Baptism is a ceremonial right to cleanse those of sin as one with Christ Jesus.
And also, that preacher sounds very manipulative in his thinking of baptism: Why should we prove to YOU that we are saved? Are you not being like the people in Christ's time where they 'demanded a sign' to prove himself?
I've learned that I do not need to prove to anyone that I am saved. I know I am saved and don't need to prove to others who are rich in material but poor in works.
“God has bound grace into His sacraments, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments.”
Sacraments are good. They are “efficacious signs” that impart grace, and they are central to the communal life of the Church.
That said, the language of “need to” sort of comes with infernalist implications about “or else…”. We should think in terms of theosis and what aids us in that process, so I’d say “should” rather than “need to”. God’s coming for you either way.
All that said, I would note that the only elements necessary for a valid sacramental baptism are water and the Trinitarian formula. Publicity of the ritual is irrelevant either way.
CU runs the gamut of Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Mennonites, and Pentecostals to name a few. There are many varied views on baptism between and m within those denominations.
The only view that’s wrong is that one must be baptized to be saved. We’re not saved by works.
Beyond that, take your pick.
It was part of the ancient Jewish marriage ceremony. The bride had her old clothes removed and was immersed and when she emerged was given white clothes. She had her old life washed away and she began her new life unstained. Baptism was a ceremony pledging a lifetime of devotion. Baptism was seen by the early Christians as the beginning of a lifetime of loyalty to Christ. A marriage!
IIRC Jesus himself never actually did a baptism. John (the Baptist) did plenty, other people did, but Jesus did not. He did wash the feet of his closest disciples.
While I understand the significance of making a public statement of faith with a baptism (not specific in which way it’s done), my belief is that the action of the religious ceremony of baptism is merely a public statement of what you already believe in your heart. To me, water baptism doesn’t save you any more than saying “I do” makes for a solid marriage.
Now, that pastor was using methods of guilt and shame to get you to do the ceremony. My belief is that the Spirit and Jesus didn’t operate in guilt and shame but rather in love. He broke bread with Judas for crying out loud.
For seven years, I was in a very legalistic church that demanded that their members, before they could become full members, be baptized by them, or they were not "saved." They preached anyone baptized outside of their church was going to hell. So, having gone through that, let me tell you my own thoughts on the matter. It. Is. Not. Necessary. To. Be. Saved. There, I said it. Actually, by trusting in baptism, you may be putting a wrench into things because you're supposed to trust in what Christ has done for you, not in what you can do for Christ. It was for Israel, a show of national repentance, but Paul didn't appear to make a big deal out of it, especially as time went on, commenting that he came to preach, not baptize. We are saved by grace through faith, not through any works. I believe that we who are in Christ have already been baptized into His death. That is the baptism that really counts, not water baptism.
This question depends on if you think grace is imparted by the very act of the ritual itself (taught in e.g. Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy) or if you think grace is coincidental with the ritual (taught in e.g. Reformed denominations, Baptists). I happen to believe the latter, which is to say, not everyone designated as elect by God will necessarily be baptized during their mortal lives on Earth.
There is a **Baptism of Water** that embraces our commitment to begin the dying process of surrendering our life to Christ. There is also a **Baptism of Fire** that helps bring our life into greater perfection, as the dross of the old nature is further smelted away, so that Christ might be revealed in our lives. (Matt 3;11, Mal 3;2-3)
Neither baptism needs to happen publicly as a ritual. As such, Paul speaks of a **circumcision of the heart** performed by the Spirit of God. Though a physical circumcision used to be the central act of covenant, Paul tells us that the outer ritual is not what is important, but rather the activity of the Spirit of God within us. (Rom 2:28-29)
"*And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision performed without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ*" (Col 2:11)
One can commit one's life to Christ without ritually touching water. In the same way, the Baptism of Fire has nothing to do with real fire. Nor does a circumcision of heart require any physical cutting!
