# Gambling



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2004)

I was just wondering what your thoughts are about gambling. Like a lot of other things, drinking for example, its harmful/sinful when done in excess. Is it OK in moderation?

I've always been taught that it was wrong, just like drinking, smoking, etc. Abstinance was the rule of thumb. Is it wrong to buy an occasional scratch ticket for $1 (or whatever it costs)? Would it be wrong to play an occasional game of poker for money? If you got a scratch ticket as a gift, would you cash it in?

Is there anything fundamentally different between gambling occasionally and investing in the stock market? Lets say I budgetted $100 a month to invest in the stock market. For diversification purposes, what if I took $10 of that budgetted amount and bought scratch tickets instead. Would that be wrong?

I'm curious what you think.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 3, 2004)

There is a difference between investing in the stock market and gambling using games of chance. By investing in a company's stock, you are helping to strengthen it's business. That's good Biblical capitalism. 

Playing games of chance on the other hand involves calling upon the name of God (see the Third Commandment prohibition against the abuse of lots noted in WLC Q#112) and when done for money is contrary to good stewardship as required by the Eighth Commandment. Gambling may also violate the Second Commandment by becoming an idol.

In my view, gambling (ie., playing games of chance whether for money or not) is sinful per se under the Third Commandment.


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2004)

Andrew,
Thanks for your response.

While I ponder what you said about violating the 3rd commandment, let me play devil's advocate with: 


> _Originally posted by Andrew_
> There is a difference between investing in the stock market and gambling using games of chance. By investing in a company's stock, you are helping to strengthen it's business. That's good Biblical capitalism.



In my state, I'm pretty sure that a good percentage of the income taken in by the lottery, etc., is revenue for the state. That revenue benefits a broad range of businesses as the money is spent for various purposes. That's good Biblical capitalism?


----------



## tdowns (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> There is a difference between investing in the stock market and gambling using games of chance. By investing in a company's stock, you are helping to strengthen it's business. That's good Biblical capitalism.
> 
> Playing games of chance on the other hand involves calling upon the name of God (see the Third Commandment prohibition against the abuse of lots noted in WLC Q#112) and when done for money is contrary to good stewardship as required by the Eighth Commandment. Gambling may also violate the Second Commandment by becoming an idol.
> ...



I need to figure out how to quote parts of posts. I'm speaking to the last statement here:
So do you think playing monopoly or any game that involves dice or chance is wrong. "Whether for money or not"

Secondly to the general question, most games of "chance" involve skill, like poker, black jack, even craps and roulette have strategies, of course, I'm speaking strictly speculative here, wouldn't't know by experience 

Obviously gambling for the sake of increasing money is a dangerous proposition, but, I think instead of the investment scenario, if one looks at it like, "I can spend my $100 bucks on a round of golf, a nice dinner and a beer, or I can spend that leisure money on some games at a casino..." Then I think it's fine, but it should always be money that you have allotted to spend, not planning on getting it or anymore back, just spending it for entertainment purposes.


TDREVOLVER


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> Andrew,
> Thanks for your response.
> 
> ...



I think the lottery revenues used by state governments should be classified as ill-gotten gains. I am also skeptical that they are usually used for good purposes. I know many states will try to persuade voters to approve lotteries by claiming the funds will be used for public education, but I am against statist public schools to begin with and in reality the funds often get syphoned off for other not-so "noble" purposes.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> I need to figure out how to quote parts of posts. I'm speaking to the last statement here:
> So do you think playing monopoly or any game that involves dice or chance is wrong. "Whether for money or not"
> 
> ...



You raise good issues here. I should have been more careful to state the distinction that I approve of that differentiates between games of "pure" chance and those involving a mixture of chance and skill. Some will argue that both categories are prohibited by the Third Commandment. In my view, only games of "pure" chance are prohibited. In other words, I think of roulette as a game of "pure" chance. Choosing red or black or a number does not require any skill. I think of poker as a mixture. Monopoly too involves skill as well as chance. Dice are not intrinisically sinful to use. But it is important to remember that randomness and chance and luck are not real. God is sovereign over the roll of the die. To base a game or a wager purely on "chance" is to call upon God. If skill is involved too, then I can see it is a legitimate game. However, others factors as I noted involving the Second and Eighth Commandments may come into play, so to speak.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> There is a difference between investing in the stock market and gambling using games of chance. By investing in a company's stock, you are helping to strengthen it's business. That's good Biblical capitalism.



Then you be investing only in corporate bonds. Stocks involve signigificantly more speculation and risk. Stocks could wind up being worse than burying your money in the ground.



> Playing games of chance on the other hand involves calling upon the name of God (see the Third Commandment prohibition against the abuse of lots noted in WLC Q#112) and when done for money is contrary to good stewardship as required by the Eighth Commandment. Gambling may also violate the Second Commandment by becoming an idol.
> 
> In my view, gambling (ie., playing games of chance whether for money or not) is sinful per se under the Third Commandment.



