Difference Between a Bikini and Underwear

Have you ever asked yourself is there a difference?

As Christians, we are to be giving a proper estimate of Him, seeking to know HIS will, to glorify Him, not ourselves.

We are all in the sanctification process...indeed...we should all be works in progress, looking backward and thanking Him for challenging and changing us to be more conformed to HIS image, and less like the world.

Do you look more like Jesus today than you did a day, a month, a year ago?  Can someone discern that you are truly a follower of Christ, or is your behavior, your conduct, your conversation, your company causing His name to be blasphemed?

For those who may be interested in further reading on modesty:

Christian Modesty

Father, help each of us, because not one of us walking this earth has attained perfection in our sanctification, give us an ever growing passion and desire to be conformed to You, to thirst and hunger after You and Your righteousness.

Lord chastise us when we cause Your name to be blasphemed...and cause us to turn and repent before You.

Injurious Effects of Backsliding

Courtesy Chapel Library - Free Grace Broadcaster - Issue 197 - Fall 2006

INJURIOUS EFFECTS OF BACKSLIDING

Andrew Fuller (1754-1815) 

FIRST, IT WILL NECESSARILY DEPRIVE US of all true enjoyment in religion, and by consequence of all that preservation to the heart and mind, which such enjoyment affords. The principal sources of enjoyment, to a Christian that walketh spiritually, are communion with God and His people. But to him that is out of the way, these streams are dried up; or, which is the same thing in effect to him, they are so impeded as not to reach him. Guilt, shame, darkness, and defilement have taken possession of the soul. Love is quenched, hope clouded, joy fled, prayer restrained, and every other grace *enervated.  It becomes the holiness of God to frown upon us in such a state of mind by withholding the light of His countenance; and, if it were otherwise, we have no manner of desire after it.

Such was the state of David after he had sinned and before he had repented: the joys of God’s salvation were far from him. The thirty-second and thirty-eighth Psalms appear to have been written…after his recovery. But he there describes what was the state of his mind previously to it. There is much meaning in what he sets out with in the former of these Psalms: “Blessed is he whose transgression is forgiven, whose sin is covered. Blessed is the man unto whom the LORD imputeth not iniquity, and in whose spirit there is no guile” (Psa 32:1, 2). He knew the contrary of this by bitter experience. Guilt and defilement had eaten up all his enjoyment. “When I kept silence,” saith he, “my bones waxed old through my roaring all the day long. For day and night thy hand was heavy upon me: my moisture is turned into the drought of summer” (Psa 32:3, 4). It does not appear that he fully desisted from prayer; but there was none of that freedom in it, which he was *wont to enjoy. It was roaring rather than praying; and God is represented as disregarding it.  In the thirty-eighth Psalm he speaks of the rebukes of God’s wrath, and the chastening of His hot displeasure; of His arrows sticking fast in him, and His hand pressing him sore; of there being no soundness in his flesh, because of His anger; nor rest in his bones, because of his sin. There is one expression exceedingly appropriate: “My wounds stink and are corrupt, because of my foolishness.” A wound may be dangerous at the time of its being received; but much more so if it be neglected till the humors of the body are drawn towards it. In this case, it is hard to be healed; and the patient has not only to reflect on his heedlessness in first exposing himself to danger, but on his foolishness in so long neglecting the prescribed remedy. Such was the state of his mind, until, as he informs us, he “acknowledged his transgressions” and was “sorry for his sin.”

And as there can be no communion with God, so neither can there be any with His people. If our sin be known, it must naturally occasion a reservedness, if not an exclusion from their society. Or, if it be unknown, we shall be equally unable to enjoy communion with them. Guilt in our consciences will beget shame and incline us rather to stand aloof than to come near them; or, if we go into their company, it will prove a bar to freedom. There is something at first sight rather singular in the language of the Apostle John; but upon closer inspection it will be found to be perfectly just: “If we walk in the light as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another” (1Jo 1:7)…

Nor shall we be deprived merely of the enjoyments of religion, but of all that preservation to the soul, which they afford. The peace of God is represented as that which keeps or fortifies our hearts and minds. Without this, the heart will be in perpetual danger of being seduced by the wiles or sunk by the pressures of this world and the mind of being drawn aside from the simplicity of the Gospel.

Secondly, it will render us useless in our generation. The great end of existence with a good man is to live to Him, Who died for us and rose again. If God bless us, it is that, like Abraham, we may be blessings to others. Christians are said to be the salt of the earth and the light of the world; but while we are in the state above described, we are as salt that has lost its savor, which is “good for nothing,” or as a light that is hid under a vessel (Mat 5:13, 15).

