Is tattooing wrong?

[blackbird]

31 minutes ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I think you take the Old Testament too literally. 

How do you know what to take literally and what not to take literally?   Or is there anything in the Old Testament you would take literally?

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

I think you take the Old Testament too literally. 

"

One reason we should take the Bible literally is because the Lord Jesus Christ took it literally. Whenever the Lord Jesus quoted from the Old Testament, it was always clear that He believed in its literal interpretation. As an example, when Jesus was tempted by Satan in Luke 4, He answered by quoting the Old Testament. If God’s commands in Deuteronomy 8:3, 6:13, and 6:16 were not literal, Jesus would not have used them and they would have been powerless to stop Satan’s mouth, which they certainly did.

The disciples also took the commands of Christ (which are part of the Bible) literally. Jesus commanded the disciples to go and make more disciples in Matthew 28:19-20. In Acts 2 and following, we find that the disciples took Jesus’ command literally and went throughout the known world of that time preaching the gospel of Christ and telling them to "believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you will be saved” (Acts 16:31). Just as the disciples took Jesus’ words literally, so must we. How else can we be sure of our salvation if we do not believe Him when He says He came to seek and save the lost (Luke 19:10), pay the penalty for our sin (Matthew 26:28), and provide eternal life (John 17:3)?

Although we take the Bible literally, there are still figures of speech within its pages. An example of a figure of speech would be that if someone said "it is raining cats and dogs outside," you would know that they did not really mean that cats and dogs were falling from the sky. They would mean it is raining really hard. There are figures of speech in the Bible which are not to be taken literally, but those are obvious. (See Psalm 17:8 for example.)

Finally, when we make ourselves the final arbiters of which parts of the Bible are to be interpreted literally, we elevate ourselves above God. Who is to say, then, that one person’s interpretation of a biblical event or truth is any more or less valid than another’s? The confusion and distortions that would inevitably result from such a system would essentially render the Scriptures null and void. The Bible is God’s Word to us and He meant it to be believed—literally and completely."

 

Can/should we interpret the Bible literally? | GotQuestions.org

I'm not sure what you believe as you've never really said.  But the Bible is the foundation of Christian beliefs.  

For Further Study

[blackbird]

13 hours ago, User said:

or make a Biblical argument for why Christians are still under this law.

There are certain ceremonial laws in Leviticus that only applied to the nation Israel at that time in history.   There are other laws in Leviticus that are moral laws that apply to everyone for all time.

This is where discernment comes in and study of the New Testament.  Some laws in Leviticus apply for all time.  Another example of a law that applies for all time is the law forbidding bestiality.

The command in Leviticus 19:28 forbidding marking the body would be something that applies to all time because the body belongs to God and the image tattoos portray for a Christian are not good.   Tattoos are often associated with a certain kind of worldly attitude related to the world, the flesh, and the devil.   A Christian is someone who is a new creature, a son of God, and not a part of this world's thinking.  Tattoos send the wrong message.

This verse sums it up.

"17 Therefore if any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away; behold, all things are become new."   1 Corinthians 5:17 KJV

Edited November 7, 2025 by blackbird

[User]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

 There are other laws in Leviticus that are moral laws that apply to everyone for all time.

What do you base this on?

Which laws are identified like this?

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

This verse sums it up.

Um… no. Not even close. That verse has any saying anything you just did at all. 

[blackbird]

4 hours ago, User said:

What do you base this on?

Which laws are identified like this?

I gave you an explanation.   Tattoos are not fitting for someone who is a new creature in Christ.

I will add the caveat that people with tattoos who become Christians after they have them or got them after as an error in judgment or fell into error, may have to live with them if they can't get them removed.  If they are true Christians God forgives them.

  I told you they identify with the world, the flesh, and the devil.  They fit more with the lust of the flesh and the pride of life, which are not what being a Christian means.

I gave another example, bestiality is forbidden in Leviticus.  Of course it is forbidden today and forever.

 

Edited November 8, 2025 by blackbird

[User]

7 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I gave you an explanation.

You made an assertion with no supporting evidence. 
 

I asked you clarifying questions for this reason. Once again you avoid.

If you are going to sit here making such definitive Biblical doctrine accusing people of sin and wrongdoing, YOU have to be able to back that up, not merely assert it as true.

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Tattoos are not fitting for someone who is a new creature in Christ.

This is your opinion, not supported by definitive scripture. 
 

 

[blackbird]

1 hour ago, User said:

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

Tattoos are not fitting for someone who is a new creature in Christ.

This is your opinion, not supported by definitive scripture. 
 

 

"The fact is. . . Up until a few years ago, virtually everyone, including the most liberal Christian, KNEW the tattoo was clearly forbidden by the Word of God. And throughout history, the tattoo has ALWAYS been condemned by Bible Believing Christians. Always. Every historical resource ever written on tattoos clearly confirms this fact."

"

Merrill F. Unger's, very popular and authoritative, Unger's Bible Dictionary under the definition for "Mark" includes the following reference for Leviticus 19:28:

"In Lev. 19:28 we find two prohibitions of an unnatural disfigurement of the body: 'Ye shall not make any cutting in your flesh for the dead, nor any print any marks upon you.' The latter (Heb. qa aqa, incision) refers to tattooing, and has no reference to idolatrous usages, but was intended to inculcate upon the Israelietes a proper reverence for God's creation."
(Merrill F. Unger, Unger's Bible Dictionary, 1974 ed., p. 696)

 

Notice that Unger teaches that tattoos were forbidden without any reference to pagan, heathen, or idolatrous usages. In other words, the tattoo itself, regardless the reason, was forbidden. Amen. Brother Unger.

Wycliffe’s Bible Encyclopedia under the definition for TATTOOING distinctly says:

"While ‘cuttings in the flesh’ have reference here to mourning customs [for the dead], the tattooing does not appear to pertain to such practice."
(Wycliffe Bible Encyclopedia, 1975 ed., p. 1664)

 

The New American Commentary on Leviticus 19:28 writes the condemnation was for, "cutting the body either for the dead or with tattoo marks." (Mark F. Rooker, The New American Commentary on Leviticus, 2000 ed., p. 262) Explicitly recognizing the tattoo was not "for the dead."

Do you see how dishonest and disobedient this "it doesn’t apply to my New-Testament-Christian-marked-for-Jesus-tattoo" is? Find what you don’t like in the Word of God, cut it out (doesn’t apply to New Testament Christians) or misapply (it’s just for the DEAD, when it’s clearly NOT). Same tactics used by the satanic cults and heretics for years. You can prove anything and everything with such deceitful methods.

