'Christian tattoos to start a conversation as the Lord leads.'

[farouk]

9 minutes ago, Hopefully said:

This is a little lengthy don’t know if you have time or care to read but I wanted to share this commentary.

https://biblehub.com/commentaries/romans/3-31.htm

Do we then make void the law through faith?.... Which question is answered by way of detestatation, 

God forbid! and by asserting the contrary, 

yea, we establish the law. The law is not made void, neither by the grace nor doctrine of faith: not by the grace of faith; for that faith is not right which is not attended with works of righteousness; and those works are not right which do not flow from filth.
 

Such a connection there is between faith and works; and so much do the one depend upon the other. Moreover, none but believers are capable of performing good works aright, and they do them, and they ought to do them: besides, faith, as a grace, looks to Christ, as the end of the law for righteousness, and therefore do not make it void. Nor is it made void by the doctrine of faith, and by the particular doctrine of a sinner's justification by faith in Christ's righteousness, which is here more especially intended; for though it is made void by it, as to any use of it for justification by the deeds thereof; yet its use in other respects is not set aside, such as to inform us of the mind and will of God, to discover and convince of sin, to show believers their deformity and imperfection, to render Christ and his righteousness more valuable, and to be a rule of walk and conversation to them; and it still remains a cursing and condemning law to Christless sinners, though justified ones are delivered from it as such: yea, the law is so far from being made void, that it is established by this doctrine; for by it the perpetuity of it is asserted, the spirituality of it is acknowledged, the perfect righteousness of it is secured: according to this doctrine all its demands are answered; whatever it requires it has, such as holiness of nature, perfect obedience to its precepts, and its full penalty borne: it is placed in the best hands, where it will ever remain; and a regard to it is enforced under the best influence, by the best of motives, and from the best of principles.

 

It is indeed abolished as a covenant of works, and in this sense is made void to believers; and it is done away as to the form of administration of it by Moses; and it is destroyed as a yoke of bondage; and the people of God are free from the malediction of it, and condemnation by it, and so from its terror; yet it remains unalterable and unchangeable in the hands of Christ; the matter of it is always the same, and ever obligatory on believers, who, though they are freed from the curse of it, are not exempted from obedience to it: wherefore the law is not made void, so as to be destroyed and abolished in every sense, or to be rendered idle, inactive, useless, and insignificant; but, on the contrary, is made to stand, is placed on a sure basis and firm foundation, as the words used signify.

@Hopefully Thanks for this. I looked up the source page; I couldn't quite see which of the commentators was responsible for the quote.

[Hopefully]

Just now, farouk said:

; I couldn't quite see which of the commentators was responsible for the quote.

Thank you for looking. Scroll down to “Gill” but really I read them all this one seems the clearest to post.

[farouk]

2 hours ago, Hopefully said:

Thank you for looking. Scroll down to “Gill” but really I read them all this one seems the clearest to post.

Hi @Hopefully. Thanks for the info.

As regards Bible commentators, many of them fall into two categories; some Godly commentators are dispensational in outlook; others are Reformed: Dr. Gill would fall into this category.

One must remember that whether or not one is dispensational or Reformed, believers in the Lord Jesus tend to respect one another and recognizing that they may be coming from different interpretational outlooks can help this.

Dispensational commentators tend to see a distinction between the church (a heavenly ppl; Eph. 1, etc.) and Israel, an earthly ppl. Many dispensational commentators do not see the church - properly speaking - in the Old Testament at all. Some Reformed commentators to varying degrees may see the differences between Israel and the church as either insignificant or else may even see the church as some kind of ill-defined appendage to Israel, with an institutional church being some kind of extension of the synagogue but with 'Christianized' discourse. Whereas many dispensational commentators would tend to see Jews, Gentiles and the church of God (1 Cor. 10.32) as being in clearly defined categories.

This may all affect how the law may be viewed. While dispensationalists may emphasize that the law was changed (Hebrews 7.12) and that what we now have is better - a keyword in Hebrews - than the law (Hebrews 7.19), yet Reformed commentators would sometimes not really see a big break between the Old and New Testaments, with the Epistle to the Hebrews supposedly representing some kind of aggregate of opposites rather than significant in Christ's total fulfillment of the law marked by a transcendence of a now obsolete OT law.

In comments about tattoos, Christians may reflect a wide range of ideas. (This is also why a poll such as the one on this thread can be interesting.)