Of what use, with respect to religion, are we in our families, while this is the case? Neither servants nor children can think well of religion, from anything they see in us. And when we go into the world and mingle among mankind in our dealings, in whose conscience does our conversation or behavior plant conviction? Where is the man who, on leaving our company, has been compelled by it to acknowledge the reality of religion? Or, if we occupy a station in the church of God (and this character may belong to a minister no less than to another man), we shall do little or no good in it…There is a threatening directed against vain pastors which ought to make a minister tremble: “Woe to the idol shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened” (Zec 11:17). Perhaps one of the greatest temptations to backsliding in ministers may lie in this way: being selected from their brethren and chosen to the office of public instructors, they are in danger of indulging in *self-valuation.  A man may labor night and day in his study and all to get accomplished that he may shine before the people. Where this is the case, the preacher is his own idol, and it may be that of the people….This character may respect ungodly preachers, such to whom the Jewish nation were given up for their rejection of Christ; but there is no sin committed by the most ungodly man of which the most godly is not in danger.

Thirdly, we shall not only be useless, but injurious to the cause of Christ. Indeed, it is impossible to stand neuter in this cause. If we do no good, we shall do harm, not only as *cumberers of the ground (Luk 13:7), occupying that place in society which might be better filled by others, but as giving a false representation of religion and diffusing a savor of death among mankind. If our domestics infer nothing favorable to religion from our conduct in the family, they will infer something unfavorable; and if there be but little good to be seen in our example, it is well if there be not much evil; and this will surely be imitated. Who can calculate what influence the treachery, unchastity, and murder, committed by David, had upon his family? We know that each was acted over again by Amnon and Absalom. And thus many a parent has seen his own sins repeated in his posterity. And perhaps, if he had lived longer, might have seen them multiplied still more to his shame and confusion.

The servants of God are called to bear testimony for Him: “Ye are my witnesses, saith the LORD” (Isa 43:10). This is done not merely by words, but by deeds. There is a way of bearing witness to the reality and importance of religion, by a zealous perseverance in it; to its dignity, by our firmness; to its happy influence, by contentedness and cheerfulness; and to its purity, by being holy in all manner of conversation: and this is a kind of testimony, which is more regarded than any other. Men, in common, form their opinion of religion more by what they see in the professors of it than by the profession itself. Hence, it was that David by his deed is said to have given “great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme” (2Sa 12:14). They were not contented with reproaching him, but must speak against God and religion on his account….Things operate much the same to this day. Whatever evil is done by a professor, it is ascribed to his religion. In this view, we may justly consider our unchristian conduct as bearing false witness of God. For it is giving false representations of His Gospel and government to the world.

A grasping, selfish spirit is saying to those around us, that, after all which we have professed of living by faith in a portion beyond death, the present world is the best, and therefore we are for making sure of that, and running all hazards as to the other. In like manner, a cruel and revengeful disposition towards those who have offended us is saying that Christianity, after all its professions of meekness and forgiveness of injuries, renders its adherents no better than others. And when a Christian professor is detected of having privately indulged in the lusts of the flesh, the conclusion that is drawn from it is, that there is nothing in religion but outside appearance, and that in secret, religious people are the same as others. It is impossible to say how much such conduct operates to the hardening of men in sin, to the quenching of their convictions, to the weakening the hands of God’s servants, and to the stumbling of persons who are inquiring the way to Zion…

Fourthly, we are in the utmost danger of falling into future temptations, and so of sinking deeper and falling further from God. So long as sin remains upon the conscience unlamented, it is like poison in the constitution. It will be certain to operate, and that in a way that shall go on more and more to kill all holy resolution, to harden the heart, and to defile the imaginations and desires. “Whoredom and wine and new wine take away the heart” (Hos 4:11). It was from sad experience of the defiling nature of past sin that David, when he came to himself, prayed, “Create in me a clean heart, O God; and renew a right spirit within me” (Psa 51:10).

