Baptizing my Baptist Views Baptism: Appendix

Baptizing my Baptist views of Baptism: Appendix

Posted on November 17, 2011 

This is not really a section like the others.  I have listed most all of the verses from other sections here but this time with more notes and more “symbol only” explanations along with some strong counter-attacks from the baptismal regeneration side.  This would be a long read from start to finish so I would only consult each verse, on at a time… if you read it in another section of this series and would like more information on it, come here and you might find it.

One personal note:  I originally wrote these notes for my own personal benefit.  They might not be worded as charitably as they could be and while I do intend to change some of that, I have not had the time to do so just yet.  Also, the sheer volume of this post meant that I wouldn't have as much time to edit this nor did I have the time to write as carefully.  Perhaps I shouldn't have posted this at all.  Please take everything here with a grain of salt and forgive me if I seem to arrogant, boastful, uncharitable or way, way off my rocker...

Maybe.

Matthew 28:18-20 & Mark 16:16

“And Jesus came and said to them, ‘All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.’

“And he said to them, ‘Go into all the world and preach the gospel to the whole creation. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.’ ”

These two passages come from the end of Matthew and Mark respectively.  You recognize the passage from Matthew as the Great Commission.  It does not say anything about the efficacy of baptism (efficacy is a technical word for “ability to save.”).  However it is noteworthy that Christ’s final charge, his great commission, his instructions to the disciples before His ascension into heaven is to preach the gospel and to make disciples and obviously, baptism a critical part in all of that.  If we were taking a mission trip with a group of Baptists to another county would getting people baptized even be considered as a major “selling point” or a major motivation to go?  Would it even be considered as important work on the mission trip?

As to the passage in Mark, there are many similarities between the two passages.  They both mention preaching and making disciples.  I think these passages reflect the teaching and instruction that Jesus gave the apostles during the forty days after HIs resurrection where He did just that (Acts 2:2-3 and Matthew 28:20).  There verse Mark 16:16 says that he who believes and is baptized is not condemned, he does not believe is condemned already.  As you can imagine, there are many symbol only responses to this verse.

• One Baptist response is that since the verse says nothing about believing and not being baptized, then this proves that baptism isn’t need for salvation.

• The problem is that the verse doesn’t say what happens to someone who believes and does not get baptized.  If it did, then it would alleviate this confusion.  Whatever this verse does say it absolutely does not say that all we need to do is believe.  It shows the importance of baptism and the importance of faith.  Without an explicit explanation of what happens to someone who believes but is not baptized then if we look at this verse on its own we would have to conclude 1) that without faith we cannot be saved (thanks to the second clause, “he who does not believe is condemned” and 2) that baptism is connected with salvation (thanks to the first clause, “he who believes AND is baptized is saved.”).  There are certainly no assurances offered to the one who believes and is not baptized.

• A similar explanation is that since in the second phrase it only talks about belief, then obviously faith is the most important thing and the only thing needed for salvation.

• Again, this requires a major leap in logic.  Just because faith may be more important, that doesn’t rule out something lesser also being a condition for salvation.  Also, why would someone who does not believe get baptized anyways?  If you don’t believe you would never get baptized (probably) so the point is moot.

• Another “symbol only” contention is that the phrase “believes and is baptized” was just an expression.  They say that since baptism normally followed belief anyone who believed would be expected to be baptized.  So, while it wasn’t required for salvation, it would be a common expression for a Christian who was indeed saved.  It would be like saying, “He who believes and goes to Church is saved” or “He who believes and attends Sunday School is saved.”  Those other things have nothing to do with salvation, they are just normal, expected behavior of those who believe.  I distinctly remember being given this explanation in my NT class.

• I’m not sure how to take this explanation, to be honest.  I used to find it persuasive, but now… not so much.  Again, as a Baptist I would NEVER, EVER IN A MILLION YEARS SAY, “He who believes and is baptized will be saved.”  The normal way we hear language leaves the strong impression that baptism is required for salvation.  Especially when you couple this verse with other verses that strongly suggest this point.

