Is this type of tattoo (which is called Embedded) any different than the post before on tattoos? Where does altering your body become sinful? Where does altering your body become nothing more than vanity which is sin. I know that many out there want to push "Christian Liberty" but where is the line? I find it interesting that some classify this as "art" and therefore is off-limits to critics because of "free-speech." To me that is not even a stretch, that is simply foolish.
What about piercings? Is this another topic or does this fall in the same line?
For my critics out there let me make some disclaimers.
-I am not discussing those who have already had this done.
-I am not discussing those who are not saved.
-I do not care if someone is using it to "witness" to those around them. You know who you are.
-I did not say that anyone having anything done to their body is going to roast in Hell.
44 comments:
I think it is generally unwise.
It is not a sin.
For what it is worth, in my opinion what a man does on the outside to his body is indicative of what is on the inside....
I have heard it said many times, "It is not what is on the outside that matters, but what is on the inside."
I beg to differ. Our outsides are a reflection of what is in our hearts. Should Christians look like the world? If they want to, why???
Rick,
Running with your thought...
Is vanity a sin?
DT
Vanity is a sin that only God can correctly disern.
Man looks upon the outward appearance, God ponders the heart.
Hence, on the reverse, a person can be without tattoos, wearing a long dress, and without makeup and be filled with greed and murder. Many cups look clean enough on the outside but are filled with dead men's bones. That is why it is unscriptural and prideful to judge a person by the outward appearance.
And if it does show a problem on the inside (which it might), then let it be an exhortation to pray.
1 Cor 6:12. "Everything is permissible for me"--but not everything beneficial. "Everything is permissible for me"--but I will not be mastered by anything."
If it took me to put horns in my head so that one might be saved, I would do it, otherwise I see that though permissible, it is not beneficial...
I think this may fall in line also with a bit when Paul had Timothy circumcised... before the journey to Lystra and Iconium. Though Paul speaks harshly to those of the circumcision, he chooses still to have Timothy circumcised.
If we where in a culture that if one did not have this type of ornament, and that to not have it meant that person was not to be listened to, then I see it possibly beneficial to ornament oneself in such a manner...
Here in America it is done for shock value. Though I do not have tattoos or any piercings (any longer) I see that the reasons for these may not be a good thing...
Blessings,
iggy
DT-
You should quit taking secret photos at Friday night youth rallies!
J/K :)
I don't think this is sinful, but it's also not very wise! Like Rick said.
Hey Rick-
Do you mind when Armenians are referred to as "1 point Calvinists," since you guys embrace the first point of Calvinism; total depravity?
Just wondering!
Steve,
The problem with what you asked Rick is that they don't believe in total depravity. When someone believes in total depravity they will completely understand election and etc. Most people believe that man is spiritually depraved but not totally depraved. He still has some good in him spiritually speaking.
DT
DT,
You said that when someone believes in total depravity they will completely understand election...as though total depravity and election must go hand in hand. Sorry, dude, but on on that point you're lost (no pun intended). I believe in the total depravity of humanity, but I am still Arminian in my perspective on salvation. I do understand a Calvinist's perspective on election, and I understand why a Calvinist's belief in election is based on the idea of total depravity, but I don't believe that one necessitates the other. In fact, I would say that most of the Christians I know who are of the Arminian persuasion believe in total depravity and reject any notion that there is still good in us all.
Rick,
You said, "Vanity is a sin that only God can correctly disern."
By following that line of thinking people can start claiming that only God can interpret and understand His Word, know what is sin, and know what is truth. I wouldn't want to follow that reasoning.
Scott,
You definitely didn't understand DT nor do you understand total depravity. To embrace total depravity, one must embrace the inability to choose God. Why? Because of man's dead, sin-filled state. As I have mentioned in my some of my posts, a dead man never chose life and he never will. That is the essence of total depravity.
ds is correct, I do not believe in total depravity as defined by Calvin.
Sorry.
Actually it is only the Spirit that can help us understand His Word. Certain sins are behavioral, but sins of the spirit like greed or vanity or unforgiveness can only be discerned by the Spirit becuase only God sees thge heart.
Scott,
I'm afraid that you don't understand total depravity in the reformed sense. Do you believe that man has any good in him spiritually speaking? If he can choose God then he does have good in him. Total depravity is the idea that man is totally dead, not sick in sin. And that he cannot do ANYTHING on his own apart from God working first.
DT
Its funny being the Lefty i am i'd try to defend this,but i wouldn't try to defend plastic surgery hmmmmmm maybe its a class thing haha i am english ;-)
DT,
"When someone believes in total depravity they will completely understand election and etc."
