This tape is a production of All Roads Ministry
The speaker is Vincent Lewis founder and president and founder of All Roads Ministry
Edited by Annunziato Tocci
This particular tape is called "Baptism of Desire", it is also known as "Geometric Theology" or "Axioms of the True Faith"
A bit of background may be of value here. This tape exists because a former supporter of mine invited me to give a talk that would "clear up this nonsense about Baptism of desire". In fact, he had not invited me to give a talk at all, as I had been led to believe, but simply to argue with his neighbor while he watched the show.
I had planned to record this talk live but, as you might imagine, this intention did not work out, and so you have this current form.
Although I certainly intended to clear up, that is destroy, the claims made by heretics for the effects of Baptism and desire, I also wanted to present the argument in what I hope is a somewhat distinctive way. This is to present it in the form of a geometric proof. This is my intention, it is for you to determine if I succeeded or not.
As you listen, please recall that I had expected to give this talk to an audience, at least some of whom would be highly opposed to the one true faith so this should explain at least some of the tone. I do not mean this to apply to you who do believe and accept the true faith and I assume you who are listening to me now are a member of the true faith.
I will record the talk as I wrote it because I feel that the approach and introduction are of value in and of themselves.
Ground rule: please listen to me, hearing is a physical act while listening is an act of will. This will most definitely make things better than, as so often done in similar circumstances, attributing this to me that I never said. So do me the courtesy of listening and please do not insult me by lying about what I say.
Please feel free to ask questions. Please feel free to object. However, understand that there is an essential difference between an objection which means that you disagree with what I say and a question which is asked for clarification on what I am saying.
In fact I may ask you questions about your questions or objections in order to clarify. However, realize that a question is a request for a help and in charity cannot be refused. Also realize that an objection is a denial of Truth and an attack against God and deserves to be rebuked and denounced as such. Objections are not requests for help but evil acts.
Thus I shall attempt to treat questions in a completely different manner than I shall respond to objections.
Another ground rule is this: slander, backbiting, and gossip are not acceptable and lead to damnation.
If you have any problem with anything I say you are obligated to bring it up now, or maybe later, however it must be with me in a direct confrontation. In other words if you are not willing to test yourself against me in a head to head contest, then you admit that you cannot sustain your objection and what I say is true.
Keep in mind I shall not be evasive or ambiguous in my positions. Thus if I am wrong, then you obligated in charity and justice to rebuke me. If I am right then you are obligated in Truth and faith to accept my statements. There is no possibility for a third alternative for a Christian.
I offer another ground rule which applies to all of us: do not use any word which you cannot define. I will ask for definitions. Do not worry, I will not ask to define every word. Do worry, that I will ask you to define every key term. If you do not know what you are talking about, then don't talk about it. In such circumstances ask questions, but don't object nor offer instruction or information.
I place the following general restrictions upon myself but not upon you the listener: When I offer something as true, I shall in general base its supports on the bible and right reason. I state this only so that it will be easier for you to understand and accept what I am saying. As no church teaching can ever conflict with another church teaching, and as church teaching is consistent with both right reason and the bible, establishing the Truth of any position from any of these supports is sufficient to establish it period.
I suppose I should make it clear that I am in general dealing with the person who appears to have average intelligence and a functioning will. I can deal with the retarded, but unless I specifically state otherwise I am not speaking about them. I mean that the subject matter of this talk, the people to whom I refer are the normal type of person.
As this entire issue Baptism and of desire involves the concept of "invincible ignorance" let me define the term. The term means "the status or condition of a person who because of some human conditions (culture, history, location, environment, etc) is unable to come to a conclusion as to what religious facts are and or where the one true church is.รข This term has a meaning, it is not a nonsense term. This is not to say that is a true term. A two headed piano playing pig is a term which conveys a meaning, however it has no existence in reality. A pig-fish has no meaning, it is simply the joining of two words and it is nonsense.
Terms which consist of words which describe something that can be understood make sense. Terms which describe something which cannot be understood are nonsense. Not everything which makes sense is true. One could describe Bill Clinton as moral, this conveys a meaning, but it has no reflection in the real world.
Geometry is that branch of mathematics in which logical conclusions are drawn and validated by logical procedures. These procedures begin with Axioms. I intend to do the same thing.
