Truth Magazine

By Billy Ashworth

The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to review the Roe vs. Wade decision of 1973, a fateful decision that the termination of unborn life is a legal right. The Court ruled that a woman had a “right of privacy” broad enough to include abortion, her basic constitutional right. The Court ruled further that “legal personhood does not exist prenatally.” Consequently, it is now affirmed that “abortion on demand,” a law brought about by judicial fiat, not the due process of the elected legislature, has produced over 20 million abortions since 1973. That is one child’s “right to life” denied by judicial decree every 20 seconds! Hitler’s Holocaust claimed the lives of “only” six million Jews. Compare that with the American Holocaust of the 70s and 80s.

But oh, the hue and cry of the liberal, humanistic feminists who are terrified at the possibility of losing their “judicial progress” in the matter of a woman’s right” to abortion on demand. I applaud the nine Supreme Court Justices’ courage to review Roe vs. Wade; I just hope they will not abandon that courage and cave in to the threats and attempted intimidation by the blatant rants of the liberal feminists and their colleagues in crime, including some officials in high political office as well as some physicians who allegedly are honor bound to relieve suffering and save lives. Instead of that high calling from a human standpoint, a physician stoops to encouraging a woman to abort (murder) an innocent person with the physician as the executioner.

But how did Hitler and the abortionists in the United States ever reach such a degraded state? They have embraced the false premise of organic evolution and secular humanism (atheism) who seek to push God out of the universe which he created (Gen. 1:1; Acts 17:24) and deny his “Right” to rule over humanity which he created in his own image (Gen. 1:26, 27). Therefore, they have a calloused view of life while we believe that God is (Gen. 1:1) and that all life originated in him and emanates from him (Gen. 2:7; Acts 17:24, 25). Life is a precious, sacred gift from God, and no one has a “right” to take human life (Gen. 9:5, 6). This prohibition includes people of the highest positions of authority, medical doctors, and any one else acting on his own volition. Only civil government has such a “right” and then only after an accused has due process of law – heard, judged and condemned by a jury of one’s peers (Gen. 9:6: Exod. 21:12; Rom. 13:1-4; 1 Pet. 2:13, 14). It is not strange that the very people who so blatantly affirm the “right” of a woman and her doctor to abort (murder) an unborn child (who never sinned and never had “due process of law”) will deny the “right” of civil government to execute crimnals (murders) who have been tried, convicted and sentenced to death by a court of their peers?

Whose Rights?

Pro-abortionists and anti-capital punishment advocates deny the “right” of civil government to execute convicted and sentenced criminals (a “right” ordained of God and revealed through the Scriptures) but fervently defend the “right” of a woman and her doctor to decide to abort (murder) a defenseless, sinless child in his mother’s womb. And to what “rights” do these people refer? Obviously their false claims are made, not on “rights” that inhere in God, but “rights” that human courts grant when they cave in to such evil demands, thinking that the claims of advocates of abortion (murder) that a majority of Americans favor abortion are true. They attempt to avoid the moral issue involved by glibly talking about social issues. This is a result of their rejection of Jehovah God and his divine decrees, and their embracing the moralism of the secular humanists.

Morality vs. Moralism

Morality is the proper conduct of human beings between themselves. Being made in the image of God, they are expected to hear and obey the laws promulgated by God and revealed in his word, the Bible. Moralism is the “ethical” conduct based on human wisdom divested of every precept of God. Consider the two divergent solutions proposed by theists and humanists (atheists):

Theist. His solution to unwanted pregnancies and prevention against venereal diseases, including AIDS, is abstinence. This is, of course, God’s solution who ordained marriage between one man and one woman, and revealed that sexual intercourse is permissible only in this holy union. Fornication is an abomination before God, and all fornicators will “have their part in the lake of fire and brimstone, which is the second death” (Rev. 21:8). The Lord, the Righteous Judge, will not listen to all the assertions of “rights” granted by manmade laws.