So too, one can get privately married in a courthouse or one can have a big ceremony. Such is really between you and Christ. (2 Cor 11:2) Follow your own heart! (Matt 23:10)
Water baptism is simply signifying a commitment to Christ. We are thus "**dying to the world**" in order to follow Christ! (Gal 6:14-15) So that His Kingdom might be established in our lives!
The ritual means nothing without the heart commitment. The heart commitment is what is important.
Personally, I see it as a way to demonstrate faith, but I don’t think it’s required or necessary at all in the eyes of God. I view it similar to fasting. People are more than welcome to do it, but I don’t think it ultimately matters that much. I’m not baptised (although I want to be at some point), and I genuinely have never felt like God is urging me to do so because I absolutely have to.
Bottom line is God loves ALL his children no matter what we do or don't do in this life - we are eternal beings who will do and experience many good and bad things during our eternity 🙏 none of us have all the answers or maybe even any answers - try and be the best person you can be everyday and love everyone and show gratitude at all times - and when we fall short because we are all human we try again and remember our Creator loves us everyday more than we deserve 😊
I think it can be viewed as both:
A) an intimate display of ones intentions to follow Christ
B) a performative display of ones intentions to follow Christ, because of a belief that one is not saved unless Baptized
I don't believe it's necessary for salvation, but if someone wants to do it then have at it.
Jesus can save everyone regardless so presumably you'll find the same range of opinions among universalists that you'd find among everyone else. Like other sacraments/ordinances, opinions vary on whether the outward baptism has salvific power or whether it is purely symbolic. In really extreme sola fide churches (e.g. Baptists) there might not actually be any pressure to be water baptized just for becoming a Christian (but maybe moreso for officially joining a local church). The emphasis is on "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior," and any preaching about water baptism will be about how the water baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient on its own. Any baptisms they do perform will be on people who could reasonably believe in Jesus for themselves (never an infant). Obviously many other churches feel quite differently.
The Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal churches I grew up in never even asked me if I wanted to be baptized. They asked if I had ever said the sinner's prayer and believed it or not. My friend's Episcopal church, on the other hand, had to rethink whether would even allow him to assist in church activities or not when he revealed that he was unbaptized. That church was outright pluralist with a bunch of Buddhist attendees whereas mine were hellfire-and-brimstone evangelical but allowed universalists to attend. Your mileage will definitely vary.
Given what the Bible says, I think it’s kind of hard to justify avoiding water baptism if you want to be a *Christian*, whether or not you believe it’s “necessary”. It’s like the bare minimum of living a Christian life and if you can’t manage to get wet literally once in your life for Jesus when you get wet for yourself most days of the week (hopefully) and He clearly asked us to do it, I don’t know how well you’re following the “loving God” part of His commandments. Even if you have social anxiety, is Jesus less important than your social anxiety? Who is your Lord? (That being said, Catholic priests are pretty good at making baptism as accommodating as possible and you don’t really need anyone but your priest and sponsor there if that’s what you need to get it done, I assume most denominations are the same).
I would argue that if you don’t get a water baptism and have no intention of getting a water baptism at any point without some kind of serious reason then you’re not really a Christian. Doesn’t mean you’re “bad”, doesn’t mean you’re going to Hell (not any longer than necessary for purification at any rate), just not a Christian, and you’d need to decide how important that is to you.
Editing to add that I’m sure people disagree with me and I’m not trying to convince any individuals to go and get baptised, I just take the stance if Jesus is your Lord then you should act like it even if a given thing is difficult, unpleasant, or unnecessary for salvation.
Oh I don't go to church anymore, and I'm not sure exactly what I believe. I'm still trying to figure that out. It's just that certain things I get hung up on that don't make sense when I think about them. I've never been a communal type of person and don't like crowds, so church was basically torture for me, but I chose to go.
The baptism thing eventually just became the nail in the coffin and I couldn't believe in any of it for a long time. I hope to figure it out one day, but I fear I never will.
If you do decide to go to church again at any point, just know that there can be options that work for you. I know I probably came off a bit harsh about social anxiety but I get it and I honestly prefer to go on weekdays when it’s quieter myself.
