Of course I am confirming!
Just like you are confirming what I am saying, too.
You seem to be making it a negative: “not permitted”.
We don’t view it as such. We view it as being consonant with the Truth, Monergistic.
And it appears that you have the same paradigm in which you also understand that you are “not permitted” to proclaim that Jesus did not really rise from the dead.
You anathematize any Christian who says that Jesus didn’t literally rise from the dead, right?
Do I anathematize any Christian who says Jesus didn’t rise from the dead? I haven’t faced that situation personally, but I’m going to say maybe, it depends, probably but not necessarily. So far, the place I know of that I can look to is 1 Corinthians 15.
Verses 3-11 don’t show me an anathema (or “let him be accursed”), but they do show me something wonderful that I’d like for you to look at. See there in verse 3? “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received.” Do you know what this means? First importance! Come on, sista! That means it’s one of those Essentials that can be so tricky for some people! You already have an idea of what it means for you to read something from Scripture then categorize it, identify it, or say something about it apart from what is written there word for word. There are some other places in Scripture where a false teaching gets blasted and you conclude that it is being anathematized by apostolic authority, even if the word “anathema” or “accursed” is not necessarily used. Well, this is an example of the same paradigm being used in a more positive way- Gospel teaching, when identified as such and accompanied by the words “of first importance,” are frequently referred to as “essential teachings.” And beyond that, verses 12-19 give a series of counterfactuals that describe the importance (or the essential character) of the teaching that’s being described. “If Christ has not been raised, our preaching is in vain, your faith also is in vain…your faith is worthless, you are still in your sins.” Now, this is a counterfactual rather than a clear anathema, but I can see why any faithful Christian would anathematize teaching that matches what you have described.
However, I also hope you will see that before you describe this chapter in any other way, the most immediate, overt, and obvious conclusion is that essential teachings are being communicated, and they are being described very clearly as such. There is another conclusion to reach- that teaching in line with the counterfactuals is appropriately anathematized. And I am likely to agree with either of those conclusions. But again, I must remind you- words like “essential,” “anathema,” “accursed,” and “counterfactual” appear nowhere in the text. Nevertheless, we can reliably conclude with great certitude that essential teaching is conveyed, counterfactuals are being described, and if someone theoretically teaches that Christ is not raised (even if it’s strictly academic), then yes, because it opposes essential Gospel teaching “of first importance” and because of the severity of the counterfactuals, that person should probably be anathematized.
Getting back to baptism, though. Is that an essential teaching to those who believe it’s non-regenerative? Protestants vary a bit on this one. Most of them are ok with some things, but they have to draw a line somewhere. Long story short, though, mainline Protestants are more likely to see it as an essential while the rest of Protestantism treats it as a comparatively important non-essential. On the whole, compared to Catholics (re:the OP), baptism is seen as just a bit less important in every way that you could describe its importance. It’s not unimportant, but it’s a bit less important, and things like a common form or formula are not seen as major factors in Christian unity or brotherhood. It depends on exactly what the differences are, of course, but Protestants don’t place as much emphasis on it.