Atheist. His solution to unwanted pregnancies and prevention against venereal diseases, including AIDS, is the use of contraceptives. Condoms are promoted and advertised over TV and in magazines as the best way for “safe sex.” There is never a reference to the moral precepts of God. Atheists, including humanists, treat moral principles with contempt. The idea is that “there is no evidence for belief in the existence of a supernatural; it is either meaningless or irrelevant to the question of the survival and fulfillment of the human race. As nontheists, we begin with humans not God, nature not deity. . . No deity will save us; we must save ourselves” (Humanist Manifesto A P. 16). These foolish ones (Psa. 14:1) have been exposed and shown to be totally impotent to effect their blasphemous assertions by the AIDS epidemic which is raging unabated and has millions of people wringing their hands and demanding that the U.S. government expend billions of dollars to find a cure for this dreadful and fatal disease. The vast majority of AIDS victims have been diagnosed among male homosexuals, with a much smaller group being users of needles contaminated by diseased drug addicts. But the tragic result of being a victim of AIDS is found in hemophiliacs who have been contaminated by blood donated by the carriers and/or victims of the dread disease. It seems that the humanist/atheist has been quiet as can be on their assertion that “no gods can save us; we must save ourselves.” I am sick and tired of their blatant denials of God and evil claims of what they are going to do. Let them get busy and quit trying to shift the blame. After all, they have embraced “situation ethics” and “neither do we wish to prohibit by law or social sanction, sexual behaviour between consenting adults . . . individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire” (Humanist Manifesto II, p. 18).

An example of the confused attitudes in America concerning morality vs. moralism, is shown in the results of a recent poll by the Los Angeles Times. The poll showed that a majority of respondents believed that abortion is wrong, but a majority thought a woman should have the “right of choice” whether to abort (murder) her unborn child.

Does Abortion Leave Psychological Scars?

A few months ago, Dr. Koop, then Surgeon General of the United States, was quoted as saying in effect that there is no clear evidence of psychological scars from having an abortion. I wonder what “evidence” the good doctor was referring to, as “evidence” to the contrary abounds. Numerous accounts can be given, but I believe that an article written by a young woman, a Christian now married and the mother of two children, will suffice to show Dr. Koop’s evidence is flawed! I am submitting the article with this manuscript. Her story tells the psychological effect on this young woman far better than I can. Read it and weep.

“Thoughts of an Unborn Child”

Sharon Gann

Today I came to be – Although, only as a seed.

But it wasn’t long until my tiny heart began to beat.

I can’t wait for my mommy to see me,

Oh, she’ll be so proud.

I can faintly hear her voice now,

Whenever she talks out loud.

I hope she takes me shopping and buys me lots of toys.

I know that she won’t mind when I make a lot of noise.

The things we’ll do together, like going to the park.

And how she’ll hold and comfort me when I awaken in the dark.

I have lots of time to think in here,

While mommy waits for me.

And I’ve been thinking of things I’ll do and what I’ll grow to be.

I can’t wait to play outside and pick for her a flower,

Or sit with her with my blocks and build a great big tower.

Maybe she’ll push me on my swing,

Or fly a kite with me,

Or maybe we’ll just watch the birds,

As she bounces me on her knee.

I can’t wait till I can hug her neck and see her pretty face,

And thank her for the gift of life into the human race.

Mommy’s going out today, I bet its to the store.

To buy a brand new outfit for me to wear when I am born.

I’m looking forward to all of God’s wondrous world to see,

To tell my mommy how I love her;

Of the friends that we will be.

I guess I’ll never smell a flower or be bounced upon her knee,

She’ll never know how much I loved her.

Today she killed me.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 13, pp. 404-405
July 6, 1989

By Richard Boone

Now the works of the flesh are manifest which are these: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God (Gal. 5:19-21).

The churches of Galatia, to whom Paul wrote this epistle, were once under the yoke of Moses’ Law, but were made free through Christ (5:1). As they were free, they were not to use their freedom “for an occasion to the flesh” (5:13). He shows in the next verses that the works of the flesh are contrary to those of the Spirit (5:17). He also shows that the works of the flesh are destructive – “they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God” (5:21; emphasis mine – rb). Because these things are so, we need to be eminently concerned about all of the works of the flesh, and anything “such like.” I want to deal with one of these specifically: lasciviousness. Please follow carefully and consider it.