THE "FORBIDDEN" HAIRCUT

One of the silliest and childish arguments to justify the Christian tattoo is the: "Hey man, do you get a haircut or trim your beard? God condemned getting a haircut or trimming your beard in the verse before forbidding the tattoo. Dude, the tattoo is the same as getting a haircut."

Believe it or not . . . this is a widely used argument.

Leviticus 19:26-28 is a clear condemnation of pagan, witchcraft and heathen practices. Look at the context. Verse 26 is plainly referring to "enchantment [spells or witchcraft] nor observe times [astrology]. . . Verse 28 is the pagan, demonic practice of bloodletting [cuttings in your flesh] and tattooing. Why would the Lord stick in the middle a verse that "condemns simply getting a haircut"? Of course, He wouldn’t. . . And He didn’t. . .

Leviticus 19:26-28 reads:
26 Ye shall not eat any thing with the blood: neither shall ye use enchantment, nor observe times.
27 Ye shall not round the corners of your heads, neither shalt thou mar the corners of thy beard.
28 Ye shall not make any cuttings in your flesh for the dead, nor print any marks upon you: I am the LORD.

The condemnation found in verse 27 of "rounding the corners of your head" or "mar the corners of thy beard" was the forbidding of a common pagan practice that cut the hair as worship and honor of the hosts of heaven.

Here’s how Matthew Henry’s and Coffman’s Commentaries reflect on the "forbidden haircut" of Leviticus 19:27:

"Those that worshipped the hosts of heaven, in honour of them, cut their hair so as that their heads might resemble the celestial globe; but, as the custom was foolish itself, so, being done with respect to their false gods, it was idolatrous." (Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, Leviticus 19:27)

 

"Herodotus tells of the use of this type of haircut, forming what is called a tonsure, as the practice of pagan religious cults of ancient times who did so honoring one of their gods."
(Coffman Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Leviticus 19:27)

 

The fact is. . . Up until a few years ago, virtually everyone, including the most liberal Christian, KNEW the tattoo was clearly forbidden by the Word of God. And throughout history, the tattoo has ALWAYS been condemned by Bible Believing Christians. Always. Every historical resource ever written on tattoos clearly confirms this fact.

"Just as occurred in other cultures with tattoo traditions, when these pagan tribes were ‘converted’ to the Christian religion, their spiritual and cultural rites (which included tattooing, piercing and scarification) were outlawed. . ."
(Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book : A Complete, Illustrated Guide to Tattoos, Piercings, and Other Body Modifications, p.9)

 

"Whenever missionaries encountered tattooing they eradicated it."
(Gilbert, Steve, Tattoo History: A Source Book, p. 101)

 

"While these and other body modifications continued to be practiced underground as a way for non-Christian people to identify each other, God forbid you got caught and your mark was revealed."
(Jean-Chris Miller, The Body Art Book : A Complete, Illustrated Guide to Tattoos, Piercings, and Other Body Modifications, p.11)

 

Up until a few years, virtually every commentary written understood Leviticus 19:28 as an open condemnation of the tattoo. The Christian acceptance of a tattoo was not even considered for serious discussion.

Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary and Explanatory on the Whole Bible writes under Leviticus 19:28

"nor print any marks upon you–by tattooing, imprinting figures of flowers, leaves, stars, and other fanciful devices on various parts of their person. The impression was made sometimes by means of a hot iron, sometimes by ink or paint, as is done by the Arab females of the present day and the different castes of the Hindus. It it probable that a strong propensity to adopt such marks in honor of some idol gave occasion to the prohibition in this verse; and they were wisely forbidden, for they were signs of apostasy; and, when once made, they were insuperable obstacles to a return."
(Jameison-Faussett-Brown Commentary and Explanatory on the Whole Bible, Leviticus 19:28)

 

James M. Freeman in his excellent book, The New Manners & Customs of the Bible, says of Leviticus 19:28:

"Tattooing Forbidden
Both cutting and tattooing were done by the heathens, and so God forbade His people from doing so in imitation of them."
(James M. Freeman, The New Manners & Customs of the Bible, 1998 edition, p. 157)

 

Coffman's Commentary on the Old and New Testament under Leviticus 19:18 says:

"The cutting of one's flesh also characterized pagan worship as attested by the priests of Baal on Mount Carmel in the contest with Elijah. Tattooing was also a device of paganism. . . Christians generally disapprove of tattooing, despite the fact of the widespread use of it by many even today. In the light of what God says here, and in view of the history of it, it seems strange that anyone would pay someone else to tattoo him."
(Coffman's Commentaries on the Old and New Testament, Leviticus 19:28)

 

Charles R. Erdman in his commentary on Leviticus 19:28 writes:

"The custom of tattooing was forbidden, while among all the nations of antiquity it was common." (Charles R. Erdman, The Book of Leviticus, 1951 ed., p.93)

 

But Naves famous Topical Bible puts it best. Under the topic "Tattooing", Nave’s simply and bluntly writes: "TATTOOING, forbidden, Lev. 19;28" (Nave's Topical Bible, p. 1312)"

TATTOOS & THE BIBLE

So Bible scholars pretty well universally say getting tattoos are forbidden.

Edited November 7, 2025 by blackbird

[blackbird]

21 hours ago, SpankyMcFarland said:

Many Māoris manage to reconcile the traditional tattoos of their people with Christianity. I’m not going to tell them any different. 

 

 

"Whenever missionaries encountered tattooing they eradicated it."
(Gilbert, Steve, Tattoo History: A Source Book, p. 101)

Perhaps read the article I posted just now immediately above this post.

Edited November 7, 2025 by blackbird

[User]

11 minutes ago, blackbird said:

So Bible scholars pretty well universally say getting tattoos are forbidden.

Well, back to your old habits of spamming the thread when you can’t support your assertions. 
 

Listing other people’s opinions is just that. 
 

14 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The fact is. . . Up until a few years ago, virtually everyone, including the most liberal Christian, KNEW the tattoo was clearly forbidden by the Word of God.

This is just another baseless assertion not rooted in any factual basis. Just wildly over generalizing and wrong.

 

[blackbird]

I know it is useless to post this in a reply to User because he calls anything I quote spam.  But for anyone that wants to know the truth this is for them."

"

DEFILING THE TEMPLE OF THE LIVING GOD

Most Christians, even the most carnal and backslidden, would never desecrate or defile the local church building. Even among most lost people there is a reverence and sacredness to the church building.

But. . . Did you know?

If you are truly born again the Holy Spirit of God dwells within in (John 14:17, Romans 8:9, 11) and your body is the temple of God. 1 Corinthians 6:19-20 makes this very clear.

19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own?
20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God's.
1 Corinthians 6:19-20

 

And . . . Did you know?