Q. 112. What is required in the third commandment?

A. The third commandment requires, that the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others. 

With all due respect, in context this seems to condemn the *abuse * of lots for religious purposes. I.e., those things done in the name of the Lord. 

Is the issue games of chance, or gamling for money?

I not sure the WLC condemns playing monopoly or canasta per se. I'm not even certain it condemns playing those games when there is money on the line.


----------



## tdowns (Dec 3, 2004)

*Good explanation*

of the difference.

I def. think it needs to be handled very carefully. I think sociologically it is a very bad idea to be spreading gambling across a nation that has very little self control, I see nothing but bad coming from the addictive habit being made readily available. On the other hand, I don't have a problem with responsible adults playing a poker game (which I do a couple of times a year, and once a year am in Vegas for a reunion, so I budget accordingly, assuming I WILL lose my money, and enjoy the losing of it while sociallizing with old friends, so money well spent in my mind) But anyway, most don't have control, but of course this arguement can flow over to alchohol or many other issues, so your biblical based arguements are the best way to handle it.

The good stewardship angle is always important to apply here, as well as with a bottle of wine (which cost way more than bottled water) good whisky, fine food, etc. 

Good thoughts.


----------



## George Bailey (Dec 3, 2004)

The thing that helped me decide to NOT gamble...

Imagine you won a few Million. Now imagine yourself sitting down with your Session and telling them you want to Tithe from these monies...do you think that would be well received?

Also, John Piper did a great message called "Don't play the lottery for me" where he decries the scourge of gambling. 

I don't think that it's sin in and of itself, but it's bad stewardship and supports bad things.

Just my .02


----------



## sastark (Dec 3, 2004)

A couple of points about gambling:

First, all our money in the United States has "In God We Trust" printed on it. I, therefore, see it as blasphemy to take that money and buy a lottery ticket/drop it in a slot machine/play a hand of poker with it. Are we really trusting in God when we do that?

Second, if God has ordained for me to win the lottery, He certainly could have this come to pass without me buying a ticket. I could just find the winning ticket in a parking lot somewhere. I mean, really, the odds of that happening aren't much worse than if I buy a ticket. And since God is in control of all things, certainly He could make it so.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Well, there is a wise approach to stock market investments and there is a foolish approach. I would only advocate the former. Risk-taking is not sin per se. Stock market _investment_ is a positive and productive approach to earning money which is not without risk, but it contributes to the well-being of others in a legitimate way. 

As I mentioned, I don't condemn playing monopoly. It's a game of both chance and skill. If it was just about chance then I would disapprove. 

Gambling in the sense of wagering in a game of pure chance whether for money or no is contrary I believe to the Third Commandment because it purports to give a result not based on providence but chance or luck. Then, one might say, well, I as a Christian know that the die is controlled by God so I'm not attributing it to chance or luck. But to call upon God in this way to give a favorable result to a "random" event is a misuse in itself of the lot as I understand it. 

When it is done for money, other commandments are violated including potentially the First, Second, Eighth and Tenth Commandments.


----------



## cupotea (Dec 3, 2004)

This discussion reminds me of something. In Samuel Sewall (1652-1730)'s diary, he mentions his voyage from Boston to England in the 1680s. When he got near England, he and his friends on board made a "purse"(I think that was the term he used). That is, they all put some money together, and the person who spotted land first won it. Is that wrong? It struck me that Sewall shouldn't have done that, though I wasn't sure why. What do you guys think? I'm especially looking in your direction, Andrew.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> This discussion reminds me of something. In Samuel Sewall (1652-1730)'s diary, he mentions his voyage from Boston to England in the 1680s. When he got near England, he and his friends on board made a "purse"(I think that was the term he used). That is, they all put some money together, and the person who spotted land first won it. Is that wrong? It struck me that Sewall shouldn't have done that, though I wasn't sure why. What do you guys think? I'm especially looking in your direction, Andrew.



This sounds like a raffle. However, there is some effort that was probably applied by the participants in order to come out ahead (ie., jockeying for position, applying keener eyesight, paying attention to the horizon, etc.). Off hand, this doesn't sound like a game of pure chance to which I would object. It's more like a contest. However, it does not sound like wise stewardship.

[Edited on 3-12-2004 by VirginiaHuguenot]


----------



## Jonathan (Dec 3, 2004)

"Whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God." Is there anything that glorifies God in it?


----------



## tdowns (Dec 3, 2004)

*Glory to God, trusting in God*

I don't see how the Glory to God or the Trusting in God from above posts are relevant if you are not playing the game to "make Money". Like the purse on the ship as the bet for sighting land, it just makes the game 'a little more interesting", or just plain fun. I think having fun brings glory to God. Whether it's surfing, drinking a fine wine or whisky, enjoying a cheese cake, or sitting by the pool. Any of these things can be unglorifying if done in the wrong way or in excess. 