To know what we are talking about, we must understand what lasciviousness means. W.E. Vine, in his Expository Dictionary of N. T. Words, says that lasciviousness “denotes excess, licentiousness, absence of restraint, indecency, wantonness” (Vol. 2, p. 310). J.H. Thayer defines “lasciviousness” as “unbridled lust, excess, licentiousness, wantonness, outrageousness, shamelessness, insolence” (Greek-English Lexicon of the N. T., entry #766). The NKJV says “licentiousness” which means “lacking legal or moral restraints; especially disregarding sexual restraints” (Webster’s 9th New Collegiate Dictionary, 1984, p. 688; emphasis mine – rb). Reader, do you see what is involved in lasciviousness? Do you see that it is a work of the flesh? If we are practicing such, we will have no hope if we do not repent and receive forgiveness of it. While there are many things which promote lasciviousness (certain songs, TV programs, movies, pornography, dancing, mixed swimming, etc.), I want to turn our attention now to one specific thing – our clothing.

There are principles in the New Testament which are to govern the apparel which Christians are to wear. They are found in 1 Timothy 2:9-10, “‘In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety, not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array; But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.” Each of the italicized words are the principles by which we are to dress. (Also, while I am here, I realize that Paul is speaking specifically to women. But, I believe and teach that the same principles apply to men. God didn’t regulate women’s clothing and then allow men to go nearly naked. Fellows, these guidelines apply to us, too!) What does Paul mean by modest, shame facedness, and sobriety? Consider the following definitions as they are used in 1 Timothy 2:9-10:

Modest: “(kosmios) orderly, well-arranged, decent, . . . is used in 1 Tim. 2:9 of the apparel with which Christian women are to adorn themselves . . .” (Expository Dictionary of N. T. Words, Vine, Vol. 3, p. 79).

Shamefacedness: “(didds) a sense of shame, modesty, is used regarding the demeanor of women in the church, 1 Tim. 2-9. . . ” (Ibid., Vol. 4, p. 17).

Sobriety: “(sophrosune) denotes soundness of mind, . . . 1 Tim. 2:9; sound judgment practically expresses the meaning; ‘it is that habitual inner self-government, with its constant rein on all the passions and desires, which would hinder the temptation to these from arising, or at all events from arising in such strength as would overbear the checks and barriers which aidos (shamefacedness) opposes to it’ [Trench]” (Ibid., Vol. 4, pp. 44-45).

Now we understand what is meant by modest, shamefacedness, and sobriety. They refer to sound judgment, a sense of shame, and the self-discipline which we are to have in regards to what we wear.

Let us consider some of the clothing that is “fashionable” and see if it fits the principles of modesty found in 1 Timothy 2:910. What about the low-neck and low-back dresses that are worn? Tight jeans (men’s and women’s)? Tight shirts or blouses? Shorts? Swim wear? Can we wear these kinds of clothing which often reveal or accentuate more than they cover, and still be modest, shamefaced, or sober? I think not. Yet many today parade around everywhere (at malls, at, public swimming pools, in the yard, at home, and sometimes in the assemblies, etc.) apparel that would promote lasciviousness. That does not even come close to sound judgment, sober thinking, or having a sense of shame. Let me ask a question: whether you are a man or woman, would you be embarrassed for people to walk in your bedroom and see you in your underclothes? I hope that you would answer “Yes!” to that question. If you would be embarrassed by that, then why would you publicly wear clothes that cover less than underclothing and sometimes are more suggestive than underclothes? If you would be embarrassed by one, you ought to be embarrassed by the other.

Finally, if we are desiring to please God, then our attitude toward anything that promotes a work of the flesh, should be that which is found in the Scriptures. Since lasciviousness is sin, it is contrary to godly things and is destructive. What should our attitude toward it be? Look at the following verses and we can find out: Rom. 12:1-2,9,21; 1 Cor. 8:13; 10: 32-33; Gal. 6:78; Eph. 5:8-11; Col. 3:5; 1 Thess. 5:22; 2 Tim.2:22; 1 Pet. 1:13-16; 2:11; 3:10-11; 4:1-4; and many others. When we take what these passages say about avoiding evil, they do not tell us to take part, or hang around and see what it is like. They say “Be not conformed . . . Abhor . . . Reprove . . . Mortify . . . Abstain . . . Flee . . . etc.” That is what we will do – if we want to please God.

I am not trying to put a damper on anybody’s fun, because anyone who knows me knows that I like to have fun. However, we have come to that time of year when most folks like to go around with practically nothing on. Each of us must be certain that we are not partaking in or promoting any work of the flesh, specifically lasciviousness. When we take what the Scriptures teach, then we can rest assured that we will not be a party to any such sins.