An Axiom is a statement whose Truth value becomes self-evidently true as soon as it is stated in clear language. Axioms cannot be proven but nor can they be denied. Potentional Axioms can be tested by finding an exception. This means that if an exception is found then it is not an Axiom.
Axioms are universally true. In this talk I shall offer a bunch of axioms of the faith. I offer them as Axioms and I strongly suggest that if any one of you object to any one of them, then raise your objection as soon as I state the Axiom. Again, an Axiom cannot be proven but it can be justified and explained.
Once I offer my position I shall justify it most likely by simply restating the Axiom. Thus, if you accept in the beginning an Axiom then you cannot later object when I advance something as totally completely dependent on the Axiom. What I am asking the listener to do is to be forthright in the seeking of Truth, and then accept of the consequences of any proven Truth. This is why I present the Axioms first.
If I were to present the end position first, then your own prejudices would blind you to the Truth. As one of my purposes is to establish that resistance to the Truth is always sinful prejudice, my talks serves two purposes.
The first is purpose is inductive, individual and particular. This is to establish the Axioms of the proof of my position. The second purpose is to provide a criterion by which such matters may be examined. The second purpose is deductive general and abstract.
In other words by showing how to do this thing, I give a method by which prejudices may be both bypassed and exposed.
Let me elaborate on this a bit. In this talk a prejudice is the unjustifiable rejection of a person or position after and not until identification. He who hates the black Man will accept a Man if he be virtuous if he is described without reference to race. Once race is introduced the rejection takes place, the guards go up, and the criterion of judgement changes as the judgement takes place.
Prejudice overwhelms all criteria once the key factor becomes known. Thus I shall not identify my end position in advance. I shall simply present the supports for my position and then present the position. Then I will use the previously accepted Axioms as the proofs.
If you accept Axiom #1 before you know where it is leading then you accept Axiom #1 as being true. If you then reject Axiom #1 once you understand what it supports then you are nothing but a bigot. I correct myself you are more than a bigot you are a self-contradicting evil fraud. So I repeat my caution: if I hear silence when I state an Axiom then I will assume that you have given complete assent to it. You are allowed to object or to ask for explanations but as they say at the wedding ceremonies, speak now or forever hold your peace.
With this in mind let me present the Axioms. As I do let me state that the order of the Axioms implies nothing, there is no order or priority to the order of presentation individual Axioms.
Axiom #1: Use of the second best is acceptable only when the first best is not available. In such an instance the second best will become the best.
By definition if you are trying to achieve some result then the right thing, the prudent thing, the righteous thing, is to employ the best means available. This axiom is embodied in the old proverb "anything worth doing is worth doing well". If something is worth doing, then it should be done in the best way possible. Any other way is a form of cheating.
Axiom #2: If a tree falls in the forest and there is no one there to hear it, a tree still falls.
I am being cute here but listen to my point. What this means is that reality is not dependent, in any way whatsoever, upon observation by human beings. In other words, if we know about something or not, then this knowledge does not change the thing itself. Whether this thing be a concept, a value, an event, et cetera. I freely admit that the perception by Man of a thing is an essentially different thing than the thing itself. I freely admit that the perception of an event is a different event from the perceived event. However, I am not concerned with this. I simply state this: whether you go into the ocean or not does not matter with regard to the existence of the ocean. In philosophical terms I am denying Solipsism. Solipsism is that perversion which holds that only what I see, hear, feel, etc. exists. That is to say nothing beyond my own experience is real. I warn you that this Axiom presentation approach is a trap. Accept these axioms and you will not be able with any degree of integrity to deny the conclusions so be warned, be on guard and object whenever you can.
Axiom #3: God can do what God can do.
To put it otherwise God is omnipotent. God can do whatever is not a self-contradiction. A self-contradiction would be anything sinful. A very simple example would be that God cannot commit suicide, nor can God lead Man into evil. God is the source of all good. Let me deal with a corollary to this. What God wills to happen, will happen. By this I refer to God's causative will, I contrast this with God's permissive will. By this I mean that as God has given Man free will, Man may sin. God does not will Man to sin, he wills Man to have the ability to choose between sin and virtue. However God does cause the sun to rise, the plants to grow. God did cause the Red Sea to part and did cause the walls of Jericho to fall. God does cause sins to be forgiven via the Sacraments. God caused the Incarnation. All of this and everything God does is done by the will of God. What this Axiom also means is that God is not limited by any limitations other than that imposed by his own divine nature. God is not limited by time, location, geography, etc. It is stated that nothing is impossible for God, I wish to rephrase this. Nothing which is possible for God can be difficult to God. The concept of difficulty simply cannot be applied to God's activity. Let me now add another corollary to this Axiom. What God has done, God can do. In other words, once it has been established that God has done X, no one can argue that God cannot or will not do X.