It is foolish--unless you're a pro, in which all of the above examples of chance are thrown out the window, because they are chancing nothing over the long hall--to use gambling as a way to make money(very bad stewardship), in that, I think the above criticisms are correct, but if like the guys on the ship, it's in fun--Have fun!

TD


----------



## cupotea (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tdowns007_
> Like the purse on the ship as the bet for sighting land, it just makes the game 'a little more interesting", or just plain fun.



I take it y'all (except Jonathan?) agree with Sewall then. Cool. I wondered why he'd do something so blatantly wrong when he was a really moral guy. By the way, speaking of entertainment, it's true, he had been at sea for a few weeks, and the ships tended to leak. He talks about the cabin being full of water. That's a pretty cold and unpleasant situation. Entertainment certainly was called for.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Dec 3, 2004)

Poker if you know what you are doing is not gambling, but even if it is, how many of you guys misuse your money on a hamburger or a movie what's the difference. Entertainment is entertainment unless it is a clear violation of scripture. I don't think there is any scriptural principle that clearly forbids gambling, albeit if it is a matter of conscience don't do it, I think it is like alcohol if you have issues with it don't do it. But don't tell me I can't. 

Rom 14:4


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2004)

[jk]
Since I first started this thread earlier this afternoon, the idea of gambling has been heavy on my mind. Because I'd never done it before and my curiosity got the better of me, I bought my first scratch ticket ever for $5 while waiting for the train...AND WON $500!!! WHAT SHOULD I DO NOW ???
[/jk]

BTW, & FYI, jk=just kidding

Thanks for all the responses so far. Like other so-called vices (drinking, smoking, etc) I have no (or almost no) interest in trying it, but if its a sin, I'd like to know why. I was really curious to get responses from the "reformed point of view". I'd be willing to bet...(oops)...that I wouldn't have gotten some of the answers I got if I had posted the question on a non-reformed Christian forum. I'd expect something along the lines of "what would non-Christians think if they saw you gambling" - which is a good answer, but maybe not the best. Since I don't know and can't really control what others think, answers connected with the 10 commandments and some of the other scriptures given seem to get more to the heart of the matter. 

In looking at the some of questions/answers about the 10 commandments in the Westminster Catechism, I can see that I have some digging to do. 

Thanks,
Bob


----------



## SolaScriptura (Dec 3, 2004)

I won't buy a lottery ticket... but if one of my pagan relatives decides to buy me a ticket for a gift... and I win...


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Sean_
> I don't think there is any scriptural principle that clearly forbids gambling, albeit if it is a matter of conscience don't do it, I think it is like alcohol if you have issues with it don't do it. But don't tell me I can't.
> Rom 14:4


Sean,
In thinking about your response, I thought it'd be interesting to take a closer look at some of the reasons already given for not gambling, not to tell you or anybody else they can't gamble, but just to better understand the scriptural principles why others don't. 

As a starting point, Andrew mentioned the 3rd commandment and question 112 from the Westminster catechism. This is my first time reading these questions and answers, so at first reading it doesn't just jump out at me how you get from the commandment itself to some of the things forbidden. Maybe someone can explain how you get from not taking the Lord's name in vain to all sinful cursings, oaths, vows and lots being forbidden. 

Here's one of the questions from the catechism with some cross references. Maybe we can figure out from this how and why gambling relates to taking God's name in vain?



> Q113: What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
> A113: The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God's name as is required;[1] and the abuse of it in an ignorant,[2] vain,[3] irreverent, profane,[4] superstitious,[5] or wicked mentioning, or otherwise using his titles, attributes,[6] ordinances,[7] or works,[8] by blasphemy,[9] perjury;[10] all sinful cursings,[11] oaths,[12] vows,[13] and lots;[14] violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful;[15] and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful;[16] murmuring and quarreling at,[17] curious prying into,[18] and misapplying of God's decrees [19] and providences;[20] misinterpreting,[21] misapplying,[22] or any way perverting the word, or any part of it,[23] to profane jests,[24] curious or unprofitable Questions,[25] vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines;[26] abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms,[27] or sinful lusts and practices;[28] the maligning,[29] scorning,[30] reviling,[31] or any wise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways;[32] making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends;[33] being ashamed of it,[34] or a shame to it, by unconformable,[35] unwise,[36] unfruitful,[37] and offensive walking,[38] or backsliding from it.[39]
> 
> 1. Mal. 2:2
> ...



[Edited on 4-12-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2004)

13. Jer. 5:7; 23:10

So Jeremiah 5:7 and 23:10 are the references given for lots:

Jer 5:7 How shall I pardon thee for this? thy children have forsaken me, and sworn by them that are no gods: when I had fed them to the full, they then committed adultery, and assembled themselves by troops in the harlots' houses. 