The Lord warns several times of the seriousness of defiling the temple of God – your body! In 1 Corinthians 3, the Lord clearly and sternly warns against defiling your body – the temple of God. If any man defiles the temple of God – HIM SHALL GOD DESTROY!

16 Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?
17 If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.
1 Corinthians 3:16-17

 

My Christian friend, you’d better watch what you do with your body. It is the temple of a Holy God. You’d better not defile it with pagan, devil-worshipping tattoos!

". . . If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy. . ."

What God said – He meant!

God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?
Numbers 23:19

 

7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.
8 For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption; but he that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting.
Galatians 6:7-8

 

Do you really believe the Lord Jesus Christ is pleased with a Christian wearing a pagan tattoo? Do you honestly believe God’s perfect will is for a Christian, any Christian, to be "marked" with a demonic tattoo?

With the unbiased documentation and Bible we’ve given (and we could supply much, much more) there is no question to the pagan and devil-worshipping source of the tattoo. Every tattoo historian I’ve read, traces the root of the tattoo to religious paganism. Every one.

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 is another warning against the tattoo. Notice the warning against the "fellowshipping" and concord with Christ and Belial (the devil). Verse 16 is very interesting. . . As it relates the "fellowshipping" with your body – the temple of the living God.

2 Corinthians 6:14-17 reads:
14 Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
15 And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel?
16 And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people.
17 Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,

I realize in writing this, a lot of Christians (or so-called Christians?) could care less what God says. They’re gonna do what they want to do – despite heaven or hell. But there are many Christians who want to serve God more than anything – with ever fiber of their soul. I’ve talked to many, many Christians who were thinking about getting a tattoo. But after showing them the satanic origin of the tattoo they realized a tattoo was not the will of God. And it was for those "good and faithful servants" of the Lord Jesus Christ that this was written for.

His lord said unto him, Well done, good and faithful servant; thou hast been faithful over a few things, I will make thee ruler over many things: enter thou into the joy of thy lord.
Matthew 25:23

 

Friend, God loves you and desires more than anything you love and obey Him. He desires first of all obedience unto salvation by receiving the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:12). And after salvation, His will for you is to serve and love Him with all you heart, body, mind and soul.

You won’t regret it!

It’ll be worth it one day!

If you are truly a Christian and still have doubts about whether the tattoo is the perfect will of God, go back through this article with an open Bible and an open hear. Prayerfully, look up the verses. And before you start, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13).

17 Ye therefore, beloved, seeing ye know these things before, beware lest ye also, being led away with the error of the wicked, fall from your own stedfastness.
18 But grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.
2 Peter 3:17-18

unquote

TATTOOS & THE BIBLE

[blackbird]

3 minutes ago, User said:

Well, back to your old habits of spamming the thread when you can’t support your assertions. 
 

Listing other people’s opinions is just that. 
 

This is just another baseless assertion not rooted in any factual basis. Just wildly over generalizing and wrong.

 

 

"

Friend, God loves you and desires more than anything you love and obey Him. He desires first of all obedience unto salvation by receiving the Lord Jesus Christ (John 1:12). And after salvation, His will for you is to serve and love Him with all you heart, body, mind and soul.

You won’t regret it!

It’ll be worth it one day!

If you are truly a Christian and still have doubts about whether the tattoo is the perfect will of God, go back through this article with an open Bible and an open hear. Prayerfully, look up the verses. And before you start, pray and ask the Holy Spirit to "guide you into all truth" (John 16:13)."

You need to go to the link and read the whole article carefully.  You are obviously badly deceived and need to be delivered from that.  Don't let pride get in the way.  If you desire to know the truth, you can learn it and it will set you free.

[User]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

I know it is useless to post this in a reply to User because he calls anything I quote spam. 

No, quoting someone normally is you making an argument and then quoting a small piece of a source that supports it with a link following, not copying and pasting pages of material with no real argument given or actual responses to the questions I posed or challenges I made. 

 

[User]

2 hours ago, blackbird said:

You need to go to the link and read the whole article carefully.  You are obviously badly deceived and need to be delivered from that.  Don't let pride get in the way.  If you desire to know the truth, you can learn it and it will set you free.

Nope. You need to read my spam that I asked Chat GPT to put together for me. You ned to learn the truth and stop pushing phony Doctrines you can't support.

---

1. Wayne Grudem – theologian, Christian Ethics / Crossway article
   Reasoning: Leviticus 19:28 is part of the Mosaic covenant and not morally binding on Christians; no ongoing biblical ban.
   Quote: “Therefore, there is no biblical prohibition against tattoos for people who are no longer living under the Mosaic covenant.” (Crossway)

2. Jay Sklar – OT scholar, Leviticus (TOTC), as cited by Grudem
   Reasoning: Lev 19:28 targeted pagan associations; modern tattoos don’t carry that meaning, so the command doesn’t straightforwardly apply.
   Quote (via Grudem’s summary): “Tattoos today… do not have the same pagan associations as they did in ancient Israel, so believers are no longer prohibited from getting them.” (Crossway)

3. Chad Bird – biblical scholar, 1517.org
   Reasoning: Lev 19:28 addresses an Old Covenant mourning rite; it is not a universal ban.
   Quote: “Followers of Jesus are free to choose whether or not they get inked. There is no law against it in the Scriptures.” (1517)

4. Craig Blomberg – NT scholar
   Reasoning: Lev 19:28 concerns pagan ritual; a non-idolatrous, Christ-honoring tattoo is not condemned.
   Quote: He notes that a tattoo proclaiming “God loves you” could serve “as a conversation starter” for evangelism. (Holistic Thinking)

5. Andrew David Naselli & J.D. Crowley – theologians, Conscience
   Reasoning: Tattoos fall into Christian freedom; not inherently sinful, but require love- and conscience-shaped wisdom.
   Quote (summarized in Crossway footnote): they conclude tattoos are not “inherently sinful” though sometimes unwise. (Crossway)

6. Sam Storms – theologian-pastor
   Reasoning: No blanket NT prohibition; issue is motives and whether one glorifies God, not ink itself.
   Quote: “I’m not saying that people with tattoos and body piercings can’t glorify God in their bodies.” (Sam Storms: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)

7. Paul Carter – pastor/theologian, The Gospel Coalition Canada
   Reasoning: Lev 19:28 targets pagan burial rituals, not general body art; tattoos per se are a wisdom issue.
   Quote: “Strictly speaking, these verses are not prohibiting tattoos as body art, but rather tattoos as burial rituals.” (The Gospel Coalition | Canada)