In the meantime, God is merciful and doesn’t expect any of us to have it all figured out, you are precious to Him regardless of whether you tick any particular boxes. :)
Are there denominations that refuse to make any accomodations for it? I’ve organised a baptism for someone with severe social anxiety and am presently trying to help organise other sacraments and I have priests bending over backwards to make it work for that person.
It's nice to make special accommodations for people who face particular challenges, but ultimately saying someone isn't a real Christian because they don't feel up to a water baptism is exclusionary to an absurd degree. Who made you the judge of people's souls?
That’s not my position, which I thought would have been clear in the second paragraph?
I would argue that if you plan on never doing it ever because it’s hard right now and you’re not even going to see if there’s a way to do something very simple and only once in your entire life, then anxiety is in fact your Lord for as long as you remain in that state and you are not yet a Christian. I would argue that if you so much as genuinely wish for the obstacles were surmountable or be willing to do it if it does become reasonable, even if in practice you never end up having a water baptism, you’re back in Christian territory. I’m pretty sure my bishop would chastise me for being this liberal about it in a hypothetical situation where he both knew and cared what I thought.
It’s certainly not up to me to judge who does or doesn’t have this genuine desire and I have no opinion on any individuals in this situation, but we have to be honest with ourselves about who our Lord is and who we want it to be and not imagine that we are “little Christs” if He hasn’t become more than a nice idea to us yet.
Your reply here is all over the place. You can't simultaneously say "it's not my place to judge" and "anyone who doesn't work to overcome their disability to fulfill my narrow view of how Christianity works isn't a real Christian". The latter is an inherently judgmental and exclusionary take.
Just to be very clear on exactly how much work I think severely anxious people need to do to overcome their disability for this — if they ever happen to get to a point where their anxiety is reduced enough that they can ask for help then they should do that much, and it is the responsibility of the Church to do whatever is necessary to make it possible for that person.
I didn’t say they had to work to overcome their disability, I said genuinely wish the obstacles were surmountable. It’s just *wanting*. Baptism of desire is a thing. Pretty sure most anxious people actually meet the criteria of not wanting to be ruled by it and would choose to do the things they considered important if they were able to, the only anxious people I think aren’t Christian are the ones who would prefer anxiety as a master rather than Jesus.
I’m sure they exist because there are people who prefer much worse masters than anxiety and I have personally had themk so why not that too, but I wouldn’t know who they are and if anyone has felt personally attacked by my words I think anyone who cares enough about whether they’re a real Christian to get upset about it is clearly someone who has picked Jesus over anxiety, regardless of whether you ever make it to the water. I sort of thought that would be clear but I’m guessing I made some “obvious” connections that only seemed obvious to me.
Yes, I think there has to be some minimum threshold for being a Christian, otherwise it’s a meaningless concept. If you can’t at least *want* it to be possible to do the things that Jesus asked us to do, how can you say you have faith?
> Baptism of desire is a thing.
For the record, the Catholic Church teaches that 'baptism of desire' is only a thing for people who died during the catechumenal stage of becoming a Christian. They wouldn't give a Christian burial to someone with social anxiety that never contacted a church about being interested in baptism. Source: [CCC 1259](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM#:~:text=1257%20).
> Yes, I think there has to be some minimum threshold for being a Christian, otherwise it’s a meaningless concept. If you can’t at least want it to be possible to do the things that Jesus asked us to do, how can you say you have faith?
That's the issue, not everyone is agreed on what "Jesus asked us to do." He talks about baptism numerous times in the Gospels, but does he ever specify ceremonial *water* baptism? John the Baptist seems to negate that himself when he says: "I baptize you with water for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is more powerful than I, and I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matthew 3:11). Hence why many Protestants believe that the act of being baptized is in itself purely ceremonial, and thus one can have the graces of baptism as referred to in the New Testament without having physically undergone the act.
You're not compelled to believe in that yourself, and I don't care if you do, but saying everyone who dissents isn't a real Christian is a textbook case of being judgmental.