Jer 23:10 For the land is full of adulterers; for because of swearing the land mourneth; the pleasant places of the wilderness are dried up, and their course is evil, and their force is not right. 

How do these verses relate the third commandment of taking God's name in vain to forbidding lots (or gambling)?

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 3, 2004)

Some thoughts about gambling that I have mulled over....

1) Gambling is the offer of wealth for no reason except chance.
2) Gerstner says it is the mode of transferiing property without ay intermediate good. (Stealing really).
3) It seems to be a form of stealing.
4) People are giving away their inhertiacne in order to "win" money. That's poor stewardship of God's increases in your life.

Think of it this way: Deliberatly arranging things so that huge wealth is offered for no good reason, and earned by nothing but "luck", only needs to be states to be condmened by all right-minded observes. Why? _It is a comple reversal of the cultural mandate._


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> 13. Jer. 5:7; 23:10
> 
> So Jeremiah 5:7 and 23:10 are the references given for lots:
> ...



Bob, The verses you cited are not the ones relating to lots, according to the official version of the Catechism - they relate to vows. The verses cited by the Catechism relating to lots are: 

Esth. 3.7; Esth. 9.24; Ps. 22.18 

I think if you look these up you will see a direct reference to lots. 

A lot (hence the term lottery) is a calling upon God to reveal his will by a result that would otherwise be considered random (ie., not influenced by men). Examples of lots in Scripture indicate that it is a weighty thing to call upon the Lord. To call upon God unworthily is to blaspheme his name. That is the relevance to the Third Commandment. A game of skill and providence, in my view, is of a different nature (although some Puritans did not agree) and so my objection does not extend that far.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> This sounds like a raffle. However, there is some effort that was probably applied by the participants in order to come out ahead (ie., jockeying for position, applying keener eyesight, paying attention to the horizon, etc.). Off hand, this doesn't sound like a game of pure chance to which I would object. It's more like a contest. However, it does not sound like wise stewardship.
> ...



So what you seem to be saying is that gambling by playing the lottery (no skill involved) is always sin while gambling by playing blackjack (some skill involved) may be sin.

Suppose one buys into a scrabble or monopoly tournement where there is a cash prize involved? Is that sin?

I'd also like to get your feedback on whether or not "lots" in WLC Q. 112 & 113 refers to strictly religious uses of the lot? Why or why not?

The proof texts for lots in Q 113 seems to all be related to lots in the context of some clearly evil intent and outcome. How does, say, playing a slot machine fit with that context?


----------



## pastorway (Dec 3, 2004)

See this old thread - Is playing poker for money wrong Scripturally?

Phillip


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> Bob, The verses you cited are not the ones relating to lots, according to the official version of the Catechism - they relate to vows. The verses cited by the Catechism relating to lots are: Esth. 3.7; Esth. 9.24; Ps. 22.18



Boy, if you can't trust your Reformed Confessions help file, what can you trust?

Thanks for providing the correct references. These verses definitely make more sense with regard to lots. I had never realized what was going on in the Esther passages. Here's what Gill says:


> *they cast Pur*, that is, the lot, before Haman; being a Persian word, it is explained in Hebrew a lot, the word signifying "steel" in the Persian language. Reland (p) conjectures that this was that sort of lot called "sideromantia". Who cast this lot is not said; whether Haman himself, or one of his servants: perhaps a diviner. The latter Targum calls him Shimshai the scribe:
> 
> *from day today, and from month to month, to the twelfth month, that is the month Adar;* which answers to part of January and part of February; so that the lot was cast for every month and every day of the month throughout the year, to find out which was the most lucky month, and which the most lucky day in that month, to destroy the Jews in and none could be found till they came to the last month, and the thirteenth day of that month, Est_3:13, the providence of God so overruling the lot, that there might be time enough for the Jews, through the mediation of Esther to the king, to prevent their destruction; so in other nations the Heathens had their lucky and unlucky days (q).



What they were doing seems to go hand-in-hand with this definition of lottery:

Lottery:
1. An activity or event regarded as having an outcome depending on fate: They considered combat duty a lottery.

Now, to relate that to taking God's name in vain...thinking...


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> So what you seem to be saying is that gambling by playing the lottery (no skill involved) is always sin while gambling by playing blackjack (some skill involved) may be sin.
> 
> Suppose one buys into a scrabble or monopoly tournement where there is a cash prize involved? Is that sin?
> ...



What I am saying is that games of "pure" chance are sinful violations of the Third Commandment but I do not go so far as to say that games which mix "chance" and skill are sinful. 

I don't have an opinion at present on the subject of "buying" into a scrabble or monopoly tournament. 