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 13, pp. 398-399
July 6, 1989

By Donald Townsley

Introduction:

1. Summer brings some temptations to Christians that they don’t face to the same degree at other times of the year.

2. We think it well to deal with some of these temptations and sins because Satan is going to use every device he can to destroy us (2 Cor. 2:11; 1 Pet. 5:8).

Body:

I. Immodest Dress.

A. The Problem:

1. In today’s society both men and women go as bare as they can possibly go without being completely nude!

2. Immodest dress is treated as being a human right – the right of men to look with pleasurable lust upon the woman’s figure, and the right of women to entice man’s pleasurable lust by displaying her body.

3. Examples:

a. Both men and women wear skin-tight jeans or pants that reveal every contour of the body, and shorts that are as short as they can get them!

b. Females wear mini-skirts, dresses that are cut too low in front (and back), that are too short, are too tight, that have slits showing the leg (giving a “strip-tease” view of the leg) which is very sensual and lust-exciting to the male; strapless evening dresses and sun dresses with the entire back out. (Even some of these are worn among women who profess to be Christians!)

B. What is wrong with immodest dress?

1. Dressing immodestly, by either men or women, is contrary to the law of Christ (1 Tim. 2:9,10; Gal. 5:19). The principles of modesty are taught throughout the word of God – Old and New Testament. God made “coats of skins, and clothed” Adam and Eve (Gen. 3:21).

2. The nakedness of a woman’s body excites lust in men (1 Jn. 2:16 – “the lust of the eyes”; evil desires are awakened by sight).

a. David looked on Bathsheba washing herself and lusted (2 Sam. 11:2-4). We all are familiar with the depth to which this sin led!

b. The writer of Proverbs says, “Lust not after her beauty in thine heart” (Prov. 6:25).

c. Job said, “I made a covenant with mine eyes, why then should I think upon a maid?” (Job. 31:1)

3. Jesus warned in Matthew 5:28: whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

4. All of us need to realize that our clothing makes a statement about us: my dress outside reveals how I am thinking inside!

5. Clothing that is too short, too tight, cut too low (front or back), or that is too revealing in any way is not indicative of godliness, and has no place being worn by those who are Christians, men or women! (Gal. 5:19)

C. Questions about dress that women need to ask themselves:

1. Can I stand, walk and sit in this garment and still be modest – not show nudity?

2. Does the clothing I have on accent certain parts of my body that would tend to excite lustful desires in men?

3. Does my dress stir admiration and respect for me, or does it stir lascivious thoughts?

4. Does the clothing I have on dull the destructive powers of temptation in those who look upon me?

5. Does my dress leave the impression that I am lacking in character? Dress advertises character or the lack thereof (Tamar, Gen. 38; the attire of a harlot, Prov. 7:10).

6. What kind of influence will the clothing I wear have on those who are outside of Christ?

II. The Temptation to Look and Lust (“the lust of the eyes,” 1 Jn. 2:16).

A. Everywhere we go we are confronted with both men and women who are almost nude!

B. Men and women have very strong sexual desires which can be aroused by viewing the unclad (or scantily clad) bodies of the opposite sex, if complete self-control is not exercised (1 Cor. 9:27).

C. Jesus warns about mental adultery.

1. Matt. 5:28: “. . . whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

2. Matt. 15:19: “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts,. . . adulteries, fornications.”

3. Mark 7:20-21: “. . that which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications.

D. What is mental adultery?

1. To look to develop fantasies of conquest; to picture situations in the mind; to think adultery with a person to the point that if the opportunity were presented you would commit the physical act.

2. To look with an intentional and conscious desire to gratify the lust of the heart; to view a women to feed lustful desires.

E. Job tells us how to keep from committing mental adultery (Job 31:1). We must control our thoughts.

F. How to control our thoughts.

1. Confess all lustful thoughts to God (1 Jn. 1:9).

2. Ask God for help with temptation (Matt. 26:41; 1 Cor. 10:13), and determine in mind that you are going to take advantage of the way of escape when temptation does come.