8. GotQuestions (S. Michael Houdmann) – evangelical Q&A ministry
   Reasoning: Only Lev 19:28 mentions tattoos; under the New Covenant, getting a tattoo is a gray-area matter of conscience.
   Quote: “Therefore, we cannot say that getting a tattoo is a sin.” (GotQuestions.org)

9. Mark Driscoll – pastor (Trinity Church), public teaching
   Reasoning: Lev 19:28 is Old Testament law tied to pagan rituals; in Christ we’re not under that law; tattoos are permitted with wise motives.
   Quote: “I don’t think there’s anything in Scripture that expressly forbids it… it’s between you and the Lord Jesus.” (Christian Post)

10. Chad Bird (again, linguistics emphasis)
    Worth separating his lexical point: he stresses the Hebrew term is unique and context-bound, undercutting dogmatic anti-tattoo readings.
    Quote: The Leviticus prohibition “is about pagan bodily practices… a mourning ritual,” not every tattoo in all eras. (1517)

11. R.K. Harrison – OT scholar (as summarized by Grudem)
    Reasoning: Sees Lev 19:28 as forbidding pagan mourning marks; not a general ban on decorative marks.
    Quote (summary): The prohibited markings “formed part of pagan mourning practices and as such were prohibited.” (Crossway)

12. Greg Boyd – theologian-pastor
    Reasoning: Has publicly embraced a large tattoo as a Christ-centered testimony; treats tattoos as allowable Christian freedom when honoring Jesus.
    Quote (paraphrased from his “Boyd’s Bad Ass Tattoo” reflection): He presents his tattoo as a way of preaching the gospel on his skin, not as sin. (Greg Boyd - ReKnew)

13. Equipping Godly Women (Brittany Ann) – popular-level Bible teacher
    Reasoning: Contextualizes Lev 19; concludes there is no NT statement making tattoos sinful.
    Quote: “Tattoos are not a sin, and getting a tattoo is not sinful.” (Equipping Godly Women)

14. Preston Highlands Church blog / Conscience teaching
    Reasoning: Applies Naselli & Crowley’s framework; tattoos are among things “not inherently sinful” but subject to conscience and wisdom.
    Quote: “Therefore, it’s not inherently sinful to have tattoos.” (Preston Highlands)

15. GotQuestions (Christian-tattoos article)
    Reasoning: Specifically on Christian-themed tattoos, concludes they’re biblically permissible though not always beneficial.
    Quote: “Christian tattoos are permissible… [but] a Christian considering getting a tattoo should pray for wisdom.” (GotQuestions.org)

16. S. Michael Houdmann (GotQuestions blog follow-up)
    Reasoning: Emphasizes Levitical law fulfilled in Christ; prohibition not binding; key is acting from faith.
    Quote: “Therefore, the law against tattoos is not binding on followers of Jesus Christ.” (GotQuestions.blog)

17. Chad Bird & 1517 (pastoral application)
    Reasoning: Warns against legalism that bans what God has not banned; tattoos fall under gospel freedom when not pagan or vain.
    Quote: “Let’s not add fuel… by being against something that God himself has not prohibited to believers.” (1517)

18. Various evangelical pastors & teachers (representing a broad consensus)
    Drawing on the same exegetical move—Leviticus in context; Old vs New Covenant; Romans 14 liberty—many contemporary pastors conclude:
    Representative quote (GotQuestions video/summary style): “Getting a tattoo is not a sin per se; it is a matter of Christian freedom.” (YouTube)

[blackbird]

20 minutes ago, User said:

Nope. You need to read my spam that I asked Chat GPT to put together for me.

The article I posted says that all through history Christianity has understood the Bible as opposing tattooing until recently.  It is only in recent years, that some Christians have fallen away from the Bible on that.  What you quoted is obviously the group of modernist, liberals who have fallen away from the Bible and embraced liberalism and heresy.  That is happening in a lot of churches.

I know this for a fact as I have seen things in churches that are contrary to the Bible.  I can point out several if you like.

1.  A third of churches have become Charismatic which is a heretical movement contrary to the correct interpretation of the Bible.

2.  Modernist rock type music in churches which is also heretical.

3.  Use of corrupt versions of the Bible which attack the basic doctrines of Christianity and create doubt rather than faith.  We had the debate before and you have fallen for the corrupt versions as well which might also explain why you believe in tattoos.  

4.  Some denominations taking a very waffling position on abortion and medical assistance in dying.  Again contrary to the Bible.  Some also accept and perform same-sex marriage.  Some have homosexual or lesbian ministers.  This is all contrary to the Bible.

5.  Women ministers and elders.  Also contrary to the Bible.

6.  The ecumenical movement which is churches joining together with false churches and apostate churches.  The join together under the desire for unity but neglect concern about the doctrine and practices of the churches that join together.  This is contrary to 2 Corinthians ch6. (be ye separate and touch not the unclean thing)  The ultimate aim is to form a one-world religion under the anti-Christ.  

 So it should be no surprise that some think tattoos are fine.

Edited November 8, 2025 by blackbird

[User]

9 minutes ago, blackbird said:

The article I posted says

Well, in that case, allow me to post to you what all these people say:

 

General Premise: “All through history Christianity opposed tattoos”

That statement oversimplifies church history. While some early fathers disapproved of body marking (largely because of pagan or military associations), others said nothing about it at all—and there was never a formal, universal Christian prohibition.

Craig A. Evans (New Testament scholar) notes that early Jewish law “did not condemn decorative marking as such but ritual and pagan mourning marks.” The church later inherited this caution, not a moral law.

Wayne Grudem, an inerrantist theologian known for his conservative stance, writes:

“Leviticus 19:28 is part of the Mosaic covenant, not binding on Christians… therefore, there is no biblical prohibition against tattoos.” (Christian Ethics, 2018, p. 443)

Even conservative theologians like Jay Sklar (Covenant Seminary, Reformed) affirm that the context of the Levitical command is pagan mourning rites, not a timeless moral issue.

Thus, saying that “modernists” invented Christian openness to tattoos is inaccurate. The distinction comes from covenantal hermeneutics—the same principle used by every orthodox Protestant to reject food laws, linen-wool bans, and temple rituals.

---

Point 1 – “Charismatic churches are heretical, so that proves modern decay”

This is a category error. The question of tattoos stands or falls on exegesis of Scripture, not association with any movement. Even cessationist scholars (who reject charismatic gifts) like John MacArthur, though critical of Charismatic theology, do not argue that tattoos are sinful in themselves; he states:

“It’s not a moral issue—just make sure it’s not prideful or offensive.” (MacArthur, Grace to You, Q&A archives)

So, whether or not one agrees with Charismatic theology, that has no bearing on the biblical interpretation of Leviticus 19:28 or Christian liberty in Romans 14.