I have a good understanding of Calvinistic election and what I see the Bible actually teaching.
But, a Calvinist is usually unable to see outside the "system" of theology they have placed themselves in.
I had the same problem as a young man when I saw "in the spirit" and took it to mean "tongues".
The issues is that often the filter (hermeneutics) one uses, can color the way we see scripture.
I have tried and tried to see it the Calvinist way, yet as I said I have come against questions such as the ones I have already brought up on total depravity that seem to make Calvinists have to jump through a few hoops to make their view fit scripture.
I read a lot of James White who I think is one of the best Calvinist apologetics today, yet the more I read, the more I saw him having to jump through hoops to make things work... meanwhile just reading the different passages I saw a pattern and began to understand what the bible teaches on it.
I may agree though that an Arminian may not also be able to fully see the bibles teachings on foreknowledge and predestination.
The truth though it takes one to totally trust in "total" depravity so that all of TULIP works... if one does not believe in "Total" depravity and starts to wander out of that teaching under Calvinist, then they begin to lose the systems cohesiveness.
Now, please do nto take me as being ANTI CALVINIST as some accuse me of... I am just not a Calvinist and see to many questions that need answered while I have found what I have simply read fits together better.
Be Blessed,
iggy
DT,
"Total depravity is the idea that man is totally dead, not sick in sin."
The issue is though that man may be dead... spiritually, yet not "totally" dead...
The example I have is when I was a carrier for a pathologists office. I had to pick up a amputated leg and transport it.
I realized that part of that person was "dead" while he was still alive.
I see that is how we are as humans. Part of us is dead... and if we do not seek life from the Son, we will be totally dead as in the Lake of Fire which is the Second Death.
Man is not born totally dead... he is alive though a part of him is dead as he sins... it is that the wages of sin is death... not that man is just born dead... man must sin to die.
The issue that we face is not that we need to "stop sinning" (I am not saying we can still just "sin") the issue is we are dead and need life. Now we are New Creations... thought we do not see this in its fullness, we do have the spirit of Life in us and are sealed by the Holy Spirit.
In Resurrection, we then will be clothed in imperishable... we will be dwelling in the Total Life that is in Christ.... while those who reject Christ will be lost to Total Death...
One cannot be born totally dead and then raised as totally dead then made more dead.
Also, the bible teaches that a dead man cannot sin.
Isiah 38:18-19 "For the grave cannot praise you, death cannot sing your praise; those who go down to the pit cannot hope for your faithfulness.
The living, the living--they praise you, as I am doing today; fathers tell their children about your faithfulness."
In Romans 6:8-9 it speaks that Jesus, having been raised cannot die again... and that is true with us... Yet those who are dead and dwell in death... as they will receive the wages of sin later.
In Christ we are "dead to sin" but "alive to Christ" and we are no longer dwelling in death but in Life.
A man in not fully dwelling in Life until the Resurrection so the same is true that a man is not fully dwelling in death also until the Resurrection.
Blessing,
iggy
I would feel much less opposed to Calvinismif it were not for the limited atonement issue. Even Calvin had to torture Scripture to fit this new view. It tampers with golgatha and limits the cross, and here is a question:
Could an Egyptian have killed a lamb, eaten it, and placed the blood on his door posts and escaped the death of his firstborn son?
Have a good Saturday and
GO IRISH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Announcement: For the next four months I will become Catholic!
Rick,
I agree as I do not see that atonement was limited...
I see all are forgiven which Luther and Calvin agreed... though they parted in that Luther thought things to not be "reconciled" and remain a mystery and Calvin then tried to reconcile "forgiveness" as taught in the bible, yet could not reconcile that some would be lost.
The issue then is that does forgiveness = salvation? Just because one is forgiven are then then saved... I see as Jesus was on the Cross He cried out "Forgive them Father, they know not what they do!" Yet, I think we all agree not all that stood there at the Cross that day were saved...
The idea of limited atonement tries to justify the difference Calvin saw in that there are some that are saved and some that are not... so the "ELECT" were the only ones saved at the Cross... thus he made forgiveness = salvation.
God forgave all mankind, yet not all will be saved as not all men will come to the end of themselves and give up on their own righteousness and trust the Righteousness of Jesus Christ and His Finished works.
(I know you have heard all this before and you and I differ on this... yet I know others here may not have considered this).
Blessings,
iggy
"Though Paul speaks harshly to those of the circumcision, he chooses still to have Timothy circumcised."
Tattoos are nothing at all like circumcision.
At least circumcision was commanded by God.