• The last explanation for this verse is the hardest to deal with.  There is a large group of Christians (Baptists and everybody else) who think that Mark 16:16 was added to the text of the Bible after Mark wrote it.  While there is scholarly support for this there are a few problems…

• This verse has been accepted as inspired Scripture long time.  For centuries, Christians have had no trouble accepting this verse.
• Just because someone other than Mark added the ending does not mean it is not inspired.  There are portions in the Torah and other books where a “compiler” or “editor” finished part of a book when the original author could not.  We accept these portions as Scripture as well.
• While many early Greek manuscripts do not have Mark 16:9-20 in them, many other old manuscripts do.  This ending was obviously added very early.
• Even if this verse was added later, this late addition shows us what the early Church thought on the topic.  That is was accepted as Scripture and not objected to shows that the rest of the Church did not find this verse objectionable.
• This also opens up a whole other can of worms.  If we can take things out of the Scriptures due to “manuscript issues” in this one instance, then to be fair we would have to take out passages of Scripture in the future for similar instances.  This is not the sort of road we want to go down I think.

Acts 2:37-41

“Now when they heard this they were cut to the heart, and said to Peter and the rest of the apostles, ‘Brethren, what shall we do?’ And Peter said to them, ‘Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is unto you, and to your children. . .  Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

• How many times do we have to see a consistent formula before we accept it?  Notice that here, again, we see the elements of faith, water and the Spirit.  This is just like what we saw in the prophecy of Ezekiel, just like what we saw in the story of Namaan, just like what we saw with the baptism of Jesus, just like the verses I’ve shown you for study and just like Jesus’ discussion with Nicodemus in John 3 (which I will highlight soon).  Its almost like there is… shock and horror… a theme going on here.
• As you no doubt know, this is the “invitation” during Peter’s great sermon on Pentecost.  Where do we begin?  We see the need to repent, no one denies that. We see that everyone was to be baptized and (in English) this baptism is FOR the forgiveness of your sins.  I don’t know how much more simply Peter could have stated his point.
• And, lest we forget, this is the same Peter who said in his own letter, “baptism which now saves you.”  It seems that if Peter is slipping up and saying things he ought not to say, he sure is doing it a lot.
• And, once again, we notice that baptism is connected with… receiving the Holy Spirit.  Need I say more at this point?
• I thought about connecting this last point with the passage I will highlight in Pt. 7, John 3:5, because they have this in common… a theme of obedience.  We read about those who “accepted his message.”  It sounds like our modern-day language of “accepting Christ.”  However, in this story, all of those who accepted the message actually did something; they got baptized!  I think we see there that not only is baptism linked with forgiveness again, but also that truly accepting the message of Christ also seems to entail obedience… otherwise you didn’t really accept it.  Obedience and faith seem to go hand in hand.  Think about it, would they really have “accepted Peter’s message” if they had refused baptism?  I think that is why the verses points out that those who accepted the message were baptized… it went hand in hand with belief.  A most interesting, sobering idea that we will see more of later.

Taken from Acts 16

And he called for lights and rushed in, and trembling with fear he fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out and said, ‘Men, what must I do to be saved?’ And they said, ‘Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.’ And they spoke the word of the Lord to him and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their wounds, and he was baptized at once, with all his family.”

At first glance this verse may not have much support for baptismal regeneration. However there are some peculiarities to note:

• One is that the Phillippian jailer is baptized immediately.  While this does not prove its qualities of regeneration it does prove its importance.
• Also note another peculiarity, his entire household was baptized (which could include children, adults and even infants for all we know).
• And also note that the jailer is to believe and his belief will indeed save him… but according to Paul it would also save him and his entire household.  This is strange language to be sure (and no I am not advocating that our faith can literally save other people in a strict sense at all).
• And furthermore… recall that issue we had this Mark 16:16, where symbol only interpreters think of “he who believes and is baptized” was just an expression and carried no real theological weight?  The same thing actually seems to be play in here, but going to opposite way.  We notice that Peter in Acts 2 asks everyone to repent and be baptized.  It is a common evangelistic invitation in the NT to tell people to both believe and be baptized… it  is longer to say that that to say “believe.”  So it seems like the “shorthand phrase” is really “believe” and not “believe and be baptized” for one could easily understand that “believe” might actually mean “believe everything Christ asks you to believe”… including what He teaches about baptism!  If you don’t follow that, just let me know and I will explain it as best as I can.