---

Point 2 – “Rock-type music in church is heretical”

Again, unrelated. Scripture nowhere specifies musical style; it specifies content and motive (Col. 3:16; Eph. 5:19).
Sam Storms, a Reformed-continuationist theologian, remarks:

“The issue is not rhythm or instrument but the heart’s intent to glorify God.”

He, like Grudem and Piper, teaches that outward forms are adiaphora (matters indifferent) unless they promote sin. The same principle applies to tattoos: they are neither inherently evil nor inherently holy.

---

Point 3 – “Modern Bible versions are corrupt; KJV-onlyism proves modern decay”

This argument rests on a textual-tradition fallacy. Virtually all conservative evangelical scholars—including D.A. Carson (The King James Version Debate), James White (The King James Only Controversy), and Norman Geisler—affirm that modern translations rely on more ancient, reliable manuscripts and do not attack doctrine.

Even if one preferred the KJV, the translation debate has no exegetical bearing on whether tattoos are moral. The Hebrew term in Lev 19:28 (qaʿaqaʿ) is well-attested and uncontroversial in all versions—it refers to a cutting or inscription for the dead, not decorative ink in general.
That reading is affirmed by R.K. Harrison, Jay Sklar, and Gordon Wenham (all conservative scholars).

---

Point 4 – “Liberal positions on abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage prove that tattoo acceptance is liberal drift”

This is guilt by association, not biblical exegesis. Opposing abortion and same-sex marriage are clear biblical imperatives (Psalm 139, Romans 1). Tattoos have no comparable moral prohibition; they fall under Romans 14 Christian liberty.

John Piper—staunchly pro-life and traditional on marriage—says of tattoos:

“If a tattoo can be done in faith, for the glory of God, it is permissible.” (Ask Pastor John, episode 891)

Piper’s theology cannot credibly be called “liberal” or “apostate,” yet he interprets the tattoo issue through grace and conscience, not legalism.

---

Point 5 – “Women ministers and elders are contrary to Scripture; therefore tattoo acceptance is part of the same liberalism”

Again, two separate interpretive questions. Many complementarian theologians—who oppose women pastors—still affirm tattoos as a freedom issue.
For example, Wayne Grudem, co-founder of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood and outspoken complementarian, explicitly says tattoos are not forbidden to Christians.

This shows the tattoo position crosses conservative/liberal lines; it is not a marker of theological drift but of hermeneutical precision.

---

Point 6 – “Ecumenical movement and one-world religion prove modern apostasy; so tattoo acceptance fits that”

There’s no biblical or historical link. The warning in 2 Cor 6 (“be separate”) concerns idolatry, not cooperation in neutral cultural matters.
Chad Bird explains:

“The Leviticus ban addressed pagan bodily practices associated with false worship. It’s about idolatry, not ink.” (1517.org, “Are Tattoos a Sin?”)

A Christian choosing body art that honors Christ is doing the opposite of joining with paganism; it’s an expression of personal identity redeemed by the gospel. The early church forbade idolatrous branding, not symbolic adornment.

---

Conclusion: The Biblical and Theological Core

• Law–Gospel Distinction: Under the New Covenant, civil and ceremonial laws (Lev 19) are fulfilled in Christ (Gal 3:23–25).

• Context: The Levitical text prohibits mourning-for-the-dead tattoos, not body art per se.

• Principle: Romans 14 governs personal conviction: “Whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”

• Moral Test: Motivation, modesty, and edification—not the presence of ink—determine righteousness.

Therefore, Christians who prayerfully, conscientiously, and modestly receive a tattoo are not “fallen away” but exercising biblically informed liberty.

[blackbird]

2 minutes ago, User said:

Thus, saying that “modernists” invented Christian openness to tattoos is inaccurate. The distinction comes from covenantal hermeneutics—the same principle used by every orthodox Protestant to reject food laws, linen-wool bans, and temple rituals.

That's not accurate.  The fact is many Christian theologians disagree with tattooing.  I gave you some examples of some important ones.  

I already explained to you that ceremonial laws in Leviticus only applied to Israel at that early time in history and don't apply today.

But there are some moral laws given in Leviticus which are eternal.  I'm sure you could find some yourself.  I mentioned bestiality.  Do you think the prohibition against bestiality applies today?

So it is a matter of beliefs.  I gave ample reasons why tattooing is disrespectful of a person's body.  If some people don't believe that, it is just another sign of apostasy and twisting the Scriptures.

You know yourself we have thousands of denominations with many different cults and heretical interpretations of the Bible.   That is what this is all about.  What you are trying to advocate or support, that is, tattooing, is heresy.  Plain and simple.

I think we should just agree to disagree.  I don't see any way we are going to agree on it.  

[User]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

I think we should just agree to disagree. 

You were the one who came here to declare this a definitive sin and wrong! The simple fact is that you are wrong. Here is why again:

 

1. “Many theologians disagree—so it must be heresy.”

You’re right that some theologians disapprove of tattoos. But disagreement doesn’t make an issue heretical. Heresy has always been reserved for denying core doctrines—Christ’s deity, the Trinity, justification by faith, the resurrection—not for differing applications of ceremonial or cultural laws.

As Dr. R.C. Sproul, a staunch defender of orthodoxy, explained:

“Not every error is heresy. A heresy is a teaching so opposed to the essentials of the faith that it subverts the gospel itself.”
(Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, 1992)

No serious theologian claims that a tattoo undermines the gospel. Wayne Grudem, John Piper, Thomas Schreiner, and Sam Storms—all high-view-of-Scripture scholars—explicitly reject that framing.

Grudem:

“Christians are free in matters Scripture does not forbid.” (Christian Ethics, ch. 41)

So we’re not dealing with orthodoxy vs. heresy; we’re dealing with wisdom vs. liberty.

---

2. “Ceremonial laws no longer apply, but some moral laws in Leviticus do—bestiality is an example.”

Absolutely true: the moral dimension of the Old Testament endures. The question is which commands are moral and which are ceremonial or cultural.

Jay Sklar (PhD, Cambridge; conservative OT scholar) explains the interpretive principle clearly:

“The command against tattoos in Leviticus 19:28 refers to specific mourning or idolatrous practices of the Canaanites. It is not about general body decoration, so it falls under the category of ceremonial/cultural, not moral, law.”
(Leviticus: TOTC Commentary, 2013)

Moral laws in Leviticus—like bestiality, incest, theft, and idolatry—are restated in the New Testament (Rom. 1; 1 Cor. 6).
Ceremonial or cultural laws—like dietary restrictions, fabric mixtures, beard-trimming, and tattoo prohibitions—are not restated.