The example of a lot cited in Q 112 show a good religious use of lots. The examples of lots cited in Q 113 show bad uses of the lot. When the soldiers who crucified Christ cast lots, for example, they did not do so with a good religious intent. The lot itself is a religious act. It calls upon God to reveal his will in a special way. That's why its abuse is blasphemy against God. 

Playing the slot machine is a pretty clear example, in my view, of an abuse of the lot. There is no skill involved. It calls upon God to reveal his will for the purpose of financial gain. I am not privy to the motivations in the heart of every slot machine player, but I would tend to suspect idolatry, covetousness and bad stewardship may be behind the desire to play the slot machine for financial gain.


----------



## C. Matthew McMahon (Dec 3, 2004)

Bob remember - 

When casting lots the "lot caster" was using a God ordained means to answering a specific request (i.e. like casting the lots of the next apostle, or the High Priest consuting the Urim and Thummim.)

When "playing dice" we are doing neither. Loteries, and the OT idea of casting lots is not the same thing at all. One is a reliance on god's choice, the other is playing with God's good in an unlawful manner. God never asks us to "play with him goods." As Christ told us, we will one day give account for every transaction (see the parable of the shrewd manager).


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 3, 2004)

Here is a definition of the lot which may be relevant and helpful: 




> A lot is an action, intended to decide a point without the aid of human skill or power. This definition includes every form of the lot, or every decision which in common language, is said to be left to chance. Thus, whether the lot or the chance consist in drawing a ticket at random out of the lottery-wheel, after it has been turned round to prevent collusion, or in the position of a die which is thrown after rattling it in the box, or in the particular distribution of cards after a promiscuous shuffle, or in the tossing up of a piece of money, is a matter of no moment. The principle of the action is still the same; the decision to be effected is put avowedly out of the control of human skill and power.
> 
> My design is to show that every such action, that is, every lot, is a direct appeal to the living God, as the governor of the world, and that his holy providence is concerned in the event.
> 
> ...



Source: _Considerations on Lots_, John Mason, http://www.covenanter.org/JMMason/masononlots.htm


----------



## blhowes (Dec 3, 2004)

> _Originally posted by webmaster_
> Bob remember -
> 
> When casting lots the "lot caster" was using a God ordained means to answering a specific request (i.e. like casting the lots of the next apostle, or the High Priest consuting the Urim and Thummim.)
> ...


Thanks. That makes sense. The only thing that doesn't quite connect is why it would be related to the commandment about taking God's name in vain, as opposed to say the 10th about coveting.



> _Originally posted by Pastor Way_
> See this old thread - Is playing poker for money wrong Scripturally?


Thanks for the link. I liked the Focus on the Family article, especially:

*Lack of trust in God*
The Bible teaches that Christians are to look to God as their provider, and that we are to be content with the material blessings we receive from His hand. To engage in gambling indicates both a lack of trust in and dissatisfaction with God's provision.
See, for instance, Matthew 6:25-34; Philippians 4:11-12, 4:19; 1 Timothy 6:6; Hebrews 13:5.


----------



## blhowes (Dec 4, 2004)

OK, I think I see the connection now. Here's what Thomas Vincent wrote:


> *Q. 1.* What are we to understand by the name of God, which we are forbidden in this commandment to take in vain?
> *A.* The name of God, which we are forbidden in this commandment to take in vain, is to he taken generally and comprehensively for anything whereby God makes himself known.
> 
> *Q. 2. *By what is it that God doth make himself known?
> ...



We honor God's name when we say we trust in His providence and wait on Him to provide for our needs. We dishonor God's name (take it in vain) when we say that we trust in His providence and look to fate (gambling) to provide for our needs.

Is that the connection?

[Edited on 4-12-2004 by blhowes]


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by blhowes_
> OK, I think I see the connection now. Here's what Thomas Vincent wrote:
> 
> 
> ...



Exactly!


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> What I am saying is that games of "pure" chance are sinful violations of the Third Commandment but I do not go so far as to say that games which mix "chance" and skill are sinful.



Where do you get the "skill" differentiation from Scripture? This seems arbitrary to me.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



If the game or whatever is a contest, providence is involved (as in all of life). It's when one is solely and directly trying to call upon the Lord in the form of a lot (whether through dice or some other vain method) that the Third Commandment prohibition applies. I don't believe that sports or games in general which require human effort and skill are sinful because that is not a direct calling upon the Lord. To take the position that all activities which involve providence are sinful is extreme and unwarranted in my view. As I mentioned, there are some Puritans who take this view, but I don't agree.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> *If the game or whatever is a contest, providence is involved (as in all of life).* It's when one is solely and directly trying to call upon the Lord in the form of a lot (whether through dice or some other vain method) that the Third Commandment prohibition applies. I don't believe that sports or games in general which require human effort and skill are sinful because that is not a direct calling upon the Lord. To take the position that all activities which involve providence are sinful is extreme and unwarranted in my view. As I mentioned, there are some Puritans who take this view, but I don't agree.