A mind thus enfeebled, stupefied, and defiled, must needs be in a very unfit condition to resist new temptations. The inhabitants of a besieged city, who are weakened by famine and disease, and discouraged by a number of disaffected persons within their walls, have no heart to resist, but stand ready to listen to the first proposals of the besiegers. And in proportion as we are disabled for resistance, it may be expected that the tempter will renew his attempts upon us. If Satan has any influence upon the human mind, it may be supposed that he acts with design and knows how to avail himself of the most favorable seasons to effect his purpose. And this we find to be true by experience. In proportion as we have yielded to temptation, it will rise in its demands. Solicitations, greater in number and in force, will ply our minds. As a resistance of the devil will be followed by his fleeing from us, so on the contrary, a non-resistance of him will be followed by renewed and stronger attempts upon us. One sin makes way for another and renders us less able to resist or to return to God by repentance…Samson first yielded to his sensual desires. After this, to the entreaties of his Delilah, who, in proportion as she saw him pliant to her wishes, increased in her *assiduousness until at length he lost his hair, his liberty, his eyes, and his life…

Fifthly, so long as sin remains upon the conscience unlamented, we are in danger of eternal damnation. It may be thought by some that such language is inconsistent with the final perseverance of believers; but it is manifest that our Lord did not so teach the doctrine of perseverance as to render cautions of this nature unnecessary. He did not *scruple to declare, even to His own disciples, that whosoever should say to his brother, “Thou fool,” should be in danger of hell-fire (Mat 5:22)—that if they forgave not men their trespasses, neither would God forgive theirs (Mat 6:15)—and if a right hand, or a right eye, caused them to offend, it must be cut off, or plucked out, and that lest the whole body should be cast into hell (Mat 5:29).

The object at which sin aims, whether in believers or unbelievers, is death—eternal death. To this, it has a natural and direct tendency….If it does not in all cases come to this issue, it is not because of its being different as to its nature or tendency in some persons to what it is in others, but because a timely stop is put to its operations. Only let it go on without repentance until it has finished its work, and eternal death will be the issue.

Whatever we are, so long as sin lies unlamented upon the conscience, we have no scriptural foundation to conclude that we are Christians. No real Christian, it is true, will prove an apostate; yet while we are under the influence of sin, we are moving in the direction which leads to apostasy. If we are contented with a relapsed state of mind, what ground can we have to conclude that it is not our element or that we have ever been the subjects of true religion?

From The Backslider.

-------------------------------------------
*
enervated – deprived of nerve and strength.
wont – accustomed
self-valuation – appreciation of one’s self.
cumberers of the ground – those who use up or waste the ground.
assiduousness – persistence.
scruple – hesitate.

“Playing the Pharisee Card”

Courtesy of Issues, Etc.

I have been called a Pharisee more times than I can remember. It goes with the territory. I host a conservative Christian radio talk show. I publicly defend the teachings and practices of the historic Church. I also publicly point out false teaching and practices in the Church today. For these reasons alone, some believe that I deserve to be called a Pharisee.

But I’m not alone. Today, the label “Pharisee” is applied to many Christians just like me—perhaps you’re one of them. We are Christians who cherish God’s Word, the Church’s historic Creeds, confessions and practices. …

When we see the Church abandoning these things to follow the latest fads and entertainments, we lament. When we see the Gospel itself being left behind in the Church’s rush to mimic popular culture, we are grieved. And when we question the Church’s infatuation with the spirit of the age, we are labeled Pharisees.

The “race card” is a political term of art made famour during the 1988 presidential race between George H. W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. In today’s presidential politics, we also have the “gender card.” The Race and Gender Cards aren’t designed to rise the legitimate issues surrounding race or gender. Instead, both the Race and Gender Cards are political tactics that exploit racial and gender divisions among voters, and appeal to the worst racial and gender sterotypes. In American politics, the Race and Gender Cards are played to discredit someone by implying that he is racist or sexist.

Just as politicians and pundits play the Race Card or the Gender Card, many in the Church are playing the “Pharisee Card.”

Just like the Race or Gender Cards, the Pharisee Card is not designed to raise a legitimate issue of doctrine or practice. Rather, the Pharisee Card is used to discredit someone by implying that he is narrow, rigid, and unloving—a Pharisee. Most often these days, the Pharisee Card is played to portray a fellow Christian as a “doctrinal purist,” resistant to change, and therefore, unconcerned for the lost.

The Pharisee Card is a powerful weapon. Most of its punch comes from the fact that, during His earthly ministry, Jesus did often condemn the Pharisees. The Pharisee Card is intended to be tantamount to the condemnation of Jesus Himself.

Why did Jesus so often condemn the Pharisees? Was it because (as those who play the Pharisee Card assume) the Pharisees were ultra-conservative doctrinal purists, with no love for the lost? No.

Were the Pharisees Concerned with Doctrinal Purity?