Thomas R. Schreiner, Southern Baptist Seminary (Reformed, inerrantist):

“Christians must discern which OT commands are moral and transcultural. Those tied to pagan ritual or Israel’s cultic separation no longer bind us.” (40 Questions About Christians and the Law, 2010)

Therefore, equating Lev. 19:28 with Lev. 18’s sexual morality is exegetically false equivalence. The first regulates cultural mourning rites; the second defines universal moral order.

---

3. “Tattooing is disrespectful of the body.”

That’s a subjective moral judgment, not a biblical one. The Bible’s principle for the body is 1 Corinthians 6:19–20—our bodies belong to God and should honor Him. Whether a tattoo honors or dishonors depends on the motive and message.

Sam Storms, writing on this very verse, says:

“The point of 1 Corinthians 6 is not that we can’t adorn the body, but that we must not use it for immorality. A tattoo can glorify God or not depending on the heart.”
(Enjoying God Blog, 2016)

Even John MacArthur, who dislikes tattoos personally, says:

“The Bible does not directly forbid it… You must judge your motive, not just the mark.” (Grace to You Q&A, “What does the Bible say about tattoos?”)

That’s conservative exegesis, not liberalism.

---

4. “Disagreement shows apostasy.”

Actually, disagreement on non-essentials is a sign of liberty, not apostasy. The early church handled similar conscience issues—meat sacrificed to idols, holy days, circumcision—and Paul’s answer in Romans 14:

“Let each be fully convinced in his own mind… Whoever doubts is condemned if he eats, because his eating is not from faith.”

D.A. Carson comments:

“Disputable matters are not resolved by labeling one side as apostate, but by mutual respect within the boundaries of gospel faithfulness.”
(Love in Hard Places, 2002)

---

5. “Thousands of denominations prove that interpretations are heretical.”

Fragmentation in Christianity is indeed regrettable—but it also reflects the depth and seriousness with which believers wrestle with Scripture. Having multiple denominations does not make all nonconforming views “cults.”

Alister McGrath (historian, Oxford):

“Diversity in secondary matters is not a mark of infidelity but of vitality within orthodoxy.” (Christian Theology: An Introduction, 6th ed.)

The fact that respected conservative Reformed, Baptist, and Evangelical theologians disagree on tattoos proves it’s a disputable matter, not a creedal one.

---

6. “Tattooing is heresy, plain and simple.”

That’s a bold claim—but one that no major creed, council, or confession of faith has ever made.

You can search:

• The Apostles’ Creed

• The Nicene Creed

• The Westminster Confession of Faith

• The London Baptist Confession (1689)

None even mention tattoos. If tattooing were truly “heresy,” it would appear in the confessional tradition.

Wayne Grudem, in his Systematic Theology (2020 edition), defines heresy as “a teaching that directly contradicts the essential truths of the Christian faith.” A tattoo does not.

Calling something heresy because we personally dislike it risks what Francis Schaeffer warned against—“adding human traditions to divine commands” (The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1984).

---

7. “Let’s agree to disagree.”

That’s actually a biblical conclusion—if we mean it as Romans 14 does: respecting conscience without condemning another believer.

John Piper summarizes it perfectly:

“If you can’t do it from faith, don’t do it. But don’t bind the conscience of another where Scripture is silent.”
(Desiring God, “Should Christians Get Tattoos?”)

[blackbird]

14 minutes ago, User said:

“Liberal positions on abortion, euthanasia, same-sex marriage prove that tattoo acceptance is liberal drift”

No, what I said was there are many examples of apostasy and heresy today.  Tattooing is just another one of those heresies.  Each heresy could be in a totally different church.  

[blackbird]

5 minutes ago, User said:

Calling something heresy because we personally dislike it

No, I think it is more serious an issue than people you are quoting.

I forgot to mention the error of women in church not a head covering.  That is also contrary to the Bible and it is a very common error today.  I don't see many women wearing a head covering in churches today.   Whether something is heresy or not is another discussion.

I also have seen men wearing baseball caps in church.  That is also wrong.

I see ministers wearing jeans in the pulpit and people dress very casual.  People clapping frequently in church as if it is a place of entertainment.  Disappointing.  Maybe I'm just old fashioned.

But it is contrary to the Bible.   

[User]

6 minutes ago, blackbird said:

No, what I said was there are many examples of apostasy and heresy today.  Tattooing is just another one of those heresies.  Each heresy could be in a totally different church.  

I understand your clarification — that you weren’t saying tattooing causes all heresy, but that you view it as one example among many of how churches have drifted.

But I think our earlier responses did accurately engage that point. The question we’ve been addressing all along is whether tattooing itself can be rightly classified as heresy — not whether apostasy exists in the world.

We both agree that there is real apostasy today. The disagreement is over whether tattooing belongs in that category. And that’s a question of definition and biblical evidence, not observation of cultural decay.”

---

Step 2 — What Counts as “Heresy”?

Apostasy (Greek apostasia) and heresy have clear biblical and theological meanings:

• Apostasy: abandoning faith in Christ (2 Thess 2:3; 1 Tim 4:1)

• Heresy: teaching that contradicts essential doctrines of the gospel

R.C. Sproul, a theologian who fiercely defended biblical inerrancy, wrote:

“Not every error is heresy. Heresy is that which so undermines the truth that it subverts the gospel itself.”
(Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, ch. 89)

Wayne Grudem, likewise:

“A heresy is a teaching so inconsistent with the essential elements of the Christian faith that it calls one’s salvation into question.”
(Systematic Theology, 2020 ed.)

Applying that standard, tattoos cannot qualify as heresy — because wearing ink does not deny the deity of Christ, justification by faith, or the resurrection. It’s a disputable practice, not a doctrinal deviation.

---

Step 3 — The Biblical Basis (Leviticus 19:28)

The only verse cited against tattoos is Leviticus 19:28, which says:

“You shall not make any cuts on your body for the dead or tattoo yourselves: I am the LORD.”

Dr. Jay Sklar (Covenant Seminary, conservative Reformed scholar) explains:

“This command was directed at pagan mourning rituals… its concern is with idolatry, not modern decorative tattooing.”
(Leviticus, Tyndale Old Testament Commentary, 2013)

That’s why conservative commentators such as Gordon Wenham (NICOT Leviticus) and R.K. Harrison agree it’s a ceremonial/cultural command, not a moral one.

Moral laws (like prohibitions against murder or sexual sin) are reaffirmed in the New Testament; the tattoo prohibition is not. Therefore, we treat it as a matter of conscience, just as Paul instructs in Romans 14.