Paul was dealing with legalism, not specifically the act of circumcision. Yet for the "sake of all righteousness" he had Timothy circumcised. Matthew 3:13-17
This actually speaks volumes about Timothy, more than anything.
These tattoos are ludicrous, (or "ludacrisp" if you are Mike Tyson.):-)
As for limited atonment, that is my main issue with Calvin. The rest is right on.
However God being a God of complete foreknowledge knows all who are in the Book. So in the greatest sense, it is a moot point.
Btw henry
Dominus vobiscum!
"As for limited atonment, that is my main issue with Calvin. The rest is right on.
However God being a God of complete foreknowledge knows all who are in the Book. So in the greatest sense, it is a moot point."
A moot point? Is it a moot point whether God demonstrated His atoning love to all or some? Would it be a moot point whether the Passover Lamb suffered for billions or for millions? And would it be a moot point in the overall justice of God?
Teaching that Christ did not die for those He did is no moot point, it is as serious as it gets.
aramis,
you missed the point. We are not obligated to keep the Law as Jesus keeps it for us (per my discussion with workman where we agree) :)
Yet, the point I am making is that Timothy did not need to "mutilate his body" but did so for the weaker brothers in Jerusalem.
Timothy and Paul "mutilated Timothy's body not out of legalism... rather that he be more accepted by the people in that they needed to do it to be "accepted" but that Paul saw with that out of that way they could get to the more important issues at hand... that Gentiles now came to faith by Grace as the Jew did...
Your take on this seems to indicate that WE can add to the imputed riotousness of Jesus Christ... and I will have to wholeheartedly disagree.
When Jesus was baptised He did because all priests washed themselves before they did their priestly duties... Jesus is the High Priest and in that way had to fulfill all righteousness...
Note:
Levitcus 8
2 Sameul 12
Jesus fulfilled all righteousness and I cannot add any more righteousness by works, which if you think about where you are going with your assertion that of works righteousness on the part of Timothy...
Blessings,
iggy
aramis,
The Lord be with you also!
Hmmm very Catholic though...
Be blessed,
iggy
Rick,
"Teaching that Christ did not die for those He did is no moot point, it is as serious as it gets."
I agree!
blessings,
iggy
Calm down please.
You are misunderstanding what I said.
Did I not agree that he died for all?
This is what I mean by moot.
If God has complete foreknowledge, and He does, then he is aware of all who will either accept or reject the Gospel.
Since He has knowledge of this, and does nothing to alter the consequences of men's decisions, then whether or not one agrees with predestination or not, the outcome is the same. The issue for me is always God's complete omniscience, which would by definition include being completely prescient.
We have no idea how many will be there in eternity.
I am not being cavalier with the issue of salvation.
Regarding Paul and Timothy,
Paul sharply rebuked those who pushed circumcision,as this is a heart attitude. God ordained circumcision to be a sign of the covenant, tattoos are not, so there is no comparison.
The tattoos serve no purpose other than to attract attention. Please don't tell me that that attracting attention to oneself helps open the door to evangelism.
aramis - a good and enlightening comment. I agree that tattoos are for the most part unwise and indicate other things. There are exceptions when people get a Scripture verse tattooed, but my point was always - unwise but not sinful.
I appreciate your expounding your views with clearity and brotherhood.
aramis,
There are Indian tribes in the Amazon that rarely let anyone in let alone a "white" person as they have had bad experiences with them.
Often to gain the confidence one may have to undergo certain things to earn their respect... I won't go into detail as it is not a pleasant experience for a guy...
What I am saying is that in certain cultures one might need to do as they do to gain their confidence and earn a voice. I am not meaning compromise on the essentials yet there may be some on the none essentials...
Also re-read my comment and I think that you will see that though I rejoice greatly in my freedom in Chirst, I do not see that one should use it as a way to justify acting contrary to our new nature as a New Creation...
Yet, with that freedom I think that there IS NO CONDEMNATION IN CHRIST and IF someone did do this for the very reason you state, I trust God will lead them in Truth by His Holy Spirit as He promised... I do not see God to be a liar and will finish what He starts... especially His great Salvation.
Be Blessed,
iggy
Iggy,
If Christ atoned for the sins of all men then all men will be saved, for a righteous God cannot condemn a man twice; if the man's sins have been atoned, he cannot be sent to Hell on the basis of them. Scripture makes it abundantly clear that Christ through his sacrifice made a full and actual (no potential) redemption; "who gave himself to us to redeem us from all iniquity and to purify for himself a peculiar (chosen) people" (Titus 2:14); "he will save his people from their sins" (Matthew 1:21; "he entered once for all into the Holy Place, taking ... his own blood, thus securing an eternal redemption" (Hebrews 9:12).