Acts 22:16

“And now what are you waiting for? Get up, be baptized and wash your sins away, calling on his name.”

This comes from the book of Acts (obviously… I mean I wouldn’t have said “Acts 22” if it came from the book of Zephaniah).  In this passage we have a recorded speech of the Apostle Paul.  He is talking about his own conversion to Christ; giving his “testimony” to use a contemporary phrase.  By this point Paul has told about about how he came to see Christ on the road to Damascus, how he was blinded and how he found Ananais, a Christian, who helped him to recover his sight.

In verse 16 Paul is quoting what Ananais said to him.  Remember, at this point Paul had already physically seen Christ and agreed to follow Him (read the earlier part of the story if you think I’m making it up).  So even though Paul had done all of this (which would be the equivalent to our modern-day phrase “accepting Jesus as savior”), Ananias tells Paul that Paul still needed to be baptized… and furthermore baptism would “wash his sins away”!!!  What is so striking about this verse is that not only does it link baptism with forgiveness of sins, but that it is done for the forgiveness of sins after Paul’s conversion!  Forgiveness is certainly a spiritual effect and baptism is certainly a physical act… the two are linked.

Furthermore, even if someone were to argue that at this point Paul hadn’t been “saved” it does no better as a defense of a Baptist baptism.  For if Paul was not “already saved” then he had no business being baptized in the first place.  I know of no adequate Baptist response to this verse.

Romans 6:3-6

Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

• This here is an interesting verse, saying that we were buried with Christ through our baptism.  How are we buried with Christ?  Baptism.  The key phrase for me here is “…in order that…”  I know a small, silly phrase.  The reason that this phrase is so important is that it links two parts of that verse.  If I am allowed to reorganize the sentence (but not change the meaning of it) I think you will see what I am talking about: “We were buried with Christ in baptism IN ORDER THAT we may live a new life, just as Christ was raised from the dead.”  In other words the reason we are able to live a new life is because we are buried with Christ… and because Christ was buried and raised from the dead, so shall we.  But the way we are united with Christ’s death is baptism.

• The only Baptist explanations I have read on this verse follow:  one is to take baptism here to mean, again, a “spiritual baptism” or a spiritual act that is like baptism… basically they would equate accepting Christ as your savior to baptism.  The only other explanation seems to be that “living a new life” isn’t a spiritual benefit or isn’t at all something connected to salvation.

• I don’t have any formal responses to either of these counter-attacks other than to say that they sound like a lot of silly, spiritualizing away the obvious weight of this verse to me.

1 Corinthians 12:12-13

For just as the body is one and has many members, and all the members of the body, though many, are one body, so it is with Christ.  For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body— Jews or Greeks, slaves or free—and all were made to drink of one Spirit.

• I’m not going to talk this passage to death, but a few things to note:

• This verse talk about the body of Christ (aka the Church) and how we are but parts of that body.  The thing (or one of the things making this so) is out baptism.  We were baptized into this family.
• Also note that we were baptized in one Spirit… and this is not school spirit, excitement, or a worship experience kind of “spirit.”  This is the actual, literal third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit we were baptized in.  Who said the Spirit isn’t connected with baptism?
• And further note that this baptism also made us drink of the Spirit.  To drink means to “partake of” the Spirit.  I’d say that this verse strongly connects baptism and receiving the Holy Spirit.

Galatians 3:26-27

“So in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith, for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ.”

• The Baptist, symbol only, first glance rebuttle to anyone who would use this to support baptismal regeneration is to say that this verse teaches us that we are children of God through faith… therefore baptism is just a really good idea but not essential.

