CathInfo.com

Then he'd be a heretic.  Except that he's not.  NOBODY in the New Covenant can be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament of Baptism.  Even if you speculatively posit the existence of BoD, EVEN IN BOD the SACRAMENT remains the instrumental cause of justification operating through the desire for it.  Otherwise, you'd be a Pelagian who believes that the subjective desire of itself can be salvific ex opere operantis.

That's still imprecise.  He teaches that people can be saved without the in re reception of water Baptism, or without actually receiving the water of Baptism.  "water Baptism" is merely synonymous with the Sacrament of Baptism.

In any case, if BoDers would be a little more precise in their language, they could at least avoid giving the impression that they reject Catholic teaching that the Sacrament of Baptism is absolutely necessary for salvation by necessity of means.  When you use language like "without" or that people can be saved by a "substitute" for the Sacrament, that is scandalous and undermines Catholic dogma.  Post-Tridentine theologians were careful to state not that people can be saved WITHOUT the Sacrament but that they received the Sacrament in voto; they thought of it as a different mode of receiving the Sacrament.

If you formulated your belief in BoD this way, I would not bother arguing with you but would consider it little more than a polite disagreement regarding a matter of speculative theology.