Gaming

[Mushroom]

I'm sorry, but much of life it seems is a gamble from our perspective. Any business owner can tell you that. Even those who through diligence and hard work achieve valuable degrees in some profession such as the law or medicine are gambling that they will succeed in those endeavors, and I can assure you that their efforts are no greater exertions than those of a plumber or carpenter. Maybe wiser, but even that is a matter of God-given ability, and is affected by the circumstances of one's birth, which varies in quality and measure according to God's will.

I've seen folks who have hardly had to work at all find easy success, and those who have labored hard and long their entire lives to essentially gain nothing. The silliest thing is to see those who interpret their monetary success as some verification from God that they are somehow "better Christians". It's all a gift from the hand of God. We are called to glorify God in all we do, which would include our labors as well as our entertainments.

The carpenter who spends a dollar on a lottery ticket as a form of entertainment and wins a million dollars is no less a Christian than the lawyer who wins a class-action lawsuit and walks away with a million dollars, or the stock trader who gets in early on an IPO and profits by a million dollars the next day. The human heart is capable of making an idol of anything.... a lottery, a profession, a business, our own hard work and diligence - the possibilitues are endless. That would seem to me to be the line at which any pursuit becomes sin; when it becomes an idol rather than something whereby God is glorified.

Yes, gambling can be sinful, and not just at a casino. So can reading systematic theologies if you do that to the neglect of other duties and fail to pay the rent to buy them.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Rev. Greco in this post answers these comparisons between stock trading and gambling quite well...

 

[Dwimble]

Scripture does say Gambling is a sin. Look at Proverbs 21:17 and 28:19 specifically.

I don't gamble...I don't like gambling, and I am rarely, if ever, even tempted by it. I think it destroys a LOT of lives, just like alchohol. And, consequently, I hold an almost identical position on both "vices." So I'm largely sympathetic to your position. But, the two scriptures you listed don't say anything about gambling. So, if those are your "specific" scriptures about gambling, then your scriptural argument is pretty thin.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Scripture does say Gambling is a sin. Look at Proverbs 21:17 and 28:19 specifically.

I don't gamble...I don't like gambling, and I am rarely, if ever, even tempted by it. I think it destroys a LOT of lives, just like alchohol. And, consequently, I hold an almost identical position on both "vices." So I'm largely sympathetic to your position. But, the two scriptures you listed don't say anything about gambling. So, if those are your "specific" scriptures about gambling, then your scriptural argument is pretty thin.

Well that of course is not the full breadth of the argument. At the least Gambling violates the general equity of the 8th Commandment.

 

[ChristianTrader]

Rev. Greco in this post answers these comparisons between stock trading and gambling quite well...

I read that post, and did not buy it then (I posted right after it) and still don't buy it now.

Concerning day trading, if day trading was made illegal, all the companies on every the stock market would still receive money to use to build their businesses.

Concerning wasteful activity argument, most activites have a "house" in order to facilitate. In the stock market, it would be the market makers. They take a portion of every transaction.

CT

 

[ChristianTrader]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/gambling-unbiblical-26401/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/powerball-340-million-play-not-play-9687/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/gambling-3408/

William Perkins, quoted by I.D.E. Thomas, A Puritan Golden Treasury:

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.

Andrew, are there examples of what Perkins or similar folks would consider to be apart of the third kind of plays?

CT

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Scripture does say Gambling is a sin. Look at Proverbs 21:17 and 28:19 specifically.

Here is a snippet from a John MacArthur article on Gambling(Full article can be found here)

Why gambling is wrong:

* Not justified by the casting of lots. In biblical times lots functioned much like dice. They were made of sheep's knuckle bones, and the roll of those bones indicated a certain meaning. When the people had to make an important decision and had difficulty determining God's will, He sovereignly intervened and caused the lots to fall in such a way as to tell His followers what to do. At no time did anyone ever put something of value at risk.
* Denies the reality of God's sovereignty. Chance, the major promise of gambling's outworking, is the fabric of a human imagination that wants to deny the existence of a sovereign God. The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His sovereignty rules over all (Ps. 103:19).
* Builds on irresponsible stewardship. The worst possible stewardship is for someone to throw God's resources away at the altar of a god called chance or luck. It's idolatry of the worst sort. Nothing we have really belongs to us; it belongs to God, and we should use all of it to His glory (Matt. 6:19-20).
* Erodes the biblical work ethic. We are to earn our bread by the sweat of our brows (Gen. 3:19) not from games of chance. The addictive wagering process saps the good that a decent salary can afford.
* Driven by the sin of covetousness. Gambling - and its accompanying greediness - violates the 10th commandment (Ex. 20:17). It assumes that God has not given us what we ought to have and that there is somehow more wealth that will finally make us happy.
* Builds on the exploitation of others. It exploits people who can least afford to be victims and violates the eighth commandment, You shall not steal (Ex. 20:15). For everyone who wins something at gambling, there are millions of losers - people who have been duped by the seductive marketing appeal of gambling and prompted to throw away large sums of money.

I would love to see your exegesis of those Proverbs verses as a direct and specific prohibition of gambling. Ok, so careless frivolity and an undue love of pleasure are generally wrong - I don't think anyone here would argue that. But how does that specifically forbid ALL gambling anymore than it forbids ALL consumption of alcohol?

I love MacArthur and agree with most of what he has to say, but like his view on Dispensationalism, this an area I think he's wrong. All of his points are good reasons for not gambling excessively, but they all make assumptions that aren't always valid.

So I stand by the claim that there is no direct Scriptural prohibition of gambling. I disagree with your application of the 8th commandment (and MacArthur's), but at least that's an issue we can reasonably discuss...

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Scripture does say Gambling is a sin. Look at Proverbs 21:17 and 28:19 specifically.

Here is a snippet from a John MacArthur article on Gambling(Full article can be found here)

Why gambling is wrong:

* Not justified by the casting of lots. In biblical times lots functioned much like dice. They were made of sheep's knuckle bones, and the roll of those bones indicated a certain meaning. When the people had to make an important decision and had difficulty determining God's will, He sovereignly intervened and caused the lots to fall in such a way as to tell His followers what to do. At no time did anyone ever put something of value at risk.
* Denies the reality of God's sovereignty. Chance, the major promise of gambling's outworking, is the fabric of a human imagination that wants to deny the existence of a sovereign God. The Lord has established His throne in the heavens, and His sovereignty rules over all (Ps. 103:19).
* Builds on irresponsible stewardship. The worst possible stewardship is for someone to throw God's resources away at the altar of a god called chance or luck. It's idolatry of the worst sort. Nothing we have really belongs to us; it belongs to God, and we should use all of it to His glory (Matt. 6:19-20).
* Erodes the biblical work ethic. We are to earn our bread by the sweat of our brows (Gen. 3:19) not from games of chance. The addictive wagering process saps the good that a decent salary can afford.
* Driven by the sin of covetousness. Gambling - and its accompanying greediness - violates the 10th commandment (Ex. 20:17). It assumes that God has not given us what we ought to have and that there is somehow more wealth that will finally make us happy.
* Builds on the exploitation of others. It exploits people who can least afford to be victims and violates the eighth commandment, You shall not steal (Ex. 20:15). For everyone who wins something at gambling, there are millions of losers - people who have been duped by the seductive marketing appeal of gambling and prompted to throw away large sums of money.

I would love to see your exegesis of those Proverbs verses as a direct and specific prohibition of gambling. Ok, so careless frivolity and an undue love of pleasure are generally wrong - I don't think anyone here would argue that. But how does that specifically forbid ALL gambling anymore than it forbids ALL consumption of alcohol?

I love MacArthur and agree with most of what he has to say, but like his view on Dispensationalism, this an area I think he's wrong. All of his points are good reasons for not gambling excessively, but they all make assumptions that aren't always valid.

So I stand by the claim that there is no direct Scriptural prohibition of gambling. I disagree with your application of the 8th commandment (and MacArthur's), but at least that's an issue we can reasonably discuss...

The Westminster Divines chose those two passages in Proverbs for support of their inclusion of Gambling as a violation of the 8th Commandment in WLC Q. 142. I was not using them as a per se exegetical backing, just pointing to the Standard's background.

As far as the 8th Commandment itself outlawing Gambling how about we move to the Third Commandment. Would you say that it would be unlawful or lawful to ask God's help (in other words pray) in winning the lotto or a cast of the die?

 

[ColdSilverMoon]

Scripture does say Gambling is a sin. Look at Proverbs 21:17 and 28:19 specifically.