Would you say that's it OK to invoke God for, say, the outcome of a baseball game?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 4, 2004)

Sorry to get to this thread so late, but I think you have been discussing the wrong avenue in the Standards (I know, I know, here he goes again with Westminster...  )

The more applicable (directly, I would say) Larger Catechism question is 142, for gambling is a violation of the 8th commandment, more appropriately than the 3rd:



> WLC 1:142 WLC 142 What are the sins forbidden in the eighth commandment? A. The sins forbidden in the eighth commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required,(1) are, theft,(2) robbery,(3) manstealing,(4) and receiving any thing that is stolen;(5) fraudulent dealing,(6) false weights and measures,(7) removing land-marks,(8) injustice and unfaithfulness in contracts between man and man,(9) or in matters of trust;(10) oppression,(11) extortion,(12) usury,(13) bribery,(14) vexatious lawsuits,(15) unjust inclosures and depopulations;(16) ingrossing commodities to enhance the price;(17) unlawful callings,(18) and all other unjust or sinful ways of taking or withholding from our neighbour what belongs to him, or of enriching ourselves;(19) covetousness;(20) inordinate prizing and affecting worldly goods;(21) distrustful and distracting cares and studies in getting, keeping, and using them;(22) envying at the prosperity of others;(23) as likewise idleness,(24) prodigality, wasteful gaming; and all other ways whereby we do unduly prejudice our own outward estate,(25) and defrauding ourselves of the due use and comfort of that estate which God hath given us.(26)
> 
> (1)James 2:15,16; 1 John 3:17
> (2)Eph. 4:28
> ...



The issue is not risk or not - all life involves some risk. It involves work and production as opposed to an attempt to make gain from the Providence of God. Corporate investments may have more risk than poker to a good player, but the difference is that when I buy a stock, that money is used for something to allow the Company to produce something. It buys machines, pays workers, etc. It may be that the Company wastes the investment, but that would be their sin, not mine. When I play poker for money, all I am essentially saying is that I can better divine the Providence of God (playing the odds as to what cards will come up) and can better manipulate others (bluff, etc). This is surely not Christian conduct.


----------



## cupotea (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> The issue is not risk or not - all life involves some risk. It involves work and production as opposed to an attempt to make gain from the Providence of God. Corporate investments may have more risk than poker to a good player, but the difference is that when I buy a stock, that money is used for something to allow the Company to produce something. It buys machines, pays workers, etc. It may be that the Company wastes the investment, but that would be their sin, not mine. When I play poker for money, all I am essentially saying is that I can better divine the Providence of God (playing the odds as to what cards will come up) and can better manipulate others (bluff, etc). This is surely not Christian conduct.



So what do you think about lotteries, especially for charity? I think it's the Heart and Stroke Foundation that has an annual lottery where you pay $100 for a ticket and you can win a car, or cash, etc. Is that sinful?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Cottonball_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> ...



Yes. Why would you need to have the possibility of winning something to give to a good cause? If the cause is good - then give. If the cause is not, then don't. But the problem is that people kid themselves by saying "it's for charity" when it is actually for covetousness.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



What do you mean, "invoke"?


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> I'm sortof confused here. Maybe I missed someone define it... but. I keep seeing the word "chance." How is that word being used in this forum since nothing happens by chance?



I guess I would say that chance in this sense means the presumption that Providence will come out as I want it to.


----------



## cupotea (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Why would you need to have the possibility of winning something to give to a good cause? If the cause is good - then give. If the cause is not, then don't. But the problem is that people kid themselves by saying "it's for charity" when it is actually for covetousness.



I'd always wondered that myself... I mean, if I entered it and won, I'd feel pretty bad, depriving the charity of all that money! That sort of seems to defeat the purpose. I'd almost enter it hoping to lose!


----------



## Scott Bushey (Dec 4, 2004)

Paul,
Just an opinion mind you. Most gamblers squander the money God has given them. There are better things one could do with their money, i.e. missions, people whom are in need in our churches. "Playing" is one thing, but if you have to use funds that could be spent better elsewhere, I believe this is wrong.


----------



## fredtgreco (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> Ok, just asking. I'm not trying to argue for or against, and I don't gamble anyway. But what if someone just plays for fun and they don't care what the outcome is, they use it for recreation, say.



I have a friend who takes this route. He says that he and his wife take an occasional vacation where they set aside say $200 for entertainment gambling. He says they do that instead of going to plays, movies, etc on vacation. I am not sure about this, but I am sure about one thing (and I told him this): if that is your plan, you must give away anything that remains from the $200. After all, the entire premise was to spend the money, not hoping to win anything.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by Paul manata_
> ...