Axiom #4: Because a thing is written in a book or testified to by men does not make it true.
In other words:
To digress for a moment, during a debate with a trio of idiot lying heretical "Catholics", and me, one of my opponents in order to refute me on a key point actually stated that because an opinion is printed many times this causes it to be true. I point out that some of you may actually have this same position. So I warn you now, do not accept the Axiom now and try to resurrect the opposite later. Once again the Truth value of a statement is completely independent of it being written in a book. Lies may be written as easily as truths. Lies may be recorded as easily as truths. Lies may have as many adherents as truths. In fact history and common experience tells us that lies have more adherents than truths. (Editor's note: in this day and age, lies are written by far more often than truths)
Axiom #5: Different things can be referred to by the same word and the same thing can have more than one name.
In other words, words sometimes can mean exactly what the first most common meaning means, but sometimes precise distinctions are necessary. I hope that this Axiom is so self-evident that I need no illustration, but if I do, let me illustrate it with the word "saved". This could mean the state of prevention from destruction or set aside for future use. You save people from a fire yet you save part of your salary. The exact same word has two different meanings both are valid. The word Church has about seven valid meanings all of them related and all of them quite different. Thus sometimes a word in order to prevent confusion requires modifiers. But again, as with the mentioned Axiom before, simply naming something by the same name as something else does not make it the same. Declaring something to be equal to something else does not make it so. Language does not always reflect reality.
Axiom #6: God is the creator of all human life.
In other words, the pro-life position is the valid one. No one comes into existence by "accident". Human life begins at conception and only when God infuses an individual and unique human soul into human cells. I repeat: it takes an individual, discreet and unique act of God's will to cause human life to start.
Axiom #7: Man is obligated to do good and avoid evil.
This of necessity implies that Man is obligated to seek and determine what Truth is. As virtue is one of the end goals of Man's life, and as virtue cannot be exercised unless it is based on Truth, then no Man can exist as Man (that is, a creature of body and soul) without this Truth. Man needs to know Truth to live as a Man.
Axiom #8: Whatever God does or decrees is by definition just and right.
As God exists on a different plane of existence from Man, it is not necessary that Man see what God does for it to be just. In other words Man does not judge God, but is obligated to accept the rule the decisions of God as right in se.
Axiom #9: All Men are sinners.
The last of us who was not was assumed into Heaven some time ago. As all Men may induce sin, and as both lying and teaching believing heresy are sins, Men may, can, and do lie and teach and adhere to heresy. thus, The fact that some Men may advance the Baptism of desire position in itself means nothing. No matter who that Man is, no matter how many Men advance this position.
Let me now introduce some Theorems. By Theorem I mean a statement of reality which is not necessarily self-evident, but can be understood in terms of Axioms. Again the order of the theorems does not imply any importance.
Theorem #1: The Bible records historical events and moral principles.
In other words if the bible records that X happened, then X happened. If the bible records that Y is a good thing, then Y is in accord with God's will for Man. As God is good and all powerful, and as the bible comes from God as a guide, then it contains Truth. If it did not, then Men of good will would be placing their trust in a thing which is not worthy of that trust. God does not trick nor betray Man.
Theorem #2: Although God cannot and will not withhold any good thing if Man asks for it, God does not force good upon Man.
What this means is that God does not throw his pearls before swine. There is some aspect of us being deserving of the grace of God, this is not to say that we earn our salvation or buy grace. Again, God stops where Man's free will begins.
Theorem #3: If Man is obligated to do anything, then he is obligated to know the Truth.
Thus if Man is more than an animal, that is if he have any moral aspect such as feeding his children then he is obligated to determine in Truth what is food and what is poison. If Man is obligated to be just and or charitable then his must know, in Truth, who deserves justice and or charity. No virtue can be exercised without Truth. We all know and accept the old maxim that ignorance of the law is no excuse, nor is the fact that the driver did not see the red light an excuse for legal immunity from his actions.