Here is a snippet from a John MacArthur article on Gambling(Full article can be found here)

I would love to see your exegesis of those Proverbs verses as a direct and specific prohibition of gambling. Ok, so careless frivolity and an undue love of pleasure are generally wrong - I don't think anyone here would argue that. But how does that specifically forbid ALL gambling anymore than it forbids ALL consumption of alcohol?

I love MacArthur and agree with most of what he has to say, but like his view on Dispensationalism, this an area I think he's wrong. All of his points are good reasons for not gambling excessively, but they all make assumptions that aren't always valid.

So I stand by the claim that there is no direct Scriptural prohibition of gambling. I disagree with your application of the 8th commandment (and MacArthur's), but at least that's an issue we can reasonably discuss...

The Westminster Divines chose those two passages in Proverbs for support of their inclusion of Gambling as a violation of the 8th Commandment in WLC Q. 142. I was not using them as a per se exegetical backing, just pointing to the Standard's background.

As far as the 8th Commandment itself outlawing Gambling would you say that it would be unlawful or lawful to ask God's help (in other words pray) in winning the lotto or a cast of the die?

But the WLC Q 142 specifically says wasteful gaming. If all gaming were wasteful, it would be redundant. The Proverbs cited back up excess frivolity or a life lived in pursuit of pleasure. Infrequent gaming for entertainment does not fit the picture of "wasteful" or "excess frivolity" in my mind.

I wouldn't pray for a cast of the die any more than I would pray for a delicious glass of beer or a really enjoyable movie. Maybe others disagree, but I wouldn't come before the Almighty with such trivial matters...

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

I would love to see your exegesis of those Proverbs verses as a direct and specific prohibition of gambling. Ok, so careless frivolity and an undue love of pleasure are generally wrong - I don't think anyone here would argue that. But how does that specifically forbid ALL gambling anymore than it forbids ALL consumption of alcohol?

I love MacArthur and agree with most of what he has to say, but like his view on Dispensationalism, this an area I think he's wrong. All of his points are good reasons for not gambling excessively, but they all make assumptions that aren't always valid.

So I stand by the claim that there is no direct Scriptural prohibition of gambling. I disagree with your application of the 8th commandment (and MacArthur's), but at least that's an issue we can reasonably discuss...

The Westminster Divines chose those two passages in Proverbs for support of their inclusion of Gambling as a violation of the 8th Commandment in WLC Q. 142. I was not using them as a per se exegetical backing, just pointing to the Standard's background.

As far as the 8th Commandment itself outlawing Gambling would you say that it would be unlawful or lawful to ask God's help (in other words pray) in winning the lotto or a cast of the die?

But the WLC Q 142 specifically says wasteful gaming. If all gaming were wasteful, it would be redundant. The Proverbs cited back up excess frivolity or a life lived in pursuit of pleasure. Infrequent gaming for entertainment does not fit the picture of "wasteful" or "excess frivolity" in my mind.

I wouldn't pray for a cast of the die any more than I would pray for a delicious glass of beer or a really enjoyable movie. Maybe others disagree, but I wouldn't come before the Almighty with such trivial matters...

Firstly by "Wasteful Gaming" the WLC means the difference between playing Football, Baseball, etc... which is not wasteful and the "casting of lots" which is wasteful because it is not a prudent use of God's monetary gift.

 

[Mushroom]

Firstly by "Wasteful Gaming" the WLC means the difference between playing Football, Baseball, etc... which is not wasteful and the "casting of lots" which is wasteful because it is not a prudent use of God's monetary gift.

You might say that about football, but baseball? Thats a huge waste...

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/gambling-unbiblical-26401/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/powerball-340-million-play-not-play-9687/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/gambling-3408/

William Perkins, quoted by I.D.E. Thomas, A Puritan Golden Treasury:

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.

Andrew, are there examples of what Perkins or similar folks would consider to be apart of the third kind of plays?

CT

I'll try to give examples of what Perkins has in mind as directly as possible from his own writings.

William Perkins, The Nature and Practice of Repentance (on the Third Commandment) in Works, Vol. 1, p. 460:

He breakes this commandment...That vfeth lots in fporting. Prov. 16. 33 and 18. 13.

