Is baptism required to be saved?

[glen smith]

Scriptures suggested

The argument for baptism as a requirement for salvation hinges upon these first five (5) of the following verses being understood as providing greater authority than opposing interpretations and theological arguments. Some might understand baptism as a requirement for salvation as simply as taking these verses at face value. The most common opposing position is made from the Protestant doctrines of sola fide and sola gratia.

Sola fide, or "faith alone", asserts that good works are not a means or requisite for salvation. Sola fide is the teaching that justification (interpreted in the Lutheran and Reformed theologies as "being declared just by God") is received by faith alone, without any need for good works on the part of the individual.

Sola gratia, or "only grace", specifically excludes the merit done by a person as part of achieving salvation. Sola gratia is the teaching that salvation comes by divine grace or "unmerited favor" only, not as something merited by the sinner. This means that salvation is an unearned gift from God for the sake of Jesus.

The argument against baptism as a requirement for salvation defines the act of being baptized as a “good work” which would mean that if baptism is a requirement for salvation then, (1) that would not be by faith alone (2) and would not be by only grace.
--------------------------
Without considering or using this traditional Protestant argument against baptism as a requirement for salvation, might those participating in this forum use the following Bible passages and any other passages of their choosing to argue one position or the other or a third? The purpose would be for each participant to evaluate how they interpret these passages and assign authority (relative value of each) in reconciling them for a conclusion. Such an activity will demonstrate how each participant understands biblical interpretation. Please explain the reasons one passage has more authority or control on the conclusion than does another passage.

Important: The participant need not argue for his belief since the traditional Protestant argument against baptism as a requirement for salvation is prohibited from this exercise. Please argue from scripture alone without using sola fide and sola gratia.

Post Script: If a participant would be offended by having other forum members critique their reasons, that forum member should refrain from posting to this topic.

Personally, I am excited to do this so to demonstrate how I think related verses ought to be interpreted. Also, I might learn something!

Baptism presented as necessary for salvation

Acts 2:38 NASB
³⁸ Peter said to them, “Repent, and each of you be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 10:48 NASB
⁴⁸ And he ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to stay on for a few days.

Acts 22:16 NASB
¹⁶ Now why do you delay? Get up and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on His name.’

Mark 16:16 NASB
¹⁶ He who has believed and has been baptized shall be saved; but he who has disbelieved shall be condemned.

1 Peter 3:21 NASB
²¹ Corresponding to that, baptism now saves you—not the removal of dirt from the flesh, but an appeal to God for (or from) a good conscience—through the resurrection of Jesus Christ,

Baptism practiced

Acts 8:12 NASB
¹² But when they believed Philip preaching the good news about the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were being baptized, men and women alike.

Acts 8:16 NASB
¹⁶ For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 9:18 NASB
¹⁸ And immediately there fell from his eyes something like scales, and he regained his sight, and he got up and was baptized;

Acts 16:33 NASB
³³ And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household.

Acts 18:8 NASB
⁸ Crispus, the leader of the synagogue, believed in the Lord with all his household, and many of the Corinthians when they heard were believing and being baptized.

Acts 19:5 NASB
⁵ When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Water or washing open to interpretation as baptism

John 3:5 NASB
⁵ Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.

1 Corinthians 6:11 NASB
11 Such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and in the Spirit of our God.

Ephesians 5:26 NASB
²⁶ so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word,

Titus 3:5 NASB
⁵ He saved us, not on the basis of deeds which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit,

Hebrews 10:22 NASB
²² let us draw near with a sincere heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts sprinkled clean from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water.

Did not baptize

John 4:2 NASB
(although Jesus Himself was not baptizing, but His disciples were),

1 Corinthians 1:14-17 NASB
¹⁴ I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, ¹⁵ so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. ¹⁶ Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. ¹⁷ For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void.

[glen smith]

Baptism presented as necessary for salvation
Using the rules of hermeneutics, this group of New Testament verses contains clear, declarative statements using literal language and should carry the greater weight over unclear or passages subject to opinion and interpretation.
1. Clear declarative statements
2. Literal language not figurative
3. New Testament passages are used to interpret Old Testament passages if there were any
4. Mark 16:16 are the word of Jesus

Simply put, by accepted practices of biblical interpretation baptism is necessary for salvation.

Baptism practiced
While these verses do not specifically indicate baptism is required for salvation, in every case those believing were immediately baptized. From this observation it appears no one who believed hesitated at being baptized. This seems to be support for baptism as a requirement for salvation.