• But look again.  We are all “children of God through faith” you might say.  However the word “for” is key here.  It says we are his children in faith for (or because) everyone who was baptized into Christ has clothed themselves with Christ.  In other words this verse connects more than just faith with being a child of God… it connects clothing ourselves with Christ (and this is connected with baptism).

• Another response might be that this verse talks about being a child of God but not salvation.  Therefore this verse can have nothing to say in regards to salvation or baptism.

• I think this response is easily dealt with.  It is obvious in Scripture (I can do some research to drum up some references if you’d like) that being a child of God is a common metaphor for being saved.  In fact that is exactly what happens to us when we are saved… we become part of the family of God, we become His children.

• Another response would be to say that this verse stops short of saying that baptism is required for salvation.  After all, it only directly connects “faith” and “clothing yourself with Christ” to salvation… the phrase about baptism only says that those who were baptized have clothed themselves with Christ and it is the clothing with Christ that is connected with becoming a child of God.

• Admittedly, this verse does stop short of saying, “baptism makes you a child of God.”  That being said, this verse teaches us that being a child of God through faith depends on clothing yourself with Christ… and everyone who has been baptized has clothed themselves with Christ.  In other words everyone in this group Paul is addressing has, in fact, been baptized and all of these baptized people have, in fact clothed themselves with Christ.  There is a connection here, no matter how circumstantial.  It could very well be that all those who are baptized must (by the grace of God) clothe themselves with Christ.  Either way, the two are closely linked, and these two are closely linked with being restored to the family of God.
• Even Martin Luther (who you and I would certainly disagree with on more than a few issues) had some interesting things to say on this verse.  “He must put off his old activities, so that from sons of Adam we may be changed into sons of God. This does not happen by a change of clothing or by any laws or works; it happens by the rebirth and renewal that takes place in Baptism, as Paul says: ‘As many of you as were baptized have put on Christ’. . . . Paul is speaking about a ‘putting on’, not by imitation but by birth. He does not say: ‘Through Baptism you have received a token . . . that is what the sectarians [Anabaptists] imagine when they make Baptism merely a token, that is, a small and empty sign” (Luther’s Works, 26:352-53).  That “small and empty sign” phrase has a haunting, hollow ring to it, doesn’t it?

Ephesians 5:25-27

“Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her, that he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.”

You might think I am kidding by using this verse.  After all, this verse is mostly about loving wives (which I do, by the way).  And just so you know I didn’t not bold the “Husbands love your wives” part because I think it is untrue but because it doesn’t really fit into the whole idea of baptism.  So yes, it is true, this verse is truly speaking about husbands and wives, BUT, this verse is comparing two things so it is necessary to understand both things.  This is comparing the love of husbands for wives to the love of Christ for the Church.

We notice several things about the love of Christ for the Church.  One He gave Himself up for it.  Also he did this to sanctify the Church (sanctify basically means “to make holy”).  He wants the Church sanctified so that He may present it as a blameless, holy, blemish-free community.  And connected with all of this… the washing of water with the word?

It is interesting that this uses a similar phrase to other passages alluding to baptism (i.e. the washing).  But this washing isn’t just a “spiritual washing.”  This washing is done with water.  Water is a crucial element.  This is referring to a physical something.  I think this verse should seriously strain any ideas we have about baptism being a “spiritual thing only and not a physical thing.”  This is water baptism.

But note the other element… the word.  As you well know from John 1:1, the word does not usually mean “the word of God aka the Bible.”  The Word in the Bible is usually referring to Christ, or the prophecies of God or… it does refer to the Scriptures, but most often it refers to simply the words of God (contained in Scripture and elsewhere) but very often to Christ.  I think that is what we see here.  The two elements of this “washing” are water and Christ.  It is not that water is magic, but that Christ is the supernatural creator of all things and He may do as He wishes.

So I understand the nous here translated as “washing” is only used one other time… in Titus 3:5 which we have already looked at.  So this washing is here connected with water and there connected with salvation (although just to be clear, each verse could stand on its own and support baptismal regeneration, but the connection between the two verses strengthens them even more).  Also in this verse this washing with water is connected to becoming holy, becoming sanctified and becoming blameless… all things our salvation is meant to achieve.