William Perkins, A Treatise of the Vocations in Works, Vol. 1, p. 750:

Secondly, by this which hath bin faid, we learn, that many perfwading themfelues of their callings, haue for all this, no calling at al. As for example, fuch as liue by usury, by carding and dicing, by maintaining houfes of gaming, by plaies and fuch like: For God is the author of euery lawfull calling: but thefe and fuch miferable courfes of liuing, are either againft the word of God, or elfe are not grounded thereupon. And therefore are no callings or vocations, but anocations from God and his waies.

William Perkins, Cases of Conscience in Works, Vol. 2, pp. 141-142:

Games of hazard are thofe in which hazard onely beares the fway, and orders the game, and not wit; wherein alfo there is (as we fay) chance, yea, meere chance in regard of us. Of this kinde is Dicing, and fundry games at the Tables and Cards. Now games that are of meere hazard, by the conset of godly Divines are unlawfull. The reasons are thefe.

First, games of meere hazard are indeed lots; and the ufe of a lot is an act of religion, in which we referre unto God the determination of things of moment, that can no other way bee determined. For in the ufe of a lot there bef foure things. The firft is, a causal act done by us, as the cafting of the Die. The fecond is, the applying of this act to the determination of fome particular controverfie, the ending whereof maintaines peace, order and love among men. The third is confeffion, that God is a foveraigne Judge, to end and determine things that can no other way bee determined. The fourth is fupplication, that God would by the difopofition of the lot when it is caft, determine the event. And thefe actions are infolded in the ufe of a lot, and they are expreffed, Act. 1. v. 24, 25, 26. Now then, feeing the ufe of a lot is a folemne act of religion, it may not bee applied to fporting, as I have fhewed in the firft conclufion. Secondly, fuch games are not recreations, but rather matter of ftirring up troublefome paffions, as feare, forrow, &c. and fo they diftemper the body and minde. Thirdly, covetoufneffe is commonly the ground of them all. Whereupon it is, that men ufually play for money. And for thefe caufes, fuch playes by the consent of learned Divines, are unlawfull.

The third kinde of playes are mixt, which ftand partly of hazard, and partly of wit, and in which hazard begins the game, and skill gets the victorie: and that which defective by reafon of hazard, is corrected by wit.

To this kinde are referred fome games at the cards and tables. Now the common opinion of learned Divines is, that as they are not to be commended, fo they are not fimply to be condemned, and if they bee ufed, they must bee ufed very sparingly. Yet there bee others that hold thefe mixt games to be unlawful, and judge the very dealing of the cards to be a lot, becaufe it is a meere cafuall action. But (as I take it) the bare dealing of the cards is no more a lot, than the dealing of an almes, when the Princes Almner puts his hand into his pocket, and gives, for example, to one man fix pence, to another twelve pence, to another two pence, what comes forth without any choice. Now this cafuall diftribution is not a lot, but onely a cafuall action. And in a lot there muft be two things. The firft is, a cafuall act: the fecond, the applying of the forefaid act, to the determination of fome particular and uncertaine event. Now the dealing of the cards is a cafuall act; but the determination of the uncertaine victorie is not from the dealing of the cards in mixed games, but from the wit and skill, at leaft from the will of the players. But in things that are of the nature of a lot, the wit and will and a man hath no ftroke at all. Nevertheleffe, though the dealing of the cards and mixed games by no lots; yet it is farre fafer and better to abftaine from them, than to ufe them, and where they are abolifhed, they are not to be reftored againe, becaufe in common experience, many abufes and inconveniences attend upon them: and things unneceffarie, when they are much abufes, becaufe they are abufed, they muft not be ufed, but rather removed, as the brazen ferpent was, 2 King. 18. 4.

Increase Mather cites Perkins' opinions against games of hazard, ie., cards and dice games here:

A Testimony Against several Prophane and Superstitious Customs, Now Practised by some in New-England.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Firstly by "Wasteful Gaming" the WLC means the difference between playing Football, Baseball, etc... which is not wasteful and the "casting of lots" which is wasteful because it is not a prudent use of God's monetary gift.

You might say that about football, but baseball? Thats a huge waste...

But seriously, there is a reason they call Baseball the National Pastime instead of the National Sport.