Water or washing open to interpretation as baptism
These verses might be understood allegorically or in a spiritual sense and not refer to water baptism at all or just to water baptism figuratively. However, because of the clarity of the verses in the previous two groups the better interpretation would seem to be that these verses refer to water baptism.

Did not baptize
This exercise was chosen because it is an example of how just two (2) verses recorded as off hand comments might be given more authority than the other sixteen (16). Normally, to do such is a violation of the rules of hermeneutics.

The Apostle Paul gave thanks to God that he had not baptize but a few in Corinth. If baptism was necessary for salvation would not baptizing have been something the Apostle would do as part of preaching the gospel?

John 4:2 records that Jesus did not baptize believers. The Lord Jesus came establishing the Kingdom of God and doing the required works of the divine plan of redemption. It is the works of Christ in whom we have atonement and justification. Baptism was not a work of Christ, and therefore, not a redemptive act of salvation.

Conclusion:
These off hand comments are of such weighty theological importance they supersede the other sixteen (16) verses, which without these last two, would indicate baptism is a requirement for salvation. Baptism is done in obedience to the commandment of the Lord rather than as a requirement for salvation. Why believers are commanded to be baptized is another issue.

However, because believers are commanded to be baptized, those who have surrendered to the Lord Jesus will not just submit to baptism but enter in while expressing their joyous compliance. Those claiming to be believers but who refuse baptism have not the Holy Spirit or salvation.

[Lou Newton]

No one will enter heaven without being baptized ? BUT what baptism is required. Surely water is nothing compared to The Holy Spirit.

Jesus has made it clear that no one will enter the Kingdom of heaven with being born of the spirit.

The Holy Spirit stated through Paul, that there is bot one baptism:
Ephesians 4 (NIV)

Unity and Maturity in the Body of Christ


4 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. ² Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. ³ Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. ⁴ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;⁵one Lord, one faith, one baptism; ⁶one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Certainly this ONE Baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit who is much superior to the water He created.

The Holy Spirit also stated through Paul that if one trusted in Jesus and something else to save them, then Jesus could not save them.

Galatians 2

¹⁷ But what if we trust Christ to save us and then find that we are wrong and that we cannot be saved without being circumcised ( note from Lou, or baptized in water) and obeying all the other Jewish laws? Wouldn’t we need to say that faith in Christ had ruined us? God forbid that anyone should dare to think such things about our Lord.

I grieved The Holy Spirit when I was baptized in water. The Lord had baptized me in His Holy Spirit in my living room before I was dipped in water and I grieved Him by this action that implied the Lord's baptism was not enough. I will forever be sorrowful over this.

I am not saying that anyone dipped in water is wrong. I am just saying that a person should follow the Holy Spirit and do as He leads them. The only important thing is that a person is baptized in the Holy Spirit and some are baptized in His Holy Spirit when they are baptized in water.

[glen smith]

No one will enter heaven without being baptized ? BUT what baptism is required. Surely water is nothing compared to The Holy Spirit.

Jesus has made it clear that no one will enter the Kingdom of heaven with being born of the spirit.

The Holy Spirit stated through Paul, that there is bot one baptism:
Ephesians 4 (NIV)

Unity and Maturity in the Body of Christ


4 As a prisoner for the Lord, then, I urge you to live a life worthy of the calling you have received. ² Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. ³ Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. ⁴ There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called;⁵one Lord, one faith, one baptism; ⁶one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all.

Certainly this ONE Baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit who is much superior to the water He created.

The Holy Spirit also stated through Paul that if one trusted in Jesus and something else to save them, then Jesus could not save them.

Galatians 2

¹⁷ But what if we trust Christ to save us and then find that we are wrong and that we cannot be saved without being circumcised ( note from Lou, or baptized in water) and obeying all the other Jewish laws? Wouldn’t we need to say that faith in Christ had ruined us? God forbid that anyone should dare to think such things about our Lord.

I grieved The Holy Spirit when I was baptized in water. The Lord had baptized me in His Holy Spirit in my living room before I was dipped in water and I grieved Him by this action that implied the Lord's baptism was not enough. I will forever be sorrowful over this.

I am not saying that anyone dipped in water is wrong. I am just saying that a person should follow the Holy Spirit and do as He leads them. The only important thing is that a person is baptized in the Holy Spirit and some are baptized in His Holy Spirit when they are baptized in water.

---------------------------------------
Attempting to define the position taken by Lou in seven (7) statements.

(1) By posting, "I am not saying that anyone dipped in water is wrong."
Lou, does this mean some who are dipped in water are wrong?