---

Step 4 — Respect for the Body

You’ve said tattooing is “disrespectful to the body.”
That’s a reasonable concern — but Scripture evaluates respect for the body not by what’s on the skin but by whether the body is used in purity and for God’s glory (1 Cor 6:19-20).

Sam Storms, a Reformed theologian, writes:

“The point of 1 Corinthians 6 isn’t that Christians can’t adorn the body; it’s that we must not use it for immorality. A tattoo can glorify God or not depending on the heart.”
(Enjoying God Blog, 2016)

So the core biblical question is intent and stewardship, not ink.

---

Step 5 — Why Calling It “Heresy” Is Misleading

By labeling every modern issue as “heresy,” we blur the difference between serious gospel-denying error and non-essential disagreement.

Francis Schaeffer warned of this in The Great Evangelical Disaster (1984):

“Adding human traditions to divine commands is itself a form of unbelief, because it implies that Scripture is insufficient.”

To call tattoos heresy is to elevate a human judgment to the level of divine law — something Jesus rebuked the Pharisees for in Mark 7:8-9.

---

Step 6 — Unity in Essentials, Liberty in Non-Essentials

This maxim—“In essentials, unity; in non-essentials, liberty; in all things, charity”—comes from the 17th-century Lutheran theologian Rupertus Meldenius and is echoed by every major evangelical statement of faith.

Tattoos belong squarely in the “non-essentials” column.
You are right to follow your conscience not to get one; but Scripture gives no authority to label as apostate those who, in faith, do.

John Piper summarizes this balance:

“If you can do it from faith, for the glory of God, you may. If you can’t, then don’t. But don’t condemn another for what God has not forbidden.”
(Desiring God, “Should Christians Get Tattoos?”)

---

Step 7 — Closing Thought

So, to respond directly:

• We did engage what you said — by addressing whether tattooing itself meets the biblical and historical definition of heresy.

• The Bible’s context, the testimony of conservative scholars, and church history all say no, it does not.

• Christians may still wisely choose against tattoos — but we must not condemn what Scripture leaves to conscience.

That’s not compromise; that’s faithful hermeneutics and charity in Christ.

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

But it is contrary to the Bible.   

Nope.

 

Claim 1 – “The tattoo issue is more serious than the scholars you quoted make it out to be.”

Conservative evangelical theologians—including Wayne Grudem, Thomas Schreiner, Jay Sklar, and Gordon Wenham—treat Leviticus 19:28 as part of Israel’s ceremonial law tied to pagan mourning rituals, not as a timeless moral law.

• Grudem: “Christians are free in matters Scripture does not forbid.” (Christian Ethics, p. 443)

• Sklar: “The command against tattooing was directed at pagan mourning practices, not general body decoration.” (Leviticus, TOTC, 2013)

Within conservative hermeneutics, the seriousness of any issue is determined by its scriptural category—moral (permanent) or ceremonial/cultural (fulfilled in Christ). Tattooing falls in the latter, so labeling it a major moral crisis lacks textual basis.

---

Claim 2 – “Women not wearing head coverings in church is contrary to the Bible.”

1 Corinthians 11:2-16 must be interpreted in its Greco-Roman context. Scholars broadly agree that head coverings symbolized modesty and gender distinction in first-century Corinth.

• Craig Keener: “Paul upholds the principle of modesty and propriety; the form it takes varies by culture.” (1-2 Corinthians, 2005)

• Thomas Schreiner: “The enduring principle is honoring gender order; the veil itself was culturally bound.” (Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1991)

Therefore, the passage communicates an abiding principle of respect, not a universal command regarding fabric on the head.

---

Claim 3 – “Men wearing baseball caps, jeans, or casual clothing in church is wrong.”

Scripture prescribes modesty and reverence, not a specific dress code.

• R.C. Sproul: “Reverence is an attitude of the heart, not the fabric of a garment.” (Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, ch. 88)

• John MacArthur: “The Bible gives no mandated style of dress. The issue is propriety and modesty, not formality.” (Grace to You, “What Should a Christian Wear to Church?”*)

Because the New Testament gives no rule about clothing style, condemning casual dress as sin extends beyond biblical authority.

---

Claim 4 – “Clapping in church is contrary to the Bible.”

The Psalms explicitly portray clapping as a valid expression of joy and praise: “Clap your hands, all you peoples; shout to God with loud songs of joy.” (Ps 47:1)

• John Piper: “Joyful expressions like clapping or shouting can honor God when motivated by reverence and love.” (Desiring God Sermons, 1997)

Thus, far from being forbidden, clapping appears as a biblical form of worship when directed to God rather than entertainment.

---

Claim 5 – “Maybe I’m just old-fashioned, but these things are contrary to the Bible.”

Personal preference for traditional forms can be valuable, yet biblical authority rests on textual commands, not cultural comfort. When Scripture is silent on a practice, believers operate under the Romans 14 principle of conscience:

• Wayne Grudem: “In matters Scripture does not explicitly command or forbid, Christians are free to act according to conscience, provided all is done for the glory of God.” (Christian Ethics, p. 443)

Many of the examples cited—tattoos, head coverings, dress style, clapping—belong to this “disputable matters” category. Treating them as moral absolutes risks, as Francis Schaeffer warned, “adding human traditions to divine commands,” which itself distorts biblical faith (The Great Evangelical Disaster, 1984).

---

Summary Table

Topic	Biblical Principle	Representative Conservative Source
Tattoos	Ceremonial context; not a universal ban	Jay Sklar, Wayne Grudem
Head Coverings	Principle = honor/modesty; symbol = cultural	Craig Keener, Thomas Schreiner
Attire in Worship	Modesty > formality	R.C. Sproul, John MacArthur
Clapping	Scriptural expression of praise	Psalm 47:1; John Piper
General Claim	Only explicit commands define sin	Wayne Grudem, Francis Schaeffer

---

Conclusion

The behaviors listed—tattoos, uncovered heads, casual dress, or clapping—may offend traditional sensibilities, but none meet the biblical criteria for sin or heresy. Conservative scholarship consistently interprets them as matters of conscience and culture, not violations of divine moral law.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, User said:

Applying that standard, tattoos cannot qualify as heresy — because wearing ink does not deny the deity of Christ, justification by faith, or the resurrection. It’s a disputable practice, not a doctrinal deviation.

Well, I wouldn't say it denies the deity of Christ, justification by faith or the resurrection.  I can't tie it to those doctrines anyway.  I'm not saying tattooing is apostasy, but it might be heresy.  I would have to study that aspect of it more.  

What I think is perhaps more shocking is the people you quoted approving of tattooing of Christians or saying it is a matter of freedom.   

I will have to leave it at that for now.