3. Bring into captivity every thought to the obedience of Jesus Christ (2 Cor. 10:5).

4. Hide the word of God in your heart (Psa. 119:11). Avoid going to places where there will be nudity.

a. Do not attend/rent movies or watch TV that is filled with nudity, petting and fornication.

b. Most movies today are filled with this kind of thing. If you find yourself in such, walk out; turn it off!

III. Mixed Swimming.

A. Many Christians who enjoy swimming will be tempted to go to the beaches or public swimming pools. The attire that is worn at the beach/swimming pools is designed to expose as much of the body as the law will allow, and the law allows a lot! This is no place for a Christian!

B. Mixed swimming is a lascivious practice – it produces lewd emotions (Gal. 5:19).

C. Those who engage in mixed swimming become a stumbling block to others (Matt. 18:6,7).

1. Bathsheba became a stumbling block to David by being undressed (1 Sam. 11:2-4: “the lust of the eyes,” 1 Jn. 2:16).

2. Women today do the same when in bikinis, bathing suits, etc.

IV. Petting.

A. Summer nights provide a great temptation for young people to park and “pet.” (By “Petting” I mean kissing, embracing, and the fondling of the body.)

B. When people “pet” they arouse lustful passions and the act of petting becomes a lascivious act (Gal. 5:19; 2 Tim. 2:22).

1. Petting is just as sinful as fornication (Gal. 5:19).

2. One is not fleeing fornication and youthful lusts when he or she engages in petting (1 Cor. 6:18; 2 Tim. 2:22).

3. No one has the right to stir passions that he has no lawful right to fulfill.

4. Petting is an act intended only as preparation for the marriage bed (Heb. 13:4).

C. A great number of people who start out petting eventually go all the way and commit fornication! This is the great danger of engaging in petting – strong passions are aroused that are difficult to control!

D. One’s best defense is to determine never to begin this lascivious practice.

1. Young woman, allow no young man to “pet” with you! Allow no one to handle your body! Keep yourself pure in every way for one man, the man you will marry. You will be happy that you did!

2. Young man, keep your hands off the bodies of young women! They do not belong to you – you have no right! Be able to present yourself to your bride as pure as you want her to be!

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 13, pp. 399-400
July 6, 1989

By David A. Padfield

Many passages in the New Testament plainly demonstrate the necessity of water baptism for the remission of sins. We use verses like Mark 16:16 and Acts 2:38 frequently in our preaching because they are so simple to understand. Yet, there are other verses which teach the same thing and we sometimes shy away from using them. I am afraid John 3:5 falls into this last Category.

In John 3:5 Jesus told Nicodemus, “Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God.” There is one birth under discussion in this passage and it consists of two parts: water and Spirit. Maybe it is the word “Spirit” that scares some people off.

Several years ago I had a debate with a Baptist preacher and used this passage as one of my affirmative arguments. My opponent tried to “drain” the water out of this verse by claiming “water” and “Spirit” referred to the same element. He said, “I think the simplest and most accurate rendering would be ‘Except a man be born of water’ and take the word kai (and) to mean ‘even,’ so it would read, ‘Except a man be born of water, even the Spirit.’ And that puts the Spirit in apposition with water, meaning the same thing.”

“And” or “Even”?

My opponent’s argument was not entirely new. John Calvin taught the same thing. The Greek word kai (and) is a conjunction and is sometimes translated “even.” For example, in Luke 10:17 we read, “Then the seventy returned with joy, saying, ‘Lord, even the demons are subject to us in your name.”‘ But is this the way it should be translated in John 3:5? I checked 18 different translations of John 3:5 and could not find anyone who rendered this verse as “water even Spirit.” Many of these translations were produced by Baptists and used in their colleges.

The Analytical Greek New Testament was published in 1981 by Baker Book House, It was compiled by Timothy and Barbara Friberg. To explain it simply, they put the Greek text of our New Testament into a computer and asked it to do a grammatical analysis. The entire Greek text was then printed out and a “grammatical tag” was placed under each word to show what part of speech it was. Not only were nouns, verbs and prepositions indicated, but also case, gender, person and number. The tag under the word kai in John 3:5 shows it to be a connective conjunction,, not an adverb, and should therefore be translated as “and.”