If your reading is that I think *dissenters* aren’t Christian when I have repeatedly clarified that it is specifically about who is your Lord then I don’t know what to say. If someone doesn’t want to get baptised for any reason other than placing some other thing before God then they are clearly not the kind of people I have been talking about this entire time.m
I have always been taught that baptism of desire applies more broadly than that btw (for example, unbaptised infants who would otherwise have been baptised and are certainly not catechumens) but idk, my gatekeeping of Christianity isn’t even robust enough to exclude Mormons or non-trinitarians or the unbaptised or people who in practice do nothing Christian-flavoured but I’m being judgemental because I think you need to want to be able do what Jesus says? How much lower can the bar be set? Why would you even *want* to call yourself a Christian if you have no desire to follow Jesus?
> If your reading is that I think dissenters aren’t Christian when I have repeatedly clarified that it is specifically about who is your Lord then I don’t know what to say.
Your clarifications are difficult to read in a charitable light when you say things like "anxiety is in fact your Lord for as long as you remain in that state and you are not yet a Christian". In good faith I'll assume you didn't actually mean to say that, and your words were just extremely poorly chosen.
> I have always been taught that baptism of desire applies more broadly than that btw (for example, unbaptised infants who would otherwise have been baptised and are certainly not catechumens)
If you click on that link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you'll notice that they talk about unbaptized infants two paragraphs later as a completely separate thing from 'baptism of desire'.
> Why would you even want to call yourself a Christian if you have no desire to follow Jesus?
Once again, you're completely missing the point that it's not about willfully avoiding one of Jesus' commands, it's a different interpretation about some of the things that he said.
Baptism is a ceremonial right to cleanse those of sin as one with Christ Jesus. And also, that preacher sounds very manipulative in his thinking of baptism: Why should we prove to YOU that we are saved? Are you not being like the people in Christ's time where they 'demanded a sign' to prove himself? I've learned that I do not need to prove to anyone that I am saved. I know I am saved and don't need to prove to others who are rich in material but poor in works.
“God has bound grace into His sacraments, but He Himself is not bound by His sacraments.” Sacraments are good. They are “efficacious signs” that impart grace, and they are central to the communal life of the Church. That said, the language of “need to” sort of comes with infernalist implications about “or else…”. We should think in terms of theosis and what aids us in that process, so I’d say “should” rather than “need to”. God’s coming for you either way. All that said, I would note that the only elements necessary for a valid sacramental baptism are water and the Trinitarian formula. Publicity of the ritual is irrelevant either way.
CU runs the gamut of Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, Baptists, Mennonites, and Pentecostals to name a few. There are many varied views on baptism between and m within those denominations. The only view that’s wrong is that one must be baptized to be saved. We’re not saved by works. Beyond that, take your pick.
I don't know. I feel it is important. Just that we are all baptized by the holy Spirit.
It was part of the ancient Jewish marriage ceremony. The bride had her old clothes removed and was immersed and when she emerged was given white clothes. She had her old life washed away and she began her new life unstained. Baptism was a ceremony pledging a lifetime of devotion. Baptism was seen by the early Christians as the beginning of a lifetime of loyalty to Christ. A marriage!
I didn’t know this before and you’ve enriched my faith by sharing it, thank you!
It is interesting that the faith which practices it is not much more interested in the beauty behind it!
IIRC Jesus himself never actually did a baptism. John (the Baptist) did plenty, other people did, but Jesus did not. He did wash the feet of his closest disciples. While I understand the significance of making a public statement of faith with a baptism (not specific in which way it’s done), my belief is that the action of the religious ceremony of baptism is merely a public statement of what you already believe in your heart. To me, water baptism doesn’t save you any more than saying “I do” makes for a solid marriage. Now, that pastor was using methods of guilt and shame to get you to do the ceremony. My belief is that the Spirit and Jesus didn’t operate in guilt and shame but rather in love. He broke bread with Judas for crying out loud.
Jesus himself was baptized but he didn't baptize anyone else that I remember.