Theorem #4: Based upon the biblical teaching, he who seeks, finds, he who asks, has it given to him, etc.
Man will discover God's Truth if he asks for the Truth. And as he is human, he is obligated to ask for God's Truth in order to fulfil his end as Man. Recall that God is not limited by human restrictions.
A Principle is a statement which is true under all applicable circumstances. I shall now offer a few principles, unlike axioms principles are not necessarily self-evident.
Principle #1: Salvation is not earned by Man, it is not by works of Man. Salvation is a gift.
Let me generalize concerning this matter. There are only three ways to obtain something, they are:
As I am dealing with salvation and obtaining it from God I shall ignore the possibility of taking, for it is impossible to take anything from God. Let me deal with earning for a moment. Earning means that you enter into a binding contract with another person in which you do something, and in reaction the other party does something else. The key point about earning is that your action creates a right to which you can appeal if denied the end result. In other words if you do not get what you expect then, 1: you can so to speak sue and 2: you can appeal to some superior authority or power to enforce your right. In other words if you do get what you are owed, then you have been subjected to some form of an injustice. I trust that it is obvious that none of this applies to God. What God says is just, what God says cannot be appealed to or from. There is no other court other than or higher to the final word of God. So by definition as well as by process of elimination, the only way to get something from God is by reception of a gift from God. So let me emphasize this, salvation is a gift from God. Anything which implies anything else is and must be false and blasphemous.
Principle #2: a Sacrament is an outward sign instituted by our Lord. (Editor's note: the full definition is "an outward sign of an inward grace, that was instituted by our Lord". This isn't entirely necessary for the point that Vin is making, but I felt it's inclusion to be relevant.)
An outward sign means that one can see it, that an act happened, something is done, a change occurs, the witnesses could testify to a physical activity as going on. Sacraments certainly have a spiritual, that is unseen aspect, however Sacraments have matter and form. Sacraments also function of themselves. In other words if the conditions are met the effect occurs. This is because it is not the person who causes the effect, that is to say the minister, it is God who uses the instrumentality of the human. It is not the Priest who forgives sins, it is God. An essential distinction, Baptism of desire is a term which has meaning, the question is not what it means so much as it what does it effect. that is, what does it cause.
Let me give a definition. Baptism of desire is what a person undergoes if he desires to come into the Church, but does not know what or where the Church is. The formulation includes this: if he knew about the church, then he would join. In other words, he is waiting for the opportunity and would seize it when it is presented to him. An absolute key point is that this is the precise opposite of the desire for Baptism. A person who desires Baptism is he who knows that the Church is and wants to be made a formal member of her. Ce has complete identification. The person who is involved in Baptism of desire has absolutely no concept of identification. Desire for Baptism completely annihilates Baptism of desire. The two can never exist within the same person. Thus whenever a position is presented which deals with the desire for Baptism one thing about which we can be absolutely certain is that this could never be the same person who is involved with the Baptism of desire. This is essential for you to understand for frequently these two completely mutually exclusive terms are used as if they were interchangeable.
A Tautology is a statement of equality. Sometimes it is described as a needless repetition. Another way to look at it is that a Tautology is a statement which adds nothing beyond identification of the thing under discussion.
Let me illustrate: 2 + 2 = 4. This is a mathematical Tautology.
Now add something else which actually adds nothing:
2 in Nigeria + 2 on Tuesday in Nigeria = 4 on Tuesdays in August in Nigeria
So much for the illustration, now let me point out the following: whatever is universal to the nature of Man is universal to all Men. Whatever is universal to all Men after the cross is universal to all Men is universal to all Men who live after the cross no matter where they live or when or how. So if we are talking about Men, then it does not matter if they are red haired, old, tall, rich, or anything else. As these characteristics are only descriptive and not alien to Man's nature, no matter what characteristics are varied or added, nothing of the original statement is changed.
A Tautology is invalidated if and only if something is introduced which is alien to the nature of Man. For example, Men need oxygen to live. If we add Chinese men need oxygen to live, then nothing is changed. We have only added a characteristic. If we now say that Eskimo men do not need oxygen to live, then now we no longer have a Tautology, we have an invalid statement. Much of the confusion concerning the issue of Baptism of desire occurs because of its "advocates" present improper statement as Tautologies or they ignore the fact that frequently statements are merely Tautologies. Again Tautologies do not develop an argument but merely restate it.
