or repent before they were circumcised, so too are children not expected to believe or repent before they are baptized.

In both cases, the actions are performed by proxy based on the faithfullness of the parents/gaurdians who are promising to raise the child in the faith.

And that’s exactly how God’s promises work too.

Consequently, saying that children cannot be baptized because they cannot believe nor repent utterly fails to understand the nature of circumcision in the Hebrew Scriptures.

What advantage, then, is there in being a Jew, or what value is there in circumcision?

Much in every way!

First of all, they have been entrusted with the very words of God.

What if some did not have faith?

Will their lack of faith nullify God’s faithfulness?

Not at all!

Let God be true, and every man a liar.

As it is written:

So that you may be proved right when you speak
and prevail when you judge.

Consequently, I would have loved to see the look on God’s face if Abraham or Joshua had said to God, “No! We can’t circumcise them until they come to the age of reason! These little children cannot neither believe nor have any need of repentence!”

I’m quite sure that God would have vaporized them on the spot for so ignorantly distoring that very nature of His Promise.

God is the one who is faithful and true in all circumstances.

Not us.

And for someone to fixate on children’s ability to understand/repent before baptism really proves that they do not beleive in God’s grace-- but they do believe that their own works justify them before God.

God justifies us before him in our circumsion/baptism as he removes the sin from us and gathers us into his holy family. In the past, that family was the Israelites. Now God’s extended family is the Church. And saying that someone has to be an adult before they can be adopted into God’s family is probably the most nonsensical thing I’ve heard to date.

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

You are wasting your time. Your post is unnecessarily lengthy, disjointed, and for the most part irrelevant.:

That’s a strange thing to say since most of the post was directly from Scripture.

Are you saying that the Scriptures are unnecessarily lengthy, disjointed, and for the most part irrelevant?

Perhaps you’ve never even read these passages I’m quoting to you.

zerinus:

I am not going to waste my time answering all of it, but just the first couple of paragraphs:

But the rest of the Scripture I quoted already dismantled your points. You can ignore them if you want, but you’re not convincing anyone here by doing so.

zerinus:

Okay this is the quote from the scripture verses you had linked to. I suggest you read it more carefully:

I have read it in detail already.

zerinus:

Matthew 28:18-20 (NIV)

18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded* you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

*Rendered to font size 7 for your benefit.

So where does it say that children cannot be baptized?

Are children not considered a valid part of all nations?

zerinus:

Did you hear that? Before you baptize them, you are first to “make disciple” of them; and also “teach” them to “obey everything I commanded you”. How are you going to “make disciples” of infants, “teaching them,” and “commanding” them to “obey everything I commanded you”? The commandment applied to adults, not to infants.

Really?

Can you point to any specific cases in the Scriptures where someone says it’s wrong to baptize infants?

Isn’t the whole point of raising children in the faith to “make disciples” of them; and also “teach” them to “obey everything [God] commanded [us]”?

How are you going to “make disciples” of infants, “teaching them,” and “commanding” them to “obey everything I commanded you”?

Easy.

By raising them as Christains-- in my case, raising them as Catholics.

This is exactly how God’s Promise works.

Do you know of any other way you can do this?

zerinus:

I did not say that that scripture contains a “commandment” not to baptize. I said that it teaches the theology.

No. You’re inferring this teaching based on a faulty understanding of the very nature of God’s Promise.

zerinus:

The “commandment” to us comes from what the Lord has revealed to us in modern scripture and revelation to the Church.

Yes.

And through the Catholic Church God has revealed that children are to be baptized in order to enter into his heavenly family.

zerinus:

Circumcision is not the same as baptism. Circumcision was a sign of the covenant that God made with Abraham and his seed after him. Faith and repentance was not required to accompany that sign. God never said, “He that repents and is circumcised” shall enter into the covenant. To the candidates for baptism the commandment was, “bring forth fruit meet for repentance” nobody ever said that to those presenting themselves for circumcision.

You’re right. This was never expected when infants were circumcized.

But…um…I think you better take a look again at the nature of circumcision when it applied to adults.

Talk to any modern day Jewish person and they will certainly confirm for you that repentance is required by adults prior to circumcision. It seems impossible to miss this fact in the Hebrew Scriptures to be honest. They all promised to hold to the teaching of God’s people before entering the Israelite’s fold.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Remember your charity, or this thread will be closed.

God bless-

Rachel

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

To politely rephrase the argument in simple terms, look at the following passage of Scriptures…
Colossians 2:11-13 (New International Version):

In him you were also circumcised, in the putting off of the sinful nature, not with a circumcision done by the hands of men but with the circumcision done by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism and raised with him through your faith in the power of God, who raised him from the dead.

Here we clearly see the Christian Scriptures linking circumcision with baptism within the context of Christ salvific work. There’s no debating this point.