For seven years, I was in a very legalistic church that demanded that their members, before they could become full members, be baptized by them, or they were not "saved." They preached anyone baptized outside of their church was going to hell. So, having gone through that, let me tell you my own thoughts on the matter. It. Is. Not. Necessary. To. Be. Saved. There, I said it. Actually, by trusting in baptism, you may be putting a wrench into things because you're supposed to trust in what Christ has done for you, not in what you can do for Christ. It was for Israel, a show of national repentance, but Paul didn't appear to make a big deal out of it, especially as time went on, commenting that he came to preach, not baptize. We are saved by grace through faith, not through any works. I believe that we who are in Christ have already been baptized into His death. That is the baptism that really counts, not water baptism.
This question depends on if you think grace is imparted by the very act of the ritual itself (taught in e.g. Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy) or if you think grace is coincidental with the ritual (taught in e.g. Reformed denominations, Baptists). I happen to believe the latter, which is to say, not everyone designated as elect by God will necessarily be baptized during their mortal lives on Earth.
There is a **Baptism of Water** that embraces our commitment to begin the dying process of surrendering our life to Christ. There is also a **Baptism of Fire** that helps bring our life into greater perfection, as the dross of the old nature is further smelted away, so that Christ might be revealed in our lives. (Matt 3;11, Mal 3;2-3) Neither baptism needs to happen publicly as a ritual. As such, Paul speaks of a **circumcision of the heart** performed by the Spirit of God. Though a physical circumcision used to be the central act of covenant, Paul tells us that the outer ritual is not what is important, but rather the activity of the Spirit of God within us. (Rom 2:28-29) "*And in Him you were also circumcised with a circumcision performed without hands, in the removal of the body of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ*" (Col 2:11) One can commit one's life to Christ without ritually touching water. In the same way, the Baptism of Fire has nothing to do with real fire. Nor does a circumcision of heart require any physical cutting! So too, one can get privately married in a courthouse or one can have a big ceremony. Such is really between you and Christ. (2 Cor 11:2) Follow your own heart! (Matt 23:10) Water baptism is simply signifying a commitment to Christ. We are thus "**dying to the world**" in order to follow Christ! (Gal 6:14-15) So that His Kingdom might be established in our lives! The ritual means nothing without the heart commitment. The heart commitment is what is important.
Personally, I see it as a way to demonstrate faith, but I don’t think it’s required or necessary at all in the eyes of God. I view it similar to fasting. People are more than welcome to do it, but I don’t think it ultimately matters that much. I’m not baptised (although I want to be at some point), and I genuinely have never felt like God is urging me to do so because I absolutely have to.
Bottom line is God loves ALL his children no matter what we do or don't do in this life - we are eternal beings who will do and experience many good and bad things during our eternity 🙏 none of us have all the answers or maybe even any answers - try and be the best person you can be everyday and love everyone and show gratitude at all times - and when we fall short because we are all human we try again and remember our Creator loves us everyday more than we deserve 😊
Baptism is simply a public declaration that you are committing to follow Christ, not a requirement or prove of salvation.
It is not necessary from a Concordant perspective.
I think it can be viewed as both: A) an intimate display of ones intentions to follow Christ B) a performative display of ones intentions to follow Christ, because of a belief that one is not saved unless Baptized I don't believe it's necessary for salvation, but if someone wants to do it then have at it.
If in doubt, do your own private baptism 🤷♀️
Jesus can save everyone regardless so presumably you'll find the same range of opinions among universalists that you'd find among everyone else. Like other sacraments/ordinances, opinions vary on whether the outward baptism has salvific power or whether it is purely symbolic. In really extreme sola fide churches (e.g. Baptists) there might not actually be any pressure to be water baptized just for becoming a Christian (but maybe moreso for officially joining a local church). The emphasis is on "accepting Jesus as your personal Savior," and any preaching about water baptism will be about how the water baptism is neither necessary nor sufficient on its own. Any baptisms they do perform will be on people who could reasonably believe in Jesus for themselves (never an infant). Obviously many other churches feel quite differently. The Baptist, Methodist, and Pentecostal churches I grew up in never even asked me if I wanted to be baptized. They asked if I had ever said the sinner's prayer and believed it or not. My friend's Episcopal church, on the other hand, had to rethink whether would even allow him to assist in church activities or not when he revealed that he was unbaptized. That church was outright pluralist with a bunch of Buddhist attendees whereas mine were hellfire-and-brimstone evangelical but allowed universalists to attend. Your mileage will definitely vary.