The term refers to a supposed randomness in an event that cannot reasonably be said to be influenced by the hand of man. The lot, the roll of the dice, the deal of a card -- such events in themselves used for the purpose of determining something without outside interference -- are also known as games of hazard, luck, fate, fortune, probability, and venture. The concept by such games of "pure chance" is a denial of God's providence in that it calls upon Him to decide an event but in a vain manner and for a vain purpose. To use the term "game of chance" as the Puritans did and as I am doing in this thread is not to suggest that I believe in chance because all it means in fact is "supposed randomness" -- on the contrary, I reject games of "pure chance" precisely because I believe in God's providence and His command to not call upon Him in vain.


----------



## blhowes (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by fredtgreco_
> Sorry to get to this thread so late, but I think you have been discussing the wrong avenue in the Standards (I know, I know, here he goes again with Westminster...  )
> 
> The more applicable (directly, I would say) Larger Catechism question is 142, for gambling is a violation of the 8th commandment, more appropriately than the 3rd:



Fred,
Thanks for providing the question from the Catechism about the 8th commandment. I was actually planning on taking a look at the different commandments that Andrew mentioned (3rd, 8th, and then 2nd) in the order he gave them, so your timing is perfect.
Thanks,
Bob


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> ...



Earlier you said, "If the game or whatever is a contest, providence is involved (as in all of life)."

The answer to WLC Q 112 says, "The third commandment requires, that the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, *be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession*, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others."

Is it proper, say, to pray for the outcome of something trivial like a baseball game, even though it is entirely a game of skill? Since a game is a trivial thing, is it even proper to pray for God's protection over the players?

My questions have to do with your statements about pure games of chance vs. games with a mixture of chance and skill, participation in the former being sin while the latter may not be sin. And also you comment about skill and providence. Can any game, regardless of the chance/skill mix, be considered a holy thing, and worthy of invoking God's blessing/protection?


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 4, 2004)

> _Originally posted by tcalbrecht_
> 
> 
> > _Originally posted by VirginiaHuguenot_
> ...



Let's start by recalling my quote in its full context: 



> If the game or whatever is a contest, providence is involved (as in all of life). It's when one is solely and directly trying to call upon the Lord in the form of a lot (whether through dice or some other vain method) that the Third Commandment prohibition applies. I don't believe that sports or games in general which require human effort and skill are sinful because that is not a direct calling upon the Lord. To take the position that all activities which involve providence are sinful is extreme and unwarranted in my view. As I mentioned, there are some Puritans who take this view, but I don't agree.



I have been trying to state as clearly as I can that sports and games which involve skill and providence (ie., "that's the way the ball bounces") are of a different nature to me than games of "pure chance" which involve a religious calling upon God albeit done in a vain way and for a vain purpose. 

You ask whether it is proper to pray for the protection of players before a game or even for a specific outcome to a game. In my view (and this is just my personal opinion) the former is entirely appropriate (we are to pray for "all sorts of persons") while the latter would be a vain and selfish thing to pray about. I am a big sports fan, but I don't presume that God favors one team over another and so I may root for a team but I don't petition the Lord for a team to win. Sports has many commendations in Scripture (without taking the time to research it for you in-depth because I am short of time). Sports involves providence and skill (I disagree with your statement that a game of baseball involves only skill and not providence). You can't completely separate the aspect of providence from anything (nor should one want to) and since sports has God's commendation I view it differently from games which involve no skill at all but rather call upon God to providentially render a certain outcome for a vain purpose. 

Hope this helps.


----------



## Irishcat922 (Dec 9, 2004)

What did we decide about Poker, Is my game still on for tomorrow night I've got a bottle of jamieson and two fuentes and a pocket full of change anyone else want to play. 10-20 blinds with dollar high bet.


----------



## tcalbrecht (Dec 9, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Irishcat922_
> What did we decide about Poker, Is my game still on for tomorrow night I've got a bottle of jamieson and two fuentes and a pocket full of change anyone else want to play. 10-20 blinds with dollar high bet.



I'm in.


----------



## just_grace (Dec 11, 2004)

!

Imagine Jesus...

David




> _Originally posted by Paul manata_


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 13, 2004)

Here are some additional thoughts which relate to gambling as recreation, taken from comments by William Perkins, the noted Puritan casuist, cited in _A Puritan Golden Treasury_, edited by I.D.E. Thomas:




> All lawful recreation is only in the use of things indifferent, which are in themselves neither commanded nor forbidden.






> How are we to use recreations?...four special rules:
> 
> Rule 1. We are to make choice of recreations that are of least offense and of the best report.
> 
> ...