Colossians 2:11-12

In him you were also circumcised with a circumcision not performed by human hands. Your whole self ruled by the flesh was put off when you were circumcised by Christ, having been buried with him in baptism, in which you were also raised with him through your faith in the working of God, who raised him from the dead.

• This verse is pretty cool, even if the grammar is a little hard to follow.  The first part talks about Christians being “circumcised” by Christ with a “circumcision not performed by human hands.”  What is this circumcision?  The next sentence says that our entire “flesh” was put off in Christ’s circumcision (as opposed to Jewish circumcision with just took off a part of the flesh… and I think we all know what part that was).  And, here is the kicker, this fill body circumcision is equated with… ding, ding, ding… baptism!  Baptism is this full-body and soul circumcision of Christ.  Remember those passages from Genesis and Exodus, detailing the circumcision as a sign of the Old Covenant for God?  Circumcision was a sign of the Old Covenant and baptism is the sign of the New Covenant; it is the new circumcision, it is a better and more fulfilled sign of this better and more fulfilled covenant with God.  But wait… there’s more!
• Again we see that baptism is connected to being “raised with Christ” (the “in which” links the two).  Being raised with Christ is (in all likelihood) a metaphor for the new life in Christ (which really is connected with salvation).  It was the burial with Christ (aka, in baptism), and IN this burial with with Christ (that little word in has a lot of weight) we are raised with Him.  Amazing!
• Furthermore, far from faith being totally cast out of the picture, faith is an integral part of being raised with Christ as we see here.  This isn’t an “either-or” thing: either baptism, or faith.  It seems like a “both-and” kind of thing:  both baptism and faith.  It is through our faith that baptism is connected with salvation, but that does not make baptism unimportant or part of the picture.  This seems to be exactly what the rest of the world’s Christians teach on baptism… that faith is required as is baptism (in most normal circumstances).  Baptists love to ask people who differ with them on theological topics if they “ever read the Bible.”  Oversights like this one make me wonder just who isn’t reading their Scriptures.

Colossians 3:3

“For you died, and your life is now hidden with Christ in God.”

• On the surface this doesn’t seem to say anything about baptism at all.  Well, it doesn’t.  But we need to remember a few things.  First off, did you know that when the letters of Paul were written there were no verse numbers.  There were no chapters.  There were no “headings before paragraphs” that you have in your Bible today.  It was just… a letter.  Chapters and verses and headings are great at helping us find out way quickly through Scripture but sometimes they “chop up” the way we were meant to read Scripture.  It flows from one argument to the next and everything flows.  Context is critical…
• What is the context in this verse?  Well keep in mind that the previous verse we discussed was just 14 verses in front of this one.  That isn’t very far in “Bible” distance.  It is the context.  And that verse, Colossians 2:11-12, talks about us dying…
• So how have we died?  Obviously we haven’t physically kicked the bucket?  We could say that we have “died to self” but the verse doesn’t explicitly state that.  Perhaps the context of Colossians 2 will tell us.  And indeed it does, for in Colossians 2 we see that we were dead for we were “buried with Christ.”  And we were buried with Christ in… baptism!  Funny little thing, context.
• So this context seems to suggest our death (which is linked with baptism) is linked with us being “hidden in Christ” again, a metaphor for becoming part of the family of God, of being caught up in the divine love of God, of being saved.

Titus 3:4-7

But when the kindness and love of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of righteous things we had done, but because of his mercy. He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life.

*This verse would crush any “symbol only” interpretation… if it just used the word baptism.  Oh well.  Whatever this “washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit” it does a lot!  Through this washing we were saved and we become heirs of the hope of eternal life.  That’s a big deal!  So even though it doesn’t use the term “baptism” this washing, just so we are clear, is one of rebirth, renewal and makes us heirs to eternal life… aka our eternal salvation is tied up with this washing.  So what is this washing?