To use the late Greg Bahnsen's words:
Particular redemption is the only triune, monotheistic, substitutionary, personal, effectual, and biblical (hence, orthodox) doctrine of Christ's atonement; all else (including fundamentalism's redemption for every individual) are doctrines pleasing to men but unsatisfactory in their Theology, anthropology, and soteriology. Sola Scriptura!
"How often would I have desired to gather you as a hen gathers her chicks, but YOU would not".
Jesus - circa 28 AD
The supply was there, the demand was lacking.
Everyone,
Matthew 1.21:
She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins
Matthew 20.28
just as the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.
Ephesians 5.25
Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her
"Nothing that includes any imperfection is to be assigned to Almighty God: he is God all-sufficient; he is our rock, and his work is perfect. [The Death of Death, John Owen, page 210] Just from a logical point, it was completely unnecessary for Jesus to die for the sins of those already in Hell. For those in Hell at the time of the crucifixion, if every single sin, including unbelief was atoned for, why are they still in Hell? For that reason, we must reject that John 3:16 teaches a Universal Atonement."
DT
dss,
"If Christ atoned for the sins of all men then all men will be saved, for a righteous God cannot condemn a man twice; if the man's sins have been atoned,..."
You missed my point completely and have actually shown the issue Calvin and Luther faced as I have stated.
You miss a verse in Romans 5...
"0. For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!"
Notice that we are reconciled by Jesus death... but saved through His Life...
You are only stating half the Gospel... that Jesus died for our sins and making that be the whole gospel...
It is not that we are saved at the cross... we are reconciled... the thing we need beleive is the Resurrection.
It was not surprise another Jew, even another Jewish "messiah" died (even on a cross) The "foolishness" Paul speaks of is the resurrection...
In your assertion you are saying one can be saved without the Resurrection and that atonement was all one needed.
Do you not realize God had the forgiveness issue already handled in the OT... it was part of the Law and that by sacrifice one was forgiven... yet, man was still to die... be it a forgiven dead man.
We need life to be saved... adn that life is in the Son... and by the cross we enter forgiveness and then receive salvation by Grace through faith.
To one is saved at the Cross... is only part of the gospel and leaves one... half way to salvation... and that is my main issue with a lot of theology out there...we have a lot of "christian" that are forgiven, but still need Life.
Be Blessed,
iggy
The reference should be Romans 5:10...
"For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!"
Blessings,
iggy
"Nothing that includes any imperfection is to be assigned to Almighty God: he is God all-sufficient; he is our rock, and his work is perfect."
How about...Adam...or...Lucifer.
Gid is sovereign enough to create imperfection. The Scriptures declar He created evil.
(scratch our puny heads)
I also want to know if the "Elect" were foreordained before time... and were to be saved... then how could they ever be "enemies"?
Be Blessed,
iggy
Hey iggy,
"Do you not realize God had the forgiveness issue already handled in the OT... it was part of the Law and that by sacrifice one was forgiven... yet, man was still to die... be it a forgiven dead man."
The blood of bulls and goats never saved anyone.
Hebrews 10:4: "For it is not possible that the blood of bulls and goats could take away sins."
The Old Testament saints looked to the future Messiah for the salvation of their souls. They were saved through faith, just as we are.
DSS,
"The blood of bulls and goats never saved anyone."
That is my point and has been... if all Jesus did was die on a Cross, our sin are all forgiven... yet we have not received the LIFE that comes from the resurrection
The Life is in the Son... not in the Cross...
That is what I mean when I stated you cannot equate forgiveness with salvation... for they were already forgiven through the sacrifice... but this one is different in that the Sacrifice ROSE FROM THE DEAD! LOL! Isn't that glorious!?
I already gave the scirpture in Romans that stated that we are reconciled by His Death(as our sins are atoned at the Cross) but we shall be saved by His Life!
"Romans 5:10. For if, when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his Son, how much more, having been reconciled, shall we be saved through his life!"
If Jesus had not risen, which is the focus here, then we are still dead men forgiven... there is no life if Jesus has not risen... as Paul stated, "we are more to be pitied."
So as I was stating, the issue is that Calvin and Luther combined forgiveness and Salvation with the Cross... (the Cross is the door to salvation, but Salvation is of God through Jesus Christ.)
Blessings,
iggy
I cant say i read all the responses on this but i felt like posting my own slightly under informed. Vanity is a sin, u are using yourself as a tool to use others. Beauty is a different creature tho. If u do something because u find it beautiful and it does no harm to others it is your choice. When u do something for others perceptions thats vanity. I am a tattoo artist. I do not stick anything on anybody and almost often as not turn people away. I am a great supporter of beauty but a perpetual opponent to stupid rash decisions and false pretenses.
