Did Scott Adams "Convert To Christianity"?

🚨NEW: @ScottAdamsSays announces he’ll convert to Christianity in his final days🙏✝️@DailyCaller pic.twitter.com/1uprnQJDxa

— Jason Cohen 🇺🇸 (@JasonJournoDC) January 4, 2026

I think the reaction to Scott Adams's announcement on his January 4 podcast that he'd "convert to Christianity" in his final days is obtuse at best. Even EWTN seems to have it wrong:

Adams’ post quickly went viral, drawing over 37 million views and sparking an outpouring of prayer and reflection.

Elon Musk reposted Adams’ statement with the caption:

“Respect. No one leaves this life undefeated, but leaving it with faith is victory.”

Christian commentator Allie Beth Stuckey wrote,

“The most important thing he ever wrote.”

And evangelist Franklin Graham shared Adams’ message with a touching reminder:

“It’s never too late to turn to Jesus.”

Though known for his sharp wit and cultural commentary, Scott Adams’ last public act wasn’t satire—it was surrender. His decision to call on Jesus before drawing his final breath shows that God’s grace often finds us in unexpected moments.

As someone who adhered to conventional Christian principles, raised Presbyterian, converted to Episcopalian and then Roman Catholic, for much of my life, the one thing that neither Adams nor anyone else mentions is baptism. Back in the day, it was generally thought that if you converted to Christianity as an adult, you got baptized, although if you'd been baptized as an infant but had fallen away, it was still valid; you're returning to the faith, not converting to it. Adams doesn't mention baptism at all, which strikes me as a problem.

I asked Chrome AI mode, "Do organized Christian denominations generally treat baptism as the authentic sign of conversion?" (I'm discovering that in many areas, AI is as effective and easier to access than a good reference librarian.) In this case, it answered,

Organized Christian denominations vary significantly in how they treat baptism in relation to conversion. While almost all major traditions view it as a foundational initiation rite, they differ on whether it is the means of conversion or merely a sign of it.

Sacramental (Catholic, Orthodox, Lutheran, Anglican): These traditions view baptism as a sacrament that effectively regenerates the person. In these cases, especially with infant baptism, the ritual itself is seen as the entry into the Christian life and the means by which original sin is cleansed, rather than just a sign of a prior conversion.

Credobaptist (Baptist, Pentecostal, Evangelical): These groups view baptism as an ordinance and an "outward sign of an inward change". In this view, baptism is the authentic sign that a conscious, personal conversion has already occurred through faith alone.

Symbolic/Spiritual (Quakers, Salvation Army): Some organized groups do not practice water baptism at all, viewing "baptism in the Spirit" as the only essential spiritual reality of conversion.

While Roman Catholics, Episcopalians, Orthodox, and Lutherans are more explicit about requiring a period of catechesis before baptism, Chrome AI mode told me,

[M]ost mainline Protestant denominations typically require or strongly recommend that adult initiates undergo a period of instruction or "catechesis" before baptism. While specific practices vary by congregation, the general goal is to ensure the candidate understands the theological significance of the rite and the commitments they are making.

The resulting profession of faith usually includes a statement of adherence to one of the two major creeds. Adams, in his Januatry 1 statement, says only this:

Next, many of my Christian friends have asked me to find Jesus before I go. I'm not a believer, but I have to admit the risk-reward calculation for doing so looks attractive. So, here I go:

I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior, and I look forward to spending an eternity with him.

Adams seems to think that saying these particular words will get him into heaven, and if this happens, his "Christian" friends will be right. I asked Chrome AI mode, "Would either a Roman Catholic or main line protestant pastor say it is enough just to say 'I accept Jesus Christ as my lord and savior' to go to heaven?" Oddly, it didn't answer directly, and it simply gave me a list of unhelpful links. In fact, further searching suggests nobody is willing to give a direct answet to that question, so we might almost say Adams is going to test it experimentally. If he wakes up in heaven, he'll know. I say good luck with that.

The closest historical parallel is the Roman Emperor Constantine, who was baptized on his deathbed in the apparent belief that the sacrament would leave him in a state of grace, while his enfeebled condition and his limited remaining time in this world would assure that he wouldn't be able to sin and deny himself entry into heaven. Again, my answer would be good luck with that -- but at least he saw the necessity of baptism. The Roman Catholic Church doesn't consider him to be a saint, which is another way of saying that it can't vouch that he went to heaven, in part due to the deathbed baptism issue. John Nolte, who writes for alt media Breitbart News, recognized the problem more specifically from a Catholic point of view:

I do hope that Adams will add baptism, last rites, and confession to his conversion. My beliefs say those are vital, and there’s no downside to crossing those Ts and dotting those Is.

But as we've seen above, under normal circumstances, no responsible Catholic or protestant pastor will baptize anyone without some type of catechesis lasting a period of months. In cases of impendiing battle, disaster, or other danger of death, in Catholicism, even a layman can perform the sacrament. The problem for Adams is that he announced his terminal diagnosis back in May, when he had plenty of time to prepare. A Baptist theologian goes into more depth over this:

To some, the prospect of anyone converting to Christianity (even at an unspecified future date) should be celebrated. Scripture declares that the angels rejoice in heaven over each sinner who repents (Luke 15:10). But even though only God can judge a person’s heart, much of what Adams shared in his public proclamation is at odds with biblical truth.

Adams’s position is essentially a rendering of the famous philosophical argument known as “Pascal’s Wager,” which was developed by French theologian and apologist Blaise Pascal. The crux of the argument is that you have more to gain and less to lose by “wagering” on God’s existence. In short, it is better to live as though God exists and then discover he doesn’t then to live as though God doesn’t exist and then discover too late that he does. Therefore, the most prudent choice is to believe.

Unfortunately, like many others who have come before him, Adams appears to misunderstand the intention behind the famous argument. The Wager was not intended to provide a purely rational contingency plan to escape hell and enjoy paradise instead. The Wager represents the start rather than the end of the spiritual journey. Pascal used logic to motivate skeptics to take the question of God’s existence seriously, a decision he hoped would ultimately lead to an encounter with God. Thus, “Pascal’s Wager” is an echo of the biblical invitation to “taste and see that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8).

. . . Adams is asking the right questions, and Christians can pray that his search ultimately leads him to know and experience God. Yet his desire to put off that encounter until the last possible moment suggests he still has a ways to go. But by God’s grace, it’s not too late.

In other words, good luck with that.