There’s also this…
Romans 2:28-29 (New International Version):

A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man’s praise is not from men, but from God.

So in these two cases we clearly see a link between circumcision and baptism within the Christian Scriptures.

There’s really no denying this part.

And if someone is going to claim there is no link between the two, then the onus is on them display why this is not so.

 

[Karin]

this must be one of those scriptures that have been corrupted…as the lds like to point out

To politely rephrase the argument in simple terms, look at the following passage of Scriptures…

Here we clearly see the Christian Scriptures linking circumcision with baptism within the context of Christ salvific work. There’s no debating this point.

There’s also this…

So in these two cases we clearly see a link between circumcision and baptism within the Christian Scriptures.

There’s really no denying this part.

And if someone is going to claim there is no link between the two, then the onus is on them display why this is not so.

 

[rafaelcatolico]

I live in Orem Utah and am sorrounded by the LDS faith, I am familiar with this practice of ‘Baptism for the Dead’ but I always say, what I don’t believe does not affect me.

 

[Eden]

I live in Orem Utah and am sorrounded by the LDS faith, I am familiar with this practice of ‘Baptism for the Dead’ but I always say, what I don’t believe does not affect me.

Well, you are certainly in a prime location for evangelization.

 

[Milliardo]

We believe it is possible for the spirits in the spirit world to repent. We know that because the Lord has revealed it to us in modern LDS scripture. If you want a biblical proof, here is one:

1 Peter 3:19 talks about Sheol, the Jewish abode of the dead. That’s what the spirits in prison means. There are those there who were awaiting for Christ to open up heaven for them, as up to that point it was still not opened up until Christ fulfilled His mission. Nothing in that passage that proves LDS notion. Additionally, 1 Peter 3:21 is also the same passage used by us Catholics to prove the efficacy of baptism. Again, nothing in there that alludes for baptism of the dead.

 

[zerinus]

1 Peter 3:19 talks about Sheol, the Jewish abode of the dead. That’s what the spirits in prison means.

Whatever the place is called by different people is irrelevant to the discussion. We call it the spirit world, the Jews call it sheol, the Catholics call it I don’t know what. Who cares what it is called by different people, as long as it is clear that we are all talking about the same thing.

There are those there who were awaiting for Christ to open up heaven for them, as up to that point it was still not opened up until Christ fulfilled His mission.

That is not what the scripture is talking about. The scriptures quoted clearly states that the people Jesus visited in the sprit world had been the people who lived on earth before the flood, who had been so sinful that God destroyed them in the Flood. It says that they had been “disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah”. So we are talking about very sinful people. Then it says that Jesus went and “preached” to them. So what did He “preach” to them, except the gospel of repentance and baptism and remission of sins? That is what Jesus preached here on earth; that is what He would have preached to them. That means that those people can repent, otherwise what would be the point of preaching those things to them?

Nothing in that passage that proves LDS notion.

Everything in that passage proves the LDS notion.

Additionally, 1 Peter 3:21 is also the same passage used by us Catholics to prove the efficacy of baptism.

Well the Catholcis are wrong; and it won’t be the first time!

Again, nothing in there that alludes for baptism of the dead.

My friend, you are all over the place. I never said that scripture alludes to the baptism for the dead, and I did not quote it to prove any such a thing. Your original question had been, how can there be repentance for the dead? This is the exact quote:

you said that for baptism to be valid, then there must be repentance and remission of sins. How can there be repentance and remission for the dead?

That is the question you had asked. I had quoted to you those scriptures to prove to you that according to the Bible there can be. Those antediluvians sinners were given a chance in the spirit world to repent. That means that repentance is possible in the spirit world. That was your question and that was the answer to your question.

zerinus

 

[Eden]

Zerinus, why do you keep avoiding the very blatant reality that even the Book of Mormon disagrees with the practice of baptising the dead?

 

[Karin]

Zerinus, why do you keep avoiding the very blatant reality that even the Book of Mormon disagrees with the practice of baptising the dead?

that is a good question… do you think if we ask it enough we might get an answer?

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

I didn’t realize that all Mormons believe they have the authority to alter the Word of God. False prophets all.

Why is he figuratively using something that was performed on infants? Baptism replaces circumcision as the initiation into Christian life - and the initiation still includes infants. Remember when Jesus was presented to the temple as an infant?

The evidence you have provided so far did not support your claim. No where in the Bible does God command us not to baptize infants. Further, the Bible explicity states that “entire households” are baptized. That means everyone - of all ages.

I noticed you didn’t have an answer for the date of the great apostasy.

Still searching, still can’t find it:

catholic.com/thisrock/1992/9203fea.asp

Excellent post Eden.