You tend to think it is generally unwise to modify your body. Wouldn't that be up to the person's convictions? Every person is different. No one but god can judge, it is not left up to mere mortals.
Christians over the years have become cut off from the world. How can you speak to those of the world if you are nothing like them? If you have nothing in common with them? Will the world listen to a pristine priest speaking in tongues on his high pedestal? Or would they rather listen to someone who looks like and speaks like them. How can you win people over if you have removed yourself from them? If you have already decided that you can not and will not be like them.
The outside is the story of what is on the inside. Like a trail of who you are and where you have been and it is there for others to read and relate to. Every line, every wrinkle, every scar, cut, bruise, tattoo, piercing… they are what makes every person unique.
Body modification in of them selves is nothing wrong; it is what is in your heart behind the body modifications… some use it as a form of supplication. Some of us use it as a record of pain, gains and losses. Some of us need the hurt to keep us sane. Think about that before you judge… and then choose for yourself what you think is right and wrong.
Hello Bethie,
Thanks for your comment.
>>Christians over the years have become cut off from the world. How can you speak to those of the world if you are nothing like them? If you have nothing in common with them? Will the world listen to a pristine priest speaking in tongues on his high pedestal?
So we should lower ourselves to the ways of the world so that we can talk to the world? Never lower the standard.
>>Or would they rather listen to someone who looks like and speaks like them. How can you win people over if you have removed yourself from them? If you have already decided that you can not and will not be like them.
We "win" people by our different lifestyles. Holiness should be priority one, not compromise. God is the One who ultimately wins them, not us. We are just trophies of His grace.
>>Body modification in of them selves is nothing wrong
I am reminded of 1Cor. 6.19.
Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. We are to take care of it, not damage it. Pagan religions in the Bible and of old tortured, colored or mutilated their bodies. Why should we follow suit?
>>some use it as a form of supplication
huh?
>>Some of us use it as a record of pain, gains and losses. Some of us need the hurt to keep us sane.
Do you have scripture to back up this demented line of thinking? If not, then what we are talking about is relativism. What is right for you might not be right for me and I have no right in questioning it. Right?
>>Think about that before you judge… and then choose for yourself what you think is right and wrong.
As I said, relativism.
You have just given me a great topic to write in my next post.
Thanks,
DT
First off those aren't tattoos. They are simply silicone implants, they have nothing to do with tattoos.
Second off, why do you care what he and many people like him (me being one of them) do to there bodies, they're not forcing you to do it.
As for it being vanity is a load of rubbish. Working on the pretext that changing you body and appearance is vanity and thus a sin means that every body who styles their hair or chooses to wear certain clothes. Thus everybody in vain.
Let people do what they want to their bodies, stop judging people because you don't understand why they do it.
Jack,
>>Second off, why do you care what he and many people like him (me being one of them) do to there bodies, they're not forcing you to do it.
Because you have been given your body and to desecrate it by any means is wrong.
Like I said in my post...
For my critics out there let me make some disclaimers.
-I am not discussing those who have already had this done.
-I am not discussing those who are not saved.
-I do not care if someone is using it to "witness" to those around them. You know who you are.
-I did not say that anyone having anything done to their body is going to roast in Hell.
>>Working on the pretext that changing you body and appearance is vanity and thus a sin means that every body who styles their hair or chooses to wear certain clothes. Thus everybody in vain.
Bad logic.
Changing something and altering something are two different things.
>>Let people do what they want to their bodies, stop judging people because you don't understand why they do it.
Can't do it. We should never desecrate our bodies. Especially those who call themselves Christians.
Why don't you stop judging me and let me have my say???
DT
Truth be told...this is "art" ..look up the description of the word..its extremely open to interpretation. And furthermore...unless you have a satanic tattoo...how does a clover or a wolf tattoo say that your "unholy" on the inside? I am a Christian and have been for many years but people need to stop looking at others as "sinners" and more as a fellow human being...alot of my friends that have tattoos are much more forgiving than the liberal Christian ones that dont. You call it vanity...but what do you call it when a Christian talks about his "pure" body? Its all vanity...just allow people to express themselves freely and leave the judging to God.
Is it not a sin to judge people? The outward appearance does not give way to know what is on the inside. There is no way to truly know what is in one's heart. Also i pose this question why give people free will only to punish them later because you didn't like the choices they made.
To those say people are wrong for tattoos because they want to draw attention to themselves, how is that different than wearing name brand clothes?
Post a Comment