• The baptist explanation is… you probably guessed it… that this washing is just a metaphor for being “spritually washed clean by asking Jesus to be your savior.”  We are “washed by His blood” we might say.  Now partially they are right.  We know that taking a bath won’t save us… but who said baptism was just a physical bath?  Who said baptism was just a spiritual change?

• This can be countered a few ways.  For starters, this verse (while it never says baptism) also never says “accept Christ as your Savior.”  Someone has to read this into the text because they cannot read it from the text.  There is more in the text to suggest physical baptism than a “spiritual experience.”
• Secondly, the word washing is often used of baptism.  Look at Acts 2 and 22 for example.
• On top of that, this is no ordinary washing, but a “washing of regeneration and renewal.”  That language seems to speak of baptism doesn’t it?  This sounds so similar to other passages we will study.  Christians would have to ignore these similarities to interpret this as a “purely spiritual experience.
• And a real eye-opener is that in this washing it is the Holy Spirit who is doing the washing.  And we often see the Holy Spirit being connected with… baptism!  And if you need more evidence of the connection between baptism and Holy Ghost, why just read on…

• There is also an interesting connection with this verse and John 3:5.  Since you probably don’t have that verse in front of you (and I will highlight it in another part of this study) I will post it here:  ”Jesus answered, “Very truly I tell you, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless they are born of water and the Spirit… Notice the striking parallels here…

• Titus: “saved” / John: “enter the kingdom of God”
• Titus: “washing of rebirth” / John: “born of water”
• Titus: “renewal by the Holy Spirit” / John: “born . . . of the Spirit”

1 Peter 3:20-21

“… long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ…”

*The key phrase is of course, “baptism now saves you…”  This phrase is repeated twice in the passage.  I had read this verse a dozen times, but in class and in Church you pay attention to what the pastor or professor thinks is important.  When I first read this with an open mind it blew me away.  ”Baptism now saves you.”  It was like a smack in the face.  You have to do all kind of interpretive and linguistic gymnastics to escape the very obvious wording.  There are some Baptist explanations for this verse…

• They say that the thing symbolized in this verse is salvation and baptism symbolizes salvation (being buried with Christ and raising to new life).
• However the verse does not support that, as the symbol in this verse is the water of Noah’s Flood and the thing being symbolized is baptism and baptism is what is said to do the saving.  Personally I find this “explanation” pitiful as it confuses the symbol for the thing being symbolized.
• Another alternate interpretation is to say that the phrase “… it [baptism] saves you not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a clear conscience toward God.” It is said that the removal of dirt from the body means that physical, water baptism doesn’t save you.  Instead it is “spiritual baptism” (a pledge of a good conscience toward God) that saves you.
• One problem I see here is that, Scripture always speaks of baptism as physical water baptism, and (as far as I can tell) never a purely “spiritual” baptism.
• Also note that this verse never says that the “water is magical and will save you.”  It says that baptism saves you because of the resurrection of Christ.  It is all about Christ.
• Also, if this interpretation were correct, then Peter was really saying, “… baptism now saves you… not physical baptism, but spiritual baptism.”  In other words the phrase “baptism now saves you” really means “baptism doesn’t save you” because baptism wouldn’t mean baptism, but just “something spiritual.”  It seems like a very odd way to word something.
• Besides it is just as easy to say that the phrase “not removal of dirt from the body” means that baptism (while being physical) doesn’t save you because it is a bath, but because something spiritual DOES happen at physical baptism.  That would retain the meaning of the verse better than saying physical baptism has nothing to do with the equation.
• Plus, being a Baptist youth pastor… I would never, ever, ever in a million years use the phrase “baptism now saves you” under any circumstances.  If Peter had meant to say spiritual baptism, he could have said that.  If Peter had meant to say “baptism now saves you” there really is only one way he could have said that… and that was how he said it here.
• And furthermore… if left on my own I would come to the conclusion that baptism is salvific (a fancy word meaning, needed for salvation).  You have to bend over backwards to make it say something else.  Besides we should never make Scripture say anything.