Let me now deal with negative Tautologies. Simply negating something does not necessarily imply the opposite. For example men need oxygen to live, dogs are not men, and thus dogs do not need oxygen to live. This is of course false. All we can say with validity is that dogs are not men. Thus it is very important to keep in mind that when dealing with X, and the characteristics of X, we do not mean that any statement can be made about the negation of X.
Here's the core of the matter of Baptism of desire:
The second point means that it denies reality.
Let me detail the reason why Baptism of desire cannot be considered a Sacrament or considered as a substitute for Baptism. The criterion of judgement is one given by our Lord himself, namely it is that you may judge a thing by its fruits. If a thing, a judgement, a belief necessarily leads to evil, then it must be evil in se. An evil tree produces evil fruit. It is evil to make and pronounce an improper judgement as this is both unjust and untruthful. It is an improper judgement to hold that an evil thing, or a morally indifferent thing is better than a good thing. I will repeat this: it is evil to make and pronounce an improper judgement as this is both unjust and untruthful. It is an improper judgement to hold that an evil thing, or a morally indifferent thing is better than a good thing.
The advocacy of Baptism of desire as equal to Baptism is an improper judgement. This is so because it holds that ignorance, which is at best a morally neutral thing, is better than a morally good thing, or perhaps equal to it. The morally good thing is adherence to the once true faith. The Baptism of desire advocate must hold that he who rejects or is ignorant of the Assumption is as good a person as he who affirms it. The advocate must hold thus that evil is equal to if not actually superior to good. This is in itself evil and thus the fruit is evil. And as the fruit is evil the tree must be evil or our Lord is a liar.
Let me point out another evil aspect to the Baptism of desire advocacy position, it may be reduced to something like this: if a Man is good, then he will ultimately find his way to Heaven. The proper way to express this situation is this: if a Man is good enough, then God will find him. The first position, the Baptism of desire position, must advance a salvation by works position. Man wishes, Man thinks, Man concludes, Man lives in a certain naturally good way and presto, like magic, he gets to Heaven. Where is the activity of God? Nowhere. Where is the intervention by God, to transform by some intrinsically divine action a Man into the son of God? Nowhere. If Man could achieve salvation by simply living well, then why the Incarnation? Why the Cross? Why the blood and the agony in the garden? If Man could live good lives in ignorance before the Cross as well as after, why was the word made flesh? Why would the word dwell among us? The Baptism of desire advocate cannot answer this question. I correct myself, the advocate can answer this question however he can only answer it by saying that the Incarnation was quite literally to no purpose whatsoever. Our Lord might not be a liar in the advocates view, but he must've been a fool to shed his blood for no purpose whatsoever. Again any tree which produces such fruit needs to be cut down and through into the fire before the fruit poisons anyone who would eat it.
Let me deal with this invincible ignorance nonsense.
What is this ignorance "invincible" against? It is invincible against, that is to say stronger than, the knowledge which comes from God. Invincible is a word with meaning only within the context of a conflict. And ignorance can conflict only with knowledge, it's direct opposite. Thus the conclusion is as follows: something Man has, is stronger than something which comes from God. Of course there is something which can successfully oppose God but it is sin. Good cooperates with God's grace. So if the guy is good and invincibly ignorant then he cannot remain this way for long as he will cooperate with God. And if he is not good then he goes to Hell, because this is where all bad people go. So there you are, the only two categories into which people can fall, and the situation is solved. Always keep in mind it does not matter one bit what ones religion was when he is in hell.
Let me prove that the invincibly ignorant good person will receive God's grace and become knowledgeable. Let us suppose a Man of good will does not know some fact of Catholicism and would thus commit a sin by taking a position contrary to Catholic truths. We could all imagine someone like this can we not? What would God do? God would force this Man to learn the Truth, lest he commit a sin. Before I commented that God does not force Man, in this case such an action would not be force, as the Man is of good will, who would want God to stop him from sinning. Does this sound hypothetical to you? It is not, it is history. Or have you never heard of Saint Joseph, who did not know of the virgin birth and was about to divorce the Blessed Mother? And God forced Truth upon him by a dream. And what God can do, God can do again. It is an Axiom. I wrote something in my publication the ARMament concerning this. The evil side is compelled by the nature of evil itself to expose itself as evil by selecting words which cannot be true. The term invincibly ignorant is blasphemous, evil, and self-contradictory. It not only speaks for itself but it also destroys itself. God makes it easy for us to see which side must be right and which side must be wrong. A house divided against itself cannot stand. A fatal separation.