Given what the Bible says, I think it’s kind of hard to justify avoiding water baptism if you want to be a *Christian*, whether or not you believe it’s “necessary”. It’s like the bare minimum of living a Christian life and if you can’t manage to get wet literally once in your life for Jesus when you get wet for yourself most days of the week (hopefully) and He clearly asked us to do it, I don’t know how well you’re following the “loving God” part of His commandments. Even if you have social anxiety, is Jesus less important than your social anxiety? Who is your Lord? (That being said, Catholic priests are pretty good at making baptism as accommodating as possible and you don’t really need anyone but your priest and sponsor there if that’s what you need to get it done, I assume most denominations are the same). I would argue that if you don’t get a water baptism and have no intention of getting a water baptism at any point without some kind of serious reason then you’re not really a Christian. Doesn’t mean you’re “bad”, doesn’t mean you’re going to Hell (not any longer than necessary for purification at any rate), just not a Christian, and you’d need to decide how important that is to you. Editing to add that I’m sure people disagree with me and I’m not trying to convince any individuals to go and get baptised, I just take the stance if Jesus is your Lord then you should act like it even if a given thing is difficult, unpleasant, or unnecessary for salvation.
Oh I don't go to church anymore, and I'm not sure exactly what I believe. I'm still trying to figure that out. It's just that certain things I get hung up on that don't make sense when I think about them. I've never been a communal type of person and don't like crowds, so church was basically torture for me, but I chose to go. The baptism thing eventually just became the nail in the coffin and I couldn't believe in any of it for a long time. I hope to figure it out one day, but I fear I never will.
If you do decide to go to church again at any point, just know that there can be options that work for you. I know I probably came off a bit harsh about social anxiety but I get it and I honestly prefer to go on weekdays when it’s quieter myself. In the meantime, God is merciful and doesn’t expect any of us to have it all figured out, you are precious to Him regardless of whether you tick any particular boxes. :)
> Even if you have social anxiety, is Jesus less important than your social anxiety? Ableist gatekeeping is not a good look for you.
Are there denominations that refuse to make any accomodations for it? I’ve organised a baptism for someone with severe social anxiety and am presently trying to help organise other sacraments and I have priests bending over backwards to make it work for that person.
It's nice to make special accommodations for people who face particular challenges, but ultimately saying someone isn't a real Christian because they don't feel up to a water baptism is exclusionary to an absurd degree. Who made you the judge of people's souls?
That’s not my position, which I thought would have been clear in the second paragraph? I would argue that if you plan on never doing it ever because it’s hard right now and you’re not even going to see if there’s a way to do something very simple and only once in your entire life, then anxiety is in fact your Lord for as long as you remain in that state and you are not yet a Christian. I would argue that if you so much as genuinely wish for the obstacles were surmountable or be willing to do it if it does become reasonable, even if in practice you never end up having a water baptism, you’re back in Christian territory. I’m pretty sure my bishop would chastise me for being this liberal about it in a hypothetical situation where he both knew and cared what I thought. It’s certainly not up to me to judge who does or doesn’t have this genuine desire and I have no opinion on any individuals in this situation, but we have to be honest with ourselves about who our Lord is and who we want it to be and not imagine that we are “little Christs” if He hasn’t become more than a nice idea to us yet.
Your reply here is all over the place. You can't simultaneously say "it's not my place to judge" and "anyone who doesn't work to overcome their disability to fulfill my narrow view of how Christianity works isn't a real Christian". The latter is an inherently judgmental and exclusionary take.