The Pharisee Card is played against Christians who are concerned with doctrinal purity. When used this way, the Pharisee Card is intended to discredit the doctrinal purist and silence any further questions about false teaching. It works beautifully. Those dealing the Pharisee Card know that many Christians would rather suffer silently under false teaching than speak up and risk being labeled a Pharisee.

The only problem is, Jesus never faulted the Pharisees for being doctrinal purists. He faulted them for being false teachers who abandoned the truth of God’s Word in favor of the erroneous word of man (Matthew 16:11–12; 15:1–9; Mark 7:6–13).

Jesus called Christians who demanded doctrinal purity “disciples,” not “Pharisees.” “If you abide in My word, then you are truly disciples of Mine; and you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” (John 8:31–32) In fact, Christians who demand doctrinal purity are really following the example of Jesus, of Paul and the other Apostles (Matthew 7:15; see also Matthew 24:10–11; Mark 9:42; 2 Corinthians 15:5; 1 Thessalonians 5:21; 1 Timothy 4:16; 6:3–4; Titus 1:7–9; 2:1, 7–8; 1 John 4:1; 2 Peter 3:17).

Were the Pharisees Resistant to Change?

The Pharisee Card is also played in order to discredit Christians who refuse to abandon the historic practices of the Church in favor of the latest innovations. This too works beautifully. Those dealing the Pharisee card know that, to avoid being labeled a Pharisee, many Christians will tolerate an endless succession of fads in worship, music, and ministry. But Jesus never faulted the Pharisees for resisting change. On the contrary, He faulted them for introducing their own innovations and methods in the place of God’s Word.

Dealers of the Pharisee Card will cite Luke 5:36–39 in favor of their own innovations:

And He was also telling them a parable: “No one tears a piece from a new garment and puts it on an old garment; otherwise he will both tear the new, and the piece from the new will not match the old. And no one puts new wine into old wineskins; otherwise the new wine will burst the skins, and it will be spilled out, and the skins will be ruined. But new wine must be put into fresh wineskins.”

Was Jesus calling for wholesale change, or warning against it? The new patch ruins the garment. The new wine bursts the wineskins. The context of the parable is a discussion of fasting. Rather than advocating the abandonment of this ancient practice, Jesus instead taught that ancient practices must now be understood and practiced in light of Him and His redemptive work.

Jesus didn’t condemn the Pharisees for retaining ancient paractices, or for resisting change; rather, Jesus concluded the parable by saying, “And no one, after drinking old wishes for new; for he says, ‘The old is good.’”

Were the Pharisees Unconcerned for the Lost?

Christians who demand doctrinal purity and resist compromising change are often accused of being Pharisees with no love for the lost. This is probably the most common use of the Pharisee card today. Those who like to play the Pharisee Card know that Christians will put up with almost anything in the name of missions and evangelism, in order to avoid being called Pharisees.

But Jesus never faulted the Pharisees for being unconcerned for the lost. On the contrary, He said:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel about on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. (Matthew 23:15)

Jesus had no problem with the missionary zeal of the Pharisees—they were zealous enough; Jesus had a problem with the Pharisees’ soul-damning message. Paul was of the same opinion:

For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not in accordance with knowledge. For not knowing about God’s righteousness, and seeking to establish their own, they did not subject themselves to the righteousness of God. (Romans 10:2–3)

And Paul spoke from experience. As a former Pharisee, his missionary zeal took him far and wide as a persecutor of the first Christians (Acts 9:1–2; Philippians 3:6).

The Pharisees’ error was not a lack of missionary zeal; it was that their false teaching (however zealously preached) damned rather than saved.

Moreover, contrary to everything the Pharisee Card is meant to imply, just because someone is concerned for doctrinal purity and resistant to theological innovation does not mean that he is unconcerned for the lost. On the contrary, departure from the pure Word, in doctrine and practice, does not help, but hinders the preaching of the Gospel, therefore impeding the mission of the Church. False teaching does not save sinners. Purity in doctrine and practice makes the preaching of the Gospel possible. Purity in doctrine and practice makes the preaching of the Gospel imperative.

The irony is that those most often called Pharisees in the Church today are those most concerned about the lost, and thereforepreaching the pure Gospel to them.

The power of the Pharisee Card is based on the mistaken idea that those unwilling to compromise in doctrine and practice are the modern-day counterparts of the ancient Pharisees. This idea has no basis in fact.

Why Did Jesus Really Condemn the Pharisees?

Read more --> HERE.