> Games may be divided into three sorts: games of wit or industry, games of hazard, and a mixture of both. Games of wit or industry are such as are ordered by the skill and industry of man. Of this sort are shooting in the longbow, shooting in the caliver, running, wrestling, fencing, music, and the games of chess and draughts...These, and all of this kind, wherein the industry of the mind and body hath the chiefest stroke, are very commendable, and not to be disliked. Games of hazard are those in which hazard only bears the sway and orders the game, and not wit: wherein also there is, as we say, chance, yea mere chance in regard of us. Now games that are of mere hazard, by the consent of godly divines are unlawful. The reasons are these: First, games of mere hazard are indeed lots, and the use of a lot is an act of religion, in which we refer unto the God determination of things of moment that can no other way be determined...Secondly, such games are not recreations, but rather matter of stirring up troublesome passions, as fear, sorrow...Thirdly, covetousness is commonly the ground of them all. Whereupon it is that men usually play for money. And for these causes such plays...are unlawful. The third kind of plays are mixed, which stand partly of hazard and partly of wit, and in which hazard begins the game and skill gets the victory, and that which is defective by reason of hazard is corrected by wit...Now the common opinion of learned divines is that, as they are not to be commended, so they are not simply to be condemned, and if they be used they must be used very sparingly.


----------



## tdowns (Dec 13, 2004)

*How we us it?*

Been a while since I read this thread, to many quotes to put in. Just some general thoughts.

I think the stewardship angle can be taken to soooooo many areas. If good friends are exchanging minor cash because it makes poker fun, and the money is designated for pleasure, then it should not be a problem. Same goes with someone going to Vegas, if the money is for pleasure purposes and not to "gain". 
Obviously there are better ways to invest it. But, just like Fred doesn't worry about the businesses "sin" of squandering the money, do we worry about others motives in their gambling? If we're not using the money for gain, but for pleasure.

If we are talking about using our money for better things, well sure, there are better ways, but I believe it is o.k. to designate some of our money for pure pleasure. I could judge those who drink wine because it is allot more money than water, should not that money go to something more godly than drink, or at least save some by getting cheaper wine--not to mention scotch, etc. That is some expensive Fire Water.

What about going out to dinner, what a waste! Do you have any clue how much that food should really cost...all for your senseless pleasure, I hardly ever go out to eat because I just don't find it worth it, with child care and even an o.k. restaurant, it could be $60-$100, that's squandering money in my opinion (but some like it, so good for them). But it's a no $ return guaranteed for an hour or two of pleasure. A couple of buddies and I might spend $20 for four hours of fun with a "chance" of return...now that's a good investment. 

I've heard the steward argument in regards to:
-new cars
-nice house
--two houses
-nice clothes
-drinking and smoking
-toys
-overstuffed library
-CD's
-the list goes on, but, usually the one pointing has a few things they are spending their money on, that could be used wiser...but to them it's o.k.

-snow skiing
-movies
-cable t.v.
etc............... It is so easy for me to determine that eating out is not a good use of funds if I don't find pleasure in eating out. Or if I don't like alcohol, it's really easy to say that it is a waste of money...etc.

Seems all the what if's are the same as alcohol arguments, sure tons of people abuse it, probably most, but doesn't't make it wrong.

If your playing for fun, and if it is within your means, seems it should be fine.

I think "gambling" has a negative connotation to some like drinking does to others.

I'm in on the above game.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 13, 2004)

My understanding is that the Puritans universally condemned gambling as a violation of most of the Ten Commandments (specifically, the Third and Eighth, in particular, while all of the others could be involved depending on the circumstances), while most if not all believed that alcohol was lawful. Smoking, I couldn't say what the Puritans thought about it, except that the principle I quoted above by Perkins -- ie., that lawful recreations are those activities indifferent done to the glory of God -- would surely apply. In other words, gambling is a vice, but the other two activities are mistakenly assumed by the world to be vices because they can and have been abused. Abuse of something indifferent is not sufficient to make it unlawful. Gambling though falls under the category of unlawful activity, in my view, for reasons that I have stated throughout this thread.


----------



## tdowns (Dec 13, 2004)

*Helpful*

The rules and notes from Puritans are def. helpful in looking at the use of our time and money for "recreations." You posted them before I posted last, but I still think my version of gambling falls withing the "rules." Of course I'm talking about 3-4 times a year in a friendly game mainly, or throwing money in the purse to see who spots land first. (Interpretation, purse is a drawer, and land is the right teams in the Sweet Sixteen pool.)

TD


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Dec 13, 2004)

Just to clarify my position, I don't have anything against a game of poker _per se_. That's because -- unlike roulette or the slot machine which are games of "pure chance"-- it involves providence as well as skill. When money gets involved, I take a different view of it. Even small amounts of money turn the game into something spiritually and stewardship-wise unprofitable. To sum up, in my view, it's a lawful game when money is not on the table; when money is involved, that makes it gambling and that is prohibited by the Eighth Commandment, according to the Westminster Larger Catechism. That's my , so to speak.


----------

