Talk:Baptism of desire

message: This article's AFD debate got consensus to keep the article. Johnleemk | Talk 12:57, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Failed AFD

message: This article needs a history Section. I believe Thomas Aquinas invented the expression "Baptism of Desire" but that the concept goes back to the Fathers.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.16.146.33 (talk) 16:05, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Cut-and-paste was bad -- but it would be better under that title, if moved properly.  It is usually called "baptism of desire"  Goldfritha 23:12, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: About the move

message: Baptism by desire → Baptism of desire — "Baptism of desire" is by far the more common term. A Google search gives us 23,700 hits for "baptism of desire", but only 599 for "baptism by desire", and many of those are due to the Wikipedia article. User:207.112.27.29 16:30, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested move 

message: Is the last paragraph really appropriate to this entry? It seems more like a justification for that particular belief than part of an encyclopedic entry.
:By "support" do you mean your desire to remove it or the paragraph itself?  Goldfritha 04:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing I don't like about the last paragraph is that it appears to miss the point of the whole article.
 "salvation, which comes from faith alone and is not contingent upon
 any ritual or form of words. They point to passages such as Acts 10:44-48"
As I understand, those passages in Acts are the main justification for Baptism of Desire, and as we can see from the article, Baptism of Desire clearly is an act of faith rather than ceremony. So it follows that there is no conflict.
A few years ago the Catholics & Lutherans issued a statement that the 400 year old faith v. deeds argument was resolved. In effect it was a big misunderstanding & we all believed the same thing all along!
& to Christians who say we should all have a personal experience of Christ to be a Christian I have to ask then why do we evangelise? Why not just sit back, relax & wait for Christ to make his personal visit to everyone who is gong to be a Christian? Rcol 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Last Paragraph 

message: Add any additional comments:
:The thing I don't like about the last paragraph is that it appears to miss the point of the whole article.
 "salvation, which comes from faith alone and is not contingent upon
 any ritual or form of words. They point to passages such as Acts 10:44-48"
As I understand, those passages in Acts are the main justification for Baptism of Desire, and as we can see from the article, Baptism of Desire clearly is an act of faith rather than ceremony. So it follows that there is no conflict.
A few years ago the Catholics & Lutherans issued a statement that the 400 year old faith v. deeds argument was resolved. In effect it was a big misunderstanding & we all believed the same thing all along!
& to Christians who say we should all have a personal experience of Christ to be a Christian I have to ask then why do we evangelise? Why not just sit back, relax & wait for Christ to make his personal visit to everyone who is gong to be a Christian? Rcol 23:59, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: :Baptism of blood is clearly different from baptism of desire. Only Catholics, as far as I know, tend to merge both together and make baptism of blood a form of baptism of desire.
While almost all Christian denominations accept baptism of blood, most do not accept baptism of desire.
In its most general understanding, baptism of desire means any person who desires baptism can acquire the justification normally obtained through baptism simply by this desire. Often, baptism of desire will be considered as having been received somehow (it is unclear how) if a person dies. For example, a catechumen who get ran over by a bus or dies naturally before being baptised can be considered as being justified. Some will say this baptism of desire even extends beyong explicit desire, i.e. people who have never heard of Christianity or baptism can receive the baptism of desire because they implicitly desire baptism. As a sidenote, there are other views of what baptism of desire is, e.g. this book with a 1996 imprimatur and a 2002 nihil obstat states a form of baptism of desire is the desire parents have to baptise their child while the child is still an embryo or fetus.
Most denominations do not accept baptism of desire. They will usually say, from discussions I have had, that God will save you from the bus running over you or will extend your life until you get baptised; or they will say they believe anyone can leave hell if enough prayers are given, or that they believe in the :apocatastasis.
Some will profess a form of :Feeneyism by rejecting both baptism of desire and of blood. Veverve (talk) 08:15, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It may not be clear, so I add this: I posted this explanation here, because before I split the two topics into two different articles the topics were confused. Veverve (talk) 02:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baptism of desire ≠ baptism of blood