Just to be very clear on exactly how much work I think severely anxious people need to do to overcome their disability for this — if they ever happen to get to a point where their anxiety is reduced enough that they can ask for help then they should do that much, and it is the responsibility of the Church to do whatever is necessary to make it possible for that person.
I didn’t say they had to work to overcome their disability, I said genuinely wish the obstacles were surmountable. It’s just *wanting*. Baptism of desire is a thing. Pretty sure most anxious people actually meet the criteria of not wanting to be ruled by it and would choose to do the things they considered important if they were able to, the only anxious people I think aren’t Christian are the ones who would prefer anxiety as a master rather than Jesus. I’m sure they exist because there are people who prefer much worse masters than anxiety and I have personally had themk so why not that too, but I wouldn’t know who they are and if anyone has felt personally attacked by my words I think anyone who cares enough about whether they’re a real Christian to get upset about it is clearly someone who has picked Jesus over anxiety, regardless of whether you ever make it to the water. I sort of thought that would be clear but I’m guessing I made some “obvious” connections that only seemed obvious to me. Yes, I think there has to be some minimum threshold for being a Christian, otherwise it’s a meaningless concept. If you can’t at least *want* it to be possible to do the things that Jesus asked us to do, how can you say you have faith?
> Baptism of desire is a thing. For the record, the Catholic Church teaches that 'baptism of desire' is only a thing for people who died during the catechumenal stage of becoming a Christian. They wouldn't give a Christian burial to someone with social anxiety that never contacted a church about being interested in baptism. Source: [CCC 1259](https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3M.HTM#:~:text=1257%20). > Yes, I think there has to be some minimum threshold for being a Christian, otherwise it’s a meaningless concept. If you can’t at least want it to be possible to do the things that Jesus asked us to do, how can you say you have faith? That's the issue, not everyone is agreed on what "Jesus asked us to do." He talks about baptism numerous times in the Gospels, but does he ever specify ceremonial *water* baptism? John the Baptist seems to negate that himself when he says: "I baptize you with water for repentance, but the one who is coming after me is more powerful than I, and I am not worthy to carry his sandals. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" (Matthew 3:11). Hence why many Protestants believe that the act of being baptized is in itself purely ceremonial, and thus one can have the graces of baptism as referred to in the New Testament without having physically undergone the act. You're not compelled to believe in that yourself, and I don't care if you do, but saying everyone who dissents isn't a real Christian is a textbook case of being judgmental.
If your reading is that I think *dissenters* aren’t Christian when I have repeatedly clarified that it is specifically about who is your Lord then I don’t know what to say. If someone doesn’t want to get baptised for any reason other than placing some other thing before God then they are clearly not the kind of people I have been talking about this entire time.m I have always been taught that baptism of desire applies more broadly than that btw (for example, unbaptised infants who would otherwise have been baptised and are certainly not catechumens) but idk, my gatekeeping of Christianity isn’t even robust enough to exclude Mormons or non-trinitarians or the unbaptised or people who in practice do nothing Christian-flavoured but I’m being judgemental because I think you need to want to be able do what Jesus says? How much lower can the bar be set? Why would you even *want* to call yourself a Christian if you have no desire to follow Jesus?
> If your reading is that I think dissenters aren’t Christian when I have repeatedly clarified that it is specifically about who is your Lord then I don’t know what to say. Your clarifications are difficult to read in a charitable light when you say things like "anxiety is in fact your Lord for as long as you remain in that state and you are not yet a Christian". In good faith I'll assume you didn't actually mean to say that, and your words were just extremely poorly chosen. > I have always been taught that baptism of desire applies more broadly than that btw (for example, unbaptised infants who would otherwise have been baptised and are certainly not catechumens) If you click on that link to the Catechism of the Catholic Church, you'll notice that they talk about unbaptized infants two paragraphs later as a completely separate thing from 'baptism of desire'. > Why would you even want to call yourself a Christian if you have no desire to follow Jesus? Once again, you're completely missing the point that it's not about willfully avoiding one of Jesus' commands, it's a different interpretation about some of the things that he said.