“On what planet?”
Yours.
“A person can be saved without being baptized, but nobody ever said that baptism is *false*.”
You do, in your next sentence.
Besides, you can’t rebut the observed phenomenon with one cherry-picked instance.
You do, in your next sentence.
Have you been sniffing the incense? Open a window and get some air!
She posted
“A person can be saved without being baptized, but nobody ever said that baptism is *false*.
“The teaching that baptism is required is a false teaching, however.”
She isn't saying “baptism is false.” She's saying baptism is not a requirement for salvation nor can one be saved by baptism alone.
If an atheist came to a catholic church, claimed to convert, went through the catechism and rituals but did not believe...would they be saved?