“Let no one in any way deceive you, for it will not come unless the apostasy comes first, and the man of lawlessness is revealed, the son of destruction,” 2 Th 2:3

I am currently in the midst of thinking what the church-fallen-away looks like. It must still be professing “Lord, Lord,” and even some congregations will look like the church of Sardis (‘Grand’ as many are panning out to be now; in buildings if not in works) when Christ returns. But, the gospel must reach every creature, so how can a fallen church spread this gospel? A fast-track for sure is to drop everything but the ‘death, burial, and resurrection’ and hit the road. Just recently I asked two individuals to help me hammer out 1 Corinthians 11:1-16, and one of the two hit me with, “its the principle, not the practice;” and, “this point doesn’t hinge on salvation;” then, “your running into legalism;” and further, “what about knowing only Christ and Him crucified;” and maybe more points that I can’t remember now. Yes, to fast-track the gospel, you have to drop any sticky points; like tattoos. What are tattoos? They are the current method to go to the extreme in showing one’s devotion to something; like fashion or bumperstickers – none of those show you care about that subject like a tattoo. Tribal art? I have tribal art on my arm, and what is it or why did I get it? I got it because a) it was/is the thing to do; b) I got tribal because it will still look the same if I see 100 years old; c) it doesn’t stand for anything (brand, trade, whatever), but I get to tell you guys right now that I got one and somehow, in some way, with some people, that makes me part of their circle; it gives me something in common with the person I might not otherwise have something in common with. But the short answer on what are tattoos, in my current opinion, for the Christian, they are simply an unfading sign of our conformity; or more pc, our relavency. Scripture doesn’t have anything to say about tattoos? Aside from direct mentions, do you recall what Ezekiel was shown in the temple (Ezekiel 8:10)? And we say we are His temple? Are our tattoos holy as He is holy? I don’t know, but if you are wondering what I think about my tattoo, I will tell you that it is nothing, as circumcision is nothing. I got the tattoo in my ignorance, and unlike many things my eyes have seen in my previous walk I cannot erase, but good you cannot see, this tattoo is something I cannot erase and is a testimony to where I have come from, and not where I am at: at the parlor getting the latest ‘cool’ on some part of my body. But on arguing over it, I think it is something like when Jesus said, ‘if they are blind, they will fall into a pit; leave them alone.’ But, then at some point, we are to ’snatch them out of the fire.’ And, at what point do we correct our brother who has erred (if he has in this or any other matter)? It seems the safest route is to let each man do what is right in his own eyes and have his own interpretation just so long as the gospel is spread; just so long as the core requirements are met. But is this what is written – how we are called to live? In the arguing, not all is for not, since:

“For there must also be factions among you, so that those who are approved may become evident among you.” 1 Co 11:19

For what its worth, I believe this is how our many denominations and splinter groups came about. In the gospels, I don’t see Jesus point out congregations being saved, but individuals amongst the congregations being saved; the few. Of God’s chosen people, Israel, after rescuing them out of Egypt, only two entered the Promised Land.

“For this reason we must pay much closer attention to what we have heard, so that we do not drift away from it. For if the word spoken through angels proved unalterable, and every transgression and disobedience received a just penalty, how will we escape if we neglect so great a salvation? After it was at the first spoken through the Lord, it was confirmed to us by those who heard, God also testifying with them, both by signs and wonders and by various miracles and by gifts of the Holy Spirit according to His own will.” Heb 2:1-4

I don’t see any spell check here, so, this is as is. And, I know I’m a dummy, but I suppose if God can use a donkey, he can use a dummy.

“It is finished.”

“”Ironically, as Evangelicals we pride ourselves on being “biblical literalists,” yet sometimes feel comfortable fleeing the plain, literal sense of the passage whenever “the Spirit leads.” This, I think, is a big mistake.”"

Paul said “All scripture is god-breathed,” (2 Tim 3:16), graphe in Greek. The writings are inspired and authoritative, not the interpretation we think the Holy Spirit is giving us. This is why the words should be our focus, not our feelings.

If you think God is telling you something through Scripture that is not connected to the meaning of the words in their context, it can’t be of God because God chose to communicate through language, not around it.

Yes, the Holy Spirit is our teacher, but that means He illuminates what’s already there. All teachers work from a body of information, clarifying it and passing it on. The Holy Spirit does not give new information not in the inspired words. The curriculum, so to speak, is then standardized for all Christians. Every person has equal access to the meaning. There are no private messages in Scripture.

God took pains to give us an objective revelation in the words of the Bible to protect us from subjectivism. When Christians opt for an anointed “reading between the lines” instead of sound exegesis, it actually shows disrespect for God’s objective revelation.

How did all this develop from Tattoos?? I enjoy the discussion and input (and learning) from everybody!

I personally believe that the Bible is literally true, but not always true literally. I have no problem sweeping away traditional interpretations if the newer product is closer to the text’s original meaning. The informed Christian needs to work to figure all that out by study and research. I discourage people from relying on the “leading of the Spirit” when it comes to stuff like this, as I’ve found it to be misused as a cover for laziness in regards to doing research.

I also think taking the text at it’s plain meaning by default can be a dangerous path to tread. In English, the text may seem simple and straight-forward, but in the original languages and cultures you may have a meaning that completely tosses the “plain meaning” on it’s head.

This is a question frequently asked about biblical interpretation. I answer that I try to read the Bible with the precision the writer intended, taking the words the way the writer expected them to be taken. I take the text at its plain meaning unless I have some good reason to do otherwise. When you think about it, this is the basic rule we apply to everything we read: novels, newspapers, periodicals and poems.

Ironically, as Evangelicals we pride ourselves on being “biblical literalists,” yet sometimes feel comfortable fleeing the plain, literal sense of the passage whenever “the Spirit leads.” This, I think, is a big mistake.

Yes, so every person has a responsibility to understand and believe the Bible in the context within which it was originally written. My experience has been that those who reject verbel plenary inspiration reject a conservative view of historical/gramattical/contextual interpretation which I would suggest is the most appropriate way to understand what the Bible originally meant. Of course, the application today can sometimes be different because we live in a very different time.

Starr and JC, I am glad I didn’t “go through with it” too. Well, other than that large tattoo of Mother Theresa on my back.

Michael, great quote.

thats why i’ve got a “God Bless America and if You don’t like it Get out” tattoo on my arm.

“A text without a context is just a pretext for whatever you want it to mean” – Ben Witherington