(2) "The only important thing is that a person is baptized in the Holy Spirit."

(3) "some are baptized in His Holy Spirit when they are baptized in water."

(4) The five verses presented as supporting water baptism is necessary for salvation must be understood as Holy Spirit Baptism.

(5) The six examples in Acts refer to Holy Spirit Baptism rather than water baptism.

(6) Lou uses Ephesians 4:1-6 as meaning "this ONE Baptism is the baptism of the Holy Spirit who is much superior to the water He created."

Note about # (6) The emphasis of Ephesians 4:3-6 is for unity in one body, one Spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God the Father. The Apostle Paul is listing the elements for unity. Each element is only singular and not plural. Each is emphatically only one element. There is not a choice between two. Therefore there is not any contrary position for the church at Ephesus.

Notice that there are six (6) elements of unity. Equating baptism and spirit would leave just five (5) elements of unity and equating Lord and God the Father reduces the number to four (4) elements of unity. Such reasoning does not seem to fit the purpose of the Apostle Paul in listing the six (6) elements for unity because the more categories requiring unity the stronger is his argument.

(7) Lou uses Galatians 2:17 to suggest water baptism is like circumcision under the law.
"The Holy Spirit also stated through Paul that if one trusted in Jesus and something else to save them, then Jesus could not save them."

Note about # (7) What Lou uses here is this traditional Protestant argument against baptism as a requirement for salvation based upon faith alone and only grace.
------------------------
Please correct my attempt to define the position taken by Lou.
-------------------------
Question:

How could the dipping of Lou in water have implied that his baptism in His Holy Spirit was not enough and that this inferred implication would have grieved the Lord?
Maybe it was not the Lord Jesus who was grieved?
------------------------
Biblical examples which indicate what Lou experienced is not the biblical norm.

(1) The Lord Jesus was baptized in water.
Did His baptism in water imply the disapproval of the Father?

(2) Cornelius and his household were ordered to be baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit.
Acts 10:44-48
⁴⁴ While Peter was still making this statement, the Holy Spirit fell on all the people who were listening to his message. ⁴⁵ Then the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the gentiles, too, ⁴⁶ because they heard them speaking in foreign languages and praising God. Then Peter said, ⁴⁷ “No one can stop us from using water to baptize these people who have received the Holy Spirit in the same way that we did, can they?” ⁴⁸ So Peter ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah. Then they asked him to stay there for several days.
------------------------
It will be appreciated if other relevant passages could be used or make an interpretation of the original passages in post #1.

[Lou Newton]

---------------------------------------
Attempting to define the position taken by Lou.

(1) By posting, "I am not saying that anyone dipped in water is wrong."
Lou, does this mean some who are dipped in water are wrong?

(2) "The only important thing is that a person is baptized in the Holy Spirit."

(3) "some are baptized in His Holy Spirit when they are baptized in water."

(4) The five verses presented as supporting water baptism is necessary for salvation must be understood as Holy Spirit Baptism.

(5) The six examples in Acts refer to Holy Spirit Baptism rather than water baptism.
-------------------------
Question: How could the dipping of Lou in water have implied that his baptism in His Holy Spirit was not enough and that this inferred implication would have grieved the Lord?
Maybe it was not the Lord Jesus who was grieved?
------------------------
Biblical examples which indicate what Lou experienced is not the biblical norm.

(1) The Lord Jesus was baptized in water.
Did His baptism in water imply the disapproval of the Father?

(2) Cornelius and his household were ordered to be baptized after receiving the Holy Spirit.
Acts 10:44-48
⁴⁴ While Peter was still making this statement, the Holy Spirit fell on all the people who were listening to his message. ⁴⁵ Then the circumcised believers who had come with Peter were amazed that the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the gentiles, too, ⁴⁶ because they heard them speaking in foreign languages and praising God. Then Peter said, ⁴⁷ “No one can stop us from using water to baptize these people who have received the Holy Spirit in the same way that we did, can they?” ⁴⁸ So Peter ordered them to be baptized in the name of Jesus the Messiah. Then they asked him to stay there for several days.
------------------------
Please correct my attempt to define the position taken by Lou.

Glen you continue to question my relationship with The Lord, and you imply that I do not know when His Holy Spirit is grieved.

He is my best friend and I know His voice and have walked and talked with him for 42 years. I had no reason to repent for participating in a water baptism. But I know when His Holy Spirit is grieved but did not sense the fullness of it until later. The Lord had baptized me Himself in my living room and filled me with His Holy Spirit. How could any man add anything to that. Don't you think not trusting what God had done as enough, was a sin ?