I was thinking about Protestantism the other day, and I concluded that one of the more evil aspects of it is the concept of separation. It separates words from meaning. For example, they call Jesus: Lord and then separate the word Lord from any meaning or power or authority. The word becomes nothing more than a sound. Tt carries no information. He who uses language this way commits a most unnatural act against Man's nature, for it is our nature to communicate by means of words. Make the words meaningless and one reduces Man to a level below that of a dog. At least a dogs barking has some meaning, even if the dog cannot talk. But notice the concept of separation which is necessary for anyone who advocates Baptism of desire as equal to Baptism. One must separate the most important thing in Man's life from the most important being in existence. Quite literally God has no relation to Man's salvation. Man not only saves himself by his own works and desires and his own values but also there is no place for God except as an indifferent spectator. Follow the logic. If God really cared about these invincibly ignorant, self-baptized by their own wishes types, then God would get involved and God would have to get involved on his terms and with his own Truth. So he would get involved and teach and guide and inspire and the ignorant would be ignorant no longer. But obviously God does not get involved according to the Baptism of desire advocate. So salvation is a Man-made thing and God does not care enough or does not know enough or does not possess enough power to do anything to add a divine aspect to Man's salvation. I realize that this sounds stupid because it is. I realize that this sounds blasphemous because it is. I realize that this sounds contradictory because it is. But simply because I realize it, do you? If you do not understand it then you are damned. It is a serious sin to deny the existence of God, and to accept this Baptism of desire view is to deny the existence of God, for to deny a necessary aspect of God is to deny the existence of God. And to hold that God cannot or will not get involved is to deny God's existence. It is really this simple. It is all a matter of who is the Supreme Being. If anything of Man, other than his free will can defeat God, then Man is supreme and God is not. If Man's ignorance defeats God's will to bring Man to salvation by God's direct means, then Man not God is supreme.
Please always keep in mind that Baptism of desire supposedly applies to a Man of good will. The Man who "receives" Baptism of desire is of good will. So this is exactly to whom it applies. Will the Man of good will not ask God "show me thy ways O God"? I answer my own question, a Man of good will, will do this. It is a working definition of a Man of good will. If a Man does not ask this then he is not good, in fact he is a type of atheist. If he does ask for it, then he will receive the grace to identify the one true faith. The Man of bad will is he who says "do not show me thy ways". The Man of bad will is damned whether he has Baptism of desire or not. So let me deal with this alleged Man of good will. He has asked the all-powerful God for Truth and has received it. He has been given the grace to identify the Catholic Church as the one true church. And once he identifies her, can he, if he be a Man of good will, remain outside her? The answer obviously is no. So then he will seek formal entry and be if necessary sacramentally baptized, now he has real Baptism. So he has no need of Baptism of desire. For a lesser is never to be used in the place of the better.
Again follow the geometric proof. A Man of good will, will ask from God what God cannot refuse to give. Then a Man of good will, will act on this and become a formal Catholic.
What happens if this good Man dies before he gets himself baptized? Surely he would have, if he had lived long enough, done so. This is what Baptism of desire means. So surely this type of person will go to Heaven according to the advocates of Baptism of Desire. In this case Baptism of desire will substitute for sacramental Baptism. But consider this situation as it really is. The Man was created by God, and God saw exactly the choices the Man would make and when he would die. Unless God is incapable of bringing Truth to the Man, and God is able to do this, then there is only one way the Man can die without Truth, and this is that the Man rejects the opportunity given to him. God can do what is necessary in the time the Man has to live. After all, this is God we are talking about. Again look at the alternative. The Man dies and God cannot prevent it? This is blasphemous nonsense. Another alternative is that the Man is created solely for the purpose of being sent to hell. This is blasphemous nonsense and Protestantism. Or, to continue alternatives, he gets into Heaven without knowing or affirming the elements of the true faith. In this case there are two ways to Heaven, by knowledge and by ignorance. But the problem with this is that if a knowing believer denies even one dogma of the faith, let us say on his death bed after a perfect life, he goes to hell. This is the risk of the way of knowledge. The invincibly ignorant can get into Heaven while denying, because according to the Baptism of desire advocates he knows no better, all of the dogmas. Thus the way of knowledge has terrible risks that the way of ignorance does not. So according to the Baptism of desire advocates by geometric proof, knowledge of the faith if then rejected will lead to hell, while on the other hand lack of knowledge of the faith will lead to Heaven by default. In other words, according to the Baptism of desire advocate, the faith is a dangerous thing which can damn, while lack of it causes no harm. In fact it removes one of the things that will send you to hell. This means that the faith is evil or at least less good than no faith. This again is blasphemous nonsense, it cannot be true.