Sometimes the comments might seem old fashioned:

Cachalot said:

Tattoos are unlady-like. That is why I would never have one. christianityboard dot com

 

Others might see them in terms of historical variety:

 

Heavenhome said:

My dear Dad had two tattoos but that was from his navy days.
I have noticed however that lots of young girls have them and what is really noticeable is a huge amount are women say around their sixties .
christianforums dot com

 

Today, there are so many people in some areas who have the most conservative of values and who, instead of showing an old fashioned reluctance may regard going to the parlor in order to get inked up with something faith based as something rather benign to pursue:

 

I would be hard-pressed to come up with more than a handful of names of my friends who DON'T have at least one tattoo--and we are all suburban homeschooling moms, ages ranging from early-30s to mid-50s, living in conservative North Texas. greenvneck forums dot thewelltrainedmind dot com

 

 

Some would think about it and in due course do it wholeheartedly:

Heather A. said:

I waited 5 years before getting it. .. Reno also has a lot of tattoo places. Carson City has a few. Most people travel to Reno or Las Vegas for it. .. I have 1 tattoo and I got it in Reno. .. I do have a cross tattoo. christianityboard dot com

 

Others might not do it wholeheartedly at all, but would shrink from making tattoos a subject that might disturb the peace of a local church.

 

Not all Christians would take a strongly Reformed view of lawkeeping, and their - inevitably - varying viewpoints on tattoos as witness tools, etc. their views might reflect this.

 

(I appreciate your thoughtful questions.)

Edited June 26, 2023 by farouk

[farouk]

PS: @Hopefully While many Christians would not remotely want a tattoo, many Christians also might - for example - not want to disturb the peace of a local church by arguing about them.

 

GodsGrace said:

almost every young girl I know has some sort of tatoo.

Even those very conservative types.

 

Christophany said:

once upon a time I was legalistic with tatoo's, piercing etc..... not anymore ... I do not condemn others who think differently since it has nothing to do with ones salvation.

 

shnarkle said:
One of the churches I go to has three quite elderly women, all widows, who recently went out and got themselves tattoos. .. There was no doubt they were all first tattoos. All three of them went out and got them together.

 

source: christianityboard dot com

[Hopefully]

7 minutes ago, farouk said:

do not condemn others who think differently since it has nothing to do with ones salvation.

Above is From the quote of another- I don’t either but if asked I say I believe God does not want us to get tattoos.

Remember how I feel about the masses saying it’s okay. The quotes from others don’t sway me.

I do know when people know for sure they are doing the right thing they don’t normally seek advice from others.

If a Christian wants to do something and they have to ask many to feel good about it the answer is NO. 
 

Just my opinion.

Edited June 26, 2023 by Hopefully

[farouk]

Thanks to all who voted so far in the poll.

NB: If you have not yet voted in the poll, please vote now.

[farouk]

On 6/20/2023 at 4:36 PM, Anne2 said:

My sister had it done, but some faded real quick. she was supposed to get it refreshed but did not. I have not had it done, but have considered it getting older too.

@Anne2 You also mentioned about having preferred the darker or brighter colors but if you did it, you might not go dark or bright. So did your sister manage to pull off well a darker color being injected?

[Anne2]

Just now, farouk said:

@Anne2 You also mentioned about having preferred the darker or brighter colors but if you did it, you might not go dark or bright. So did your sister manage to pull off well a darker color being injected?

she did a grey black, not jet black. Me, probably the same. Not so stark , the grey adding a more subtle dark.

[farouk]

19 minutes ago, Anne2 said:

she did a grey black, not jet black. Me, probably the same. Not so stark , the grey adding a more subtle dark.

@Anne2 While in theory the jet black 'Cleopatra'-style lines that extend beyond the ends of the eyelids can look good on those who can pull it off, yet I guess your sister reckoned that a more blending, intermediate shade shot into the eyelids would be safer. (I guess you feel that if you did the starkly black tattooing your eyes would maybe surprise your friends and family a bit...?)

Anyway it's maybe good how the tattooing experience of others can moderate one's own tattooing plans.

I sometimes wonder if it would be good if more Christians got properly trained as tattoo artists.

[Anne2]

Just now, farouk said:

@Anne2 While in theory the jet black 'Cleopatra'-style lines that extend beyond the ends of the eyelids can look good on those who can pull it off, yet I guess your sister reckoned that a more blending, intermediate shade shot into the eyelids would be safer. (I guess you feel that if you did the starkly black tattooing your eyes would maybe surprise your friends and family a bit...?)

Anyway it's maybe good how the tattooing experience of others can moderate one's own tattooing plans.

I sometimes wonder if it would be good if more Christians got properly trained as tattoo artists.

That is for cosmetic effect, apart from the sopurring of Gospel conversation.