Why not answer the scriptures I posted instead of ignoring them.

IF one reads about Cornelius with care they will see that God baptized the group in His Holy Spirit before anyone was dipped in water. So water was not necessary for them to be saved. Certainly they were born again by the Spirit as Jesus said everyone must do to enter the Kingdom of God.

It was Peter, not God, who then said let them be baptized in water. Of course Peter is a man that made many mistakes and we have no reason to think this could not also been of his own doing and not God's.

(1) The Lord Jesus was baptized in water.
Did His baptism in water imply the disapproval of the Father?

This seems a ridiculous statement that you have no reason to think I would think this. So are you saying that The Lord had to repent and be baptized to be saved. That statement is no more ridiculous than the one you stated.

The whole gospel states that the only condition to being saved is to trust in Jesus to save you.

If you are preaching that we must be baptized in water to be saved, you are preaching heresy.

What did The Holy Spirit mean when He stated that there is but one baptism ? Would you put being dipped in water as more important than being baptized in His Holy Spirit? How is one reborn of the spirit , if not by being baptized in His Holy Spirit ?

(1) By posting, "I am not saying that anyone dipped in water is wrong."
Lou, does this mean some who are dipped in water are wrong?

How could I make myself any clearer, or how could God make Himself any clearer. If someone is dipped in water thinking they are saved by water, and that it is necessary for them to be saved, then God can not save them.

You can not jump in two lifeboats. You either trust in Jesus to save you, or you trust in some law to save you. If one is baptized in water to satisfy the law of baptism, and they think they are saved by being obedient to the law; can be obedient to some law save ?

Luke 23
³⁹ One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

⁴⁰ But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? ⁴¹ We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

⁴² Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

⁴³ Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

The thief was not baptized in water and was with Jesus in paradise that very day. Notice, Jesus said the thief would be in paradise with HIM. So that would mean that the Godhood of Jesus went to paradise that very day and not to the grave. It was the manhood of Jesus that died and was buried. The Godhood of Jesus left Him when He gave up the Spirit.

Jesus could not lie, for He was The Truth.


The Death of Jesus


⁴⁵ From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. ⁴⁶ About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,^[c]lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

⁴⁷ When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”

⁴⁸ Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. ⁴⁹ The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”

⁵⁰ And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Jesus was not mistaken or wrong, or lying when He asked why had God forsaken Him, or left Him.

Please do not teach that water baptism is necessary to be saved on this site.

[glen smith]

Glen you continue to question my relationship with The Lord, and you imply that I do not know when His Holy Spirit is grieved.

He is my best friend and I know His voice and have walked and talked with him for 42 years. I had no reason to repent for participating in a water baptism. But I know when His Holy Spirit is grieved but did not sense the fullness of it until later. The Lord had baptized me Himself in my living room and filled me with His Holy Spirit. How could any man add anything to that. Don't you think not trusting what God had done as enough, was a sin ?

Why not answer the scriptures I posted instead of ignoring them.

IF one reads about Cornelius with care they will see that God baptized the group in His Holy Spirit before anyone was dipped in water. So water was not necessary for them to be saved. Certainly they were born again by the Spirit as Jesus said everyone must do to enter the Kingdom of God.

It was Peter, not God, who then said let them be baptized in water. Of course Peter is a man that made many mistakes and we have no reason to think this could not also been of his own doing and not God's.



This seems a ridiculous statement that you have no reason to think I would think this. So are you saying that The Lord had to repent and be baptized to be saved. That statement is no more ridiculous than the one you stated.

The whole gospel states that the only condition to being saved is to trust in Jesus to save you.

If you are preaching that we must be baptized in water to be saved, you are preaching heresy.

What did The Holy Spirit mean when He stated that there is but one baptism ? Would you put being dipped in water as more important than being baptized in His Holy Spirit? How is one reborn of the spirit , if not by being baptized in His Holy Spirit ?



How could I make myself any clearer, or how could God make Himself any clearer. If someone is dipped in water thinking they are saved by water, and that it is necessary for them to be saved, then God can not save them.

You can not jump in two lifeboats. You either trust in Jesus to save you, or you trust in some law to save you. If one is baptized in water to satisfy the law of baptism, and they think they are saved by being obedient to the law; can be obedient to some law save ?

Luke 23
³⁹ One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”

⁴⁰ But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? ⁴¹ We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”

⁴² Then he said, “Jesus, remember me when you come into your kingdom.”