Examine again the alternatives, the Man who needs or could use Baptism of desire can only be of two types. The first is he who has some kind of religion, but not the true one. The second is he who has no kind of religion.
The first kind says wrong things, bad things, blasphemous things about God. He believes untruths and affirms untruths as true. If the God he accepts is good at all, then he will pray in sincerity and ask for Truth and the one true God will give him Truth and he will leave the false religion. And as he will not die before he has the opportunity to enter the church, he will not need Baptism of desire, he will have the real thing. Of course if he does not leave the false and enter the true faith, then he will go to hell. He may have received Baptism of desire, but he will be damned despite it. So what good is it? It does not matter what kind of Baptism a Man has received if he is in hell.
The second kind says that God does not exist. This is the atheist. The atheist is he who willingly lives his life in mortal sin. If he does not ask God for the Truth, then he will die in his sin and be damned. So Baptism of desire will not do him any good. If he does ask God for the Truth, then he will get it. If he then rejects it, then he commits another mortal sin which will damn him unless he repents which means coming into the church. So Baptism of desire cannot help him either.
What good is a Baptism which cannot help a Man to salvation? As these are the only alternatives for candidates for Baptism of desire and as they will end up in hell unless they enter the church, then the conclusion is obvious and inevitable. Baptism of desire can save no one. Nor can anyone be saved outside of formal membership of the church.
Let me as a reminder and as a summary go back over the Axioms which I mentioned before and try to make them relevant and supportive of the inevitable conclusion.
The first Axiom is that the second best cannot be used as a valid or equal substitute for the first best. As God can bring about the sacramental Baptism of Man (this according to another Axiom, what God has done, he can do again), and it having been brought about millions of times, can be brought about again for anyone anywhere. Recall another Axiom, God is not limited by geography. Allow me to use a paraphrasing of our Lord when he healed the paralytic. What is more difficult for God to do, create the universe from nothing, part the red sea, raise the dead, flood the entire world, or make it possible that anyone who wants Baptism will have another person near him willing to administer the Sacrament? To ask the question is to answer it, nothing is impossible for God as we properly understand nothing. And what is possible cannot be difficult.
Let me mention another Axiom: because we do not see, hear of, notice, or read about in books about the Baptisms of people in faraway lands does not mean that it does not occur. Whether we hear the tree fall or not it still falls. We are never to limit God by our perception or the knowledge we obtain by experience or scholarship. This is one reason why faith exists: to fill the gaps which knowledge cannot fill. To answer the questions which the unaided mind of Man cannot. Again, using Axiom #5, Baptism of desire is not Baptism which is a Sacrament involving water and words. No matter how often this term is spoken or written it does not become Baptism. For us men our words do not create reality. Regardless of what a Man is, he has no power nor authority to change reality simply by his own word or will. The only changes (such as when a Priest "marries" two people) which do occur, occur because God is causing the change and using his instruments to bring that change about. Axiom #6 reminds us that God created each Man individually and knows what his life will be. Thus as God has a plan by which all Men may come to a knowledge of the Truth, all Men have a possibility of Baptism. This God has told us. And one thing which God cannot do is deceive us. Axiom #8 reminds us that Man has an obligation to seek good, which means to seek the Truth, which means to seek Catholicism, and as we are assured by God, he who seeks finds, he who asks has it given to him. Thus he who seeks salvation will be given Baptism no matter how improbable that may seem to us.
I believe and hope I have made the case so that anyone will accept the position that Baptism of desire cannot be considered a valid substitute for Sacramental Baptism.
Thank you for reading, God Bless.