Voice of Scholarship

While not everyone will find use for the following quotations, I believe it is profitable to note the comments of several prominent Greek scholars regarding the proper translation of John 3:5. Many of these men served on the translation committees of the Bibles we use today. Though I do not like the way some of these men expressed themselves, they all point out the two elements of the new birth: water and Spirit.

Henry Alford: “There can be no doubt, on any honest interpretation of the words, that ‘born of water’ refers to the token or outward sign of baptism – ‘born of spirit’ to the thing signified, or inward grace of the Holy Spirit. All attempts to get rid of these two plain facts have sprung from doctrinal prejudices, by which the views of expositors have been warped. Such we have in Calvin” (Alford’s Greek Testament, Vol. 1, p. 714).

W. Robertson Nicoll: “To remove as far as possible the difficulty of Nicodemas as to the poz (how, dp) of the new birth our Lord declares that the two great factors in it are ‘water’ and ‘spirit'” (Expositors Greek Testament, Vol. I, p. 713).

Marvin R. Vincent: “The exposition of this much controverted passage does not fall within the scope of this work. We may observe, 1. That Jesus here lays down the preliminary conditions of entrance into His kingdom, expanding and explaining His statement in ver. 3. 2. That this condition is here stated as complete, including two distinct factors, water and the Spirit. 3. That the former of these two factors is not to be merged in the latter; that the spiritual element is not to exclude or obliterate the external and ritual element. We are not to understand with Calvin, the Holy Spirit as the purifying water in the spiritual sense: ‘water which is the Spirit.’ 4. That water points definitely to the rite of baptism, and with a twofold reference – to the past and to the future” (Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. 2, p. 91).

B.F. Westcott: “It can, then, scarcely be questioned that as Nicodemus heard the words, water carried with it a reference to John’s baptism, which was a divinely appointed rite (i,33), gathering up into itself and investing with a new importance all the lustural baptisms of the Jews.”

A.T. Robertson: “We are puzzled by the placing of ‘water’ here before ‘Spirit’ as a necessity to entering the Kingdom of God. But Nicodemas was troubled about ‘Spirit.’ He was thinking only of the physical birth. On the whole it is profitable that by ‘water’ Jesus refers to baptism. John the Baptist preached repentance and practiced the baptism of those who confessed their sins” (Minor Characters in the New Testament, p. 6).

John R. Graves (Noted Baptist Preacher): “If brother Vaughn convinced us that born of water refers to anything but the baptism of one previously born of the Spirit, we never knew it, and we would have owed it to him and to our readers. It means nothing else, and no Baptist that we ever heard or read of ever believed otherwise until A. Campbell frightened them away from an interpretation that is sustained by the consensus of 0 scholars of all denominations in all ages” (The Tennessee Baptist, p. 5, October 30, 1886).

What Is the “Spirit”?

What role does the Spirit have in the new birth? God used the agency of the Holy Spirit to reveal his word unto man. “Prophecy never came by the will of man, but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit” (2 Pet. 1:21). Paul goes into great detail in 1 Corinthians 2:7-13 explaining how the Spirit revealed the message of God unto the apostles.

When Jesus commands us to be “born of water and of the Spirit,” he has reference to the waters of baptism joined with our obedience to the Spirit revealed word. This passage is much easier to understand in the light of a few other passages. Please note the chart below titled “Some Parallels.” I do not know who drew this chart originally, but I have used it in two debates with Baptist preachers.

Some Parallels

John 3:5	1 Cor. 12:13	Eph. 5:26	Titus 3:5
born of water	baptized	washing of water	washing of regeneration
born of Spirit	by one Spirit	by the word	renewing of Holy Ghost
enter into the kingdom of God	into one body	sanctify and cleanse it	saved

Ephesians 5:26 says Christ died for the church “that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word.” Here the “washing of water” has reference to baptism. The phrase “by the word” has to refer to the word revealed by the Spirit.

In Titus 3:5 we find that salvation is “not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost.”

Another parallel is found in 1 Corinthians 12:13, “for by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body.” Both water (baptism) and Spirit are found here. In John 3:5 they are said to be necessary to “enter the kingdom of God.” Paul told the Corinthians these same elements would put us into the “one body.” This body is the church (Col. 1:18).

James sums up the whole discussion in James 1: 18, “of His own will begat he us with the word of truth.”

Guardian of Truth XXXIII: 14, pp. 419-420
July 20, 1989