[User]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

Well, I wouldn't say it denies the deity of Christ, justification by faith or the resurrection.  I can't tie it to those doctrines anyway.  I'm not saying tattooing is apostasy, but it might be heresy.  I would have to study that aspect of it more.  

What I think is perhaps more shocking is the people you quoted approving of tattooing of Christians or saying it is a matter of freedom.   

I will have to leave it at that for now.

Claim 1 – “Tattooing might be heresy; I would have to study that aspect more.”

The definition of heresy within historic, orthodox Christianity is precise. It refers to doctrinal deviation that strikes at the core of the faith—truths summarized in the early creeds.

• Wayne Grudem: “A heresy is a teaching so inconsistent with the essential elements of the Christian faith that it calls one’s salvation into question.” (Systematic Theology, 2020 ed.)

• R. C. Sproul: “Not every error is heresy. Heresy is that which so undermines the truth that it subverts the gospel itself.” (Essential Truths of the Christian Faith, ch. 89)

Tattooing is an ethical or cultural behavior, not a doctrinal teaching. It cannot, by definition, qualify as heresy unless one attached to it a gospel-denying doctrine (for example, teaching that salvation requires or forbids tattoos). No major creed or confession—the Apostles’, Nicene, Chalcedonian, Westminster, or London Baptist—lists tattooing among heresies.

---

Claim 2 – “More shocking are the people you quoted who approve of tattooing or treat it as freedom.”

The scholars previously cited are among the most theologically conservative within evangelicalism:

Scholar	Doctrinal Alignment	Representative Work
Wayne Grudem	Reformed; complementarian; inerrantist	Systematic Theology, Christian Ethics
Thomas Schreiner	Southern Baptist Theological Seminary; Reformed; inerrantist	40 Questions About Christians and the Law
John Piper	Reformed Baptist; complementarian; high view of Scripture	Desiring God, Ask Pastor John
Sam Storms	Evangelical charismatic; Reformed soteriology	Convergence
Jay Sklar	Reformed Old Testament scholar	Leviticus (TOTC)

All affirm biblical inerrancy and historic orthodoxy. Their allowance for tattoos does not arise from liberalism or moral compromise but from grammatical-historical exegesis of Leviticus 19:28 and New Testament liberty (Romans 14; 1 Cor 10:23–31).

Sklar and Wenham both read Leviticus 19:28 as referring to pagan mourning or cultic self-laceration—practices incompatible with Yahweh worship but not equivalent to modern decorative body art.
Grudem and Schreiner then apply the New Covenant framework: since such ceremonial regulations are fulfilled in Christ, believers discern by conscience and motive, not by the Mosaic code.

Thus, their reasoning stands within mainstream conservative hermeneutics, not outside it.

---

Claim 3 – “Leaving it at that.”

That closure is understandable, yet the scholarly consensus among conservative exegetes remains:

1. Tattooing in itself is not a doctrinal heresy or moral transgression.

2. Motives and content determine whether a tattoo honors or dishonors God (1 Cor 10:31).

3. Christian freedom operates where Scripture gives no universal command (Romans 14:23).

Consequently, regarding tattoos as a heresy lacks both textual and historical precedent. The position that treats them as a matter of conscience is not liberal drift but a consistent application of Reformation-era principles: Sola Scriptura and liberty in non-essentials.

[blackbird]

There are a lot of churches that accept anything these days.  These churches are called seeker-friendly churches.  They are trying to draw the world into their churches by accepting anything.  This is not the purpose of churches.

[User]

1 minute ago, blackbird said:

There are a lot of churches that accept anything these days.  These churches are called seeker-friendly churches.  They are trying to draw the world into their churches by accepting anything.  This is not the purpose of churches.

Claim – “Many churches today accept anything; they are seeker-friendly churches trying to draw the world in by accepting anything. That is not the purpose of churches.”

This statement confuses two separate issues:

1. The legitimate concern about churches compromising truth to gain popularity.

2. The separate question of whether a specific practice (e.g., tattooing) is biblically prohibited.

Affirmation of the concern:
Scripture does warn against accommodating sin to attract crowds.

• 2 Timothy 4:3–4: “For the time will come when people will not endure sound doctrine…”

• John MacArthur (a leading critic of seeker-sensitive movements): “The church’s goal is faithfulness, not popularity.” (Ashamed of the Gospel, 1993)

On this point, the concern about doctrinal compromise is valid. However, the acceptance of tattoos within orthodox evangelical circles is not evidence of such compromise but rather the result of responsible exegesis.

---

Scholarly Distinction

Wayne Grudem (Reformed, complementarian):

“Christian liberty means believers are free to engage in any activity Scripture does not explicitly forbid, as long as it is done in faith and for God’s glory.” (Christian Ethics, 2018)

In contrast, seeker-friendly theology often sets aside biblical authority to avoid offending the world. Grudem, Piper, and Schreiner explicitly uphold biblical authority while permitting tattoos; therefore, their position is the opposite of seeker-friendly relativism.

---

Historical Context

Throughout church history, the boundary between cultural flexibility and theological compromise has been carefully defined.

• Francis Schaeffer: “True spirituality is not withdrawal from culture but obedience within it.” (True Spirituality, 1971)

• D.A. Carson: “The church must be both culturally sensitive and theologically firm; sensitivity is not the same as compromise.” (Becoming Conversant with the Emerging Church, 2005)

Allowing tattoos as an issue of Christian liberty does not equate to accepting “anything.” It remains within the pattern of orthodox contextualization—engaging culture without surrendering doctrine.

---

Conclusion

Criticism of seeker-friendly compromise is biblically legitimate, but applying that label to every instance of Christian liberty—including the allowance of tattoos—misrepresents both Scripture and conservative scholarship. The issue at hand is not “accepting anything,” but discerning what Scripture actually forbids.

In short, tattoos treated as conscience matters reflect exegetical fidelity, not seeker-sensitive compromise.

[blackbird]

1 minute ago, User said:

In short, tattoos treated as conscience matters reflect exegetical fidelity, not seeker-sensitive compromise.

No, I just can't agree.  I understand all the arguments of people you quoted, but just don't agree with them.  I'm sure there are at least as many who would disagree with those you quoted.

I have seen some pretty horrendous tattoos on people on buses and in public.  I don't think it is something Christians should be taught as acceptable.  It just isn't.  

I quoted how a source said missionaries put a stop to heathen people decorating themselves.  I doubt the people you quote would defend the way heathen in jungles decorated themselves and their head and faces.  Yet tattooing falls into the same category of the heathen aboriginals in jungles and the way they painted and deformed their faces.  Maybe not as extreme, but still defacing their bodies.