I’ve asked similar questions and I’m still waiting for zerinus to clearly answer them.

 

[Eden]

I’ve asked similar questions and I’m still waiting for zerinus to clearly answer them.

Indeed. So many questions, so little answers.

And there’s more. If apostasy is defined as “a departure from the faith” and the Mormon faith originally taught that:
Book of Mormon:

(Alma 34:35-36)“For behold, if ye have procrastinated the day of your repentance even until death, behold ye have become subjected to the spirit of the devil, and he does seal you his. Therefore, the spirit of the Lord has withdrawn from you and hath no place in you; the power of the devil is over you, and this is the final state of the wicked.”

And:

(2 Nephi 9:15) “And it shall come to pass that when all men shall have passed from this first death unto life, insomuch as they have become immortal, they must appear before the judgment seat of the Holy One of Israel, and then cometh the judgment and then must they be judged according to the holy judgment of God. For the Lord God hath spoken it, and it is his eternal word, which cannot pass away, that they who are righteous shall be righteous still, and they who are filthy shall be filthy still; wherefore, they who are filthy . . . shall go away into everlasting fire, prepared for them; and their torment is as a lake of fire and brimstone, whose flame ascendeth up forever and ever and has no end.”

But Mormon theology has departed the faith of this teaching. So, does this not mean that the present LDS church is in apostasy?

I would be interested in discussing the Great Apostasy of the LDS church. Perhaps another thread?

 

[tequilamac]

Indeed. So many questions, so little answers.

And there’s more. If apostasy is defined as “a departure from the faith” and the Mormon faith originally taught that:

But Mormon theology has departed the faith of this teaching. So, does this not mean that the present LDS church is in apostasy?

I would be interested in discussing the Great Apostasy of the LDS church. Perhaps another thread?

I agree with you but…
How can a heretical church be apostate from itself? It gets weirder and wierder.

 

[batteddy]

My personal perception of this is that while it may be a vain gesture on the part of the LDS, it is harmless and reflects well on the LDS to make such a gesture. By the same token, I hope that more than a few Roman Catholics will say prayers or have Masses performed on behalf of LDS Church leaders or other Mormons in their person sphere of acquaintance, as they pass on to the next life.

I agree.

If they believe it is the charitable thing to do, good. It does nothing except for them. It is an internal action of their religion, they can do whatever I’d want with me when I’m dead, it will have no effect and I agree it is

I don’t consider it harmless. It is an insulting practice. THis was done for many jews who died in the Shoah and it was very painful for the survivors to learn that people were “hijacking” souls this way. It had gotten to the point that Israel required LDS to refrain from this practice if they wanted to practice their religion within the state of Israel.

Yes, well, I hate to point this out to you…but the Jews have become a little, well…uppity. It’s really no big deal if the mormons do this as part of their crazy religion.

There is nothing offensive about it. You don’t even have to know. They do it in their temples and it’s their business. If you know that they are a false religion, who cares what they do with the mere name of a dead person? It won’t do anything, and is really their bussiness. I’d hope we’d offer Masses for dead people even if they said they didn’t want it, and especially if it was only their family or compatriots who said they didn’t want it.

I could care less if they did it to everyone departed in the world.

Me too. They think it saves them, it doesn’t effect anyone (who doesn’t let themselves be affected)…it’s really their business. No one owns the “idea” of a dead person, no one owns their name or the “concept of them”…it is an empty ceremony, but I’m not involved so they can do what they want…

 

[Mr.Ex_Nihilo]

As a general comment on who can and cannot be baptized, I’ll intereject a few things to ponder…
Acts 2:41:

Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

On this miraculous day am I supposed to think that all these people were of the age of reason?

If so, then why did Peter say the following…

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call.”

Here we see Peter cearly stating that this promise (through baptism) is for children too.

We also see households and families being baptized as follows…
Acts 16:15:

When she and the members of her household were baptized, she invited us to her home. “If you consider me a believer in the Lord,” she said, “come and stay at my house.” And she persuaded us.

Acts 16:33:

At that hour of the night the jailer took them and washed their wounds; then immediately he and all his family were baptized.

(Yes, I also baptized the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I don’t remember if I baptized anyone else.)

It is well known that families were much bigger during ancient times, especially Jewish families. So if someone is going to claim that children were not included in these households and families, I think they have much work to do to prove this.

Consequently, Pauls illuminates the savific work of baptism before people began to baptize in the name of Chirst…

For I do not want you to be ignorant of the fact, brothers, that our forefathers were all under the cloud and that they all passed through the sea. They were all baptized into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. They all ate the same spiritual food and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

How many were baptized into Moses?

All of them. Indeed, the entire nation of Israel was baptized.

Why would the apostle say that all of them were baptized if he only meant people of the age of reason?

continued…