⁴³ Jesus answered him, “Truly I tell you, today you will be with me in paradise.”

The thief was not baptized in water and was with Jesus in paradise that very day. Notice, Jesus said the thief would be in paradise with HIM. So that would mean that the Godhood of Jesus went to paradise that very day and not to the grave. It was the manhood of Jesus that died and was buried. The Godhood of Jesus left Him when He gave up the Spirit.

Jesus could not lie, for He was The Truth.


The Death of Jesus


⁴⁵ From noon until three in the afternoon darkness came over all the land. ⁴⁶ About three in the afternoon Jesus cried out in a loud voice, “Eli, Eli,^[c]lema sabachthani?” (which means “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?”).

⁴⁷ When some of those standing there heard this, they said, “He’s calling Elijah.”

⁴⁸ Immediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a staff, and offered it to Jesus to drink. ⁴⁹ The rest said, “Now leave him alone. Let’s see if Elijah comes to save him.”

⁵⁰ And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice, he gave up his spirit.

Jesus was not mistaken or wrong, or lying when He asked why had God forsaken Him, or left Him.

Please do not teach that water baptism is necessary to be saved on this site.

----------------
Please try to read what I write.
If you think I am supporting baptism is necessary for salvation, then either I can not write what I mean or you cannot read what is written.
Do you know what a rhetorical question is?
If you do, try to recognize them in my posts.

Lou posted:
Why not answer the scriptures I posted instead of ignoring them.
Reply:
I replied to both of Lou's scripture passages in post #3 in my post #4.
See, this is another case of why I plead, Please try to read what I write.

Lou's accusation that the Apostle Peter was wrong about baptizing Cornelius is unworthy of commentary but not rebuke.
Lou's accusation against the Apostle Peter allows Lou to disregard anything in scripture he wishes.
Lou has previously used this same argument that the biblical writer makes errors when he disavows Bible passages if they do not fit with his ideas. We are aware that liberal Christians do the same thing?
Does this mean the Apostle Peter also fits Lou's idea on men?
Lou posted, "I care not what mere men say or believe, for God tells us that all men are lairs. To preserve their doctrines and what they have taught they will claim that what they say is true and what God says is not true. The words that God says are totally true. He is The Truth and can not lie."

The Luke passage of the thief on the cross is not relevant to the context in which the topic is being explored just as the death of all who died before the resurrection is not relevant to the topic. However, including the event on the cross gave Lou the opportunity to explain his Jesus only doctrine again.

[glen smith]

Is baptism required to be saved?
Post #5
Lou stated:
Glen you continue to question my relationship with The Lord, and you imply that I do not know when His Holy Spirit is grieved.

Reply:
Lou, ever since you made this statement I have pondered about this statement you posted, and I have sought for a response of the Lord. I am sorry to have you feel that I am questioning your relationship, but I can understand why you feel that way, so let me make a distinction. What I question is how you describe your relationship which is expressed by your beliefs. Let me use a little personal history to demonstrate the difference.

There has not been a time in my life when I have been more earnest about my relationship with God than in my early twenties. This was before any formal religious education. Both how I understood the relationship and how I explained it changed as I became more illuminated through Bible study, education, and the influence of godly men. There were a number of times when what I believed was not only questioned but demonstrated to be wrong. Through all the changes in my knowledge, my relationship with God has only become more firm and better based. To question or challenge what I believe does not hinder my relationship but improves it. If my relationship to God was based on my current comprehension being correct, then someone questioning or challenging what I think would be felt as an attack on the relationship. However, my relationship is personal rather than doctrinal.

I am with the Apostle Peter when the multitudes rejected the teaching (doctrine) of eating the flesh and drinking the blood of Jesus. Peter probably was not any less offended by the doctrine than the multitudes, but his relationship to Jesus was not based upon doctrine.
When Jesus said unto the twelve, “Will ye also go away?” Peter answered, “Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life.”

Back to Lou: If I thought your relationship with God was not genuinely felt by you, I would not spend time arguing with you. I have previously communicated to you that I know you love the Lord Jesus. I suspect the reason you might feel I question your relationship with the Lord is because much of what you use to justify your belief is personal experience or direct knowledge from the Holy Spirit. Accordingly, if I am challenging a belief based upon personal experience it might feel like I am questioning your relationship with God.

I started this thread because I wrongly believed we could discuss aspects of biblical interpretation rather than contend about doctrine.
Lou is the only other person on the forum to post on this thread, and he has made it about doctrine rather than principles of interpretation.