 

[VirginiaHuguenot]

William Perkins, Cases of Conscience in Works, Vol. 2, p. 142:

How are we to ufe Recreation?
...
III. Rule. The end of our recreation muft bee, to refrefh our bodies and mindes. It is then an abufe of Recreation, when it is ufed to win other mens money. The gaine that comes that way is worfe than ufury, yea it is flat theft. For by the law, we may recover things ftolne, but there is no law to recover things won. And yet if play bee for a fmall matter, the loffe whereof is no hurt to him that lofeth it, and if it be applyed to a common good, it is lawfull; otherwife not.

 

[Dwimble]

William Perkins, Cases of Conscience in Works, Vol. 2, p. 142:

How are we to use Recreation?
...
III. Rule. The end of our recreation must be, to refresh our bodies and minds. It is then an abuse of Recreation, when it is used to win other mens money. The gain that comes that way is worse than usury, yea it is flat theft. For by the law, we may recover things stolen, but there is no law to recover things won. And yet if play be for a small matter, the loss whereof is no hurt to him that loseth it, and if it be applied to a common good, it is lawful; otherwise not.

That argument seems to say, in essence: "Gambling for recreation is theft...unless the loser only loses a little bit of money and the winner uses it for something good. Then, it is not theft."

Maybe it is just me, but that argument seems kind of ridiculous. It is only stealing if the loser can't handle losing that much money? But if he can handle losing that much, and if the winner does something good with it, then it is lawful?

If it is "theft" then it is still theft whether the loser loses $10,000 or $.10...and what the winner does with it doesn't make it any more or less "theft."

As I said in a previous post, I don't gamble. But I'm still not at all convinced by the "gambling=theft" argument, and this specific version of that argument just seems so contradictory it is silly.

 

[twogunfighter]

Glad you all posted Perkins on this matter. Looks like my weekly poker game is still lawful. BTW I am currently up $50 so I am considerably better off than if I had invested that $120 in the stock market over the last month and a half. I spent that $50 on wings and beer though. Frivolous! Frivolous!

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Well if you had invested wisely you still could have made money in the stock market. Just because the DOW goes down does not mean people are not still raking it in.

 

[Dwimble]

I don't want to speak for Chuck, but I'm fairly confident that he was being a bit facetious rather than actually making any serious commentary about the Stock Market.

 

[SRoper]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/gambling-unbiblical-26401/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/powerball-340-million-play-not-play-9687/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/gambling-3408/

William Perkins, quoted by I.D.E. Thomas, A Puritan Golden Treasury:

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.

Is the children's game Chutes and Ladders then to be condemned?

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/gambling-unbiblical-26401/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/powerball-340-million-play-not-play-9687/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/gambling-3408/

William Perkins, quoted by I.D.E. Thomas, A Puritan Golden Treasury:

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.

Is the children's game Chutes and Ladders then to be condemned?

If you are wagering money on it, then yes.

 

[SRoper]

But his first point is that "games of mere hazard are indeed lots, and the use of a lot is an act of religion..." That argument has nothing to do with whether money is being wagered. The same could be said of the second point, "such games are not recreations, but rather matter of stirring up troublesome passions, as fear, sorrow." Kids especially can get worked up about such games even if they aren't gambling money.

 

[lukeh021471]

computer gameing

How about governor of poker on bigfish games

 

[Dwimble]

But his first point is that "games of mere hazard are indeed lots, and the use of a lot is an act of religion..." That argument has nothing to do with whether money is being wagered. The same could be said of the second point, "such games are not recreations, but rather matter of stirring up troublesome passions, as fear, sorrow." Kids especially can get worked up about such games even if they aren't gambling money.

Right, that Perkins quote isn't specifically about wagering at all, but about three different types of "games." Only one time does he mention playing for money, "Thirdly, covetousness is commonly the ground of them all. Whereupon it is that men usually play for money." He is saying that games of mere "hazard" are wrong, and "play for money" is just one of the reasons why. By his reasoning I think he would indeed say that any game that doesn't require "industry" or "wit" is unlawful.

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

But his first point is that "games of mere hazard are indeed lots, and the use of a lot is an act of religion..." That argument has nothing to do with whether money is being wagered. The same could be said of the second point, "such games are not recreations, but rather matter of stirring up troublesome passions, as fear, sorrow." Kids especially can get worked up about such games even if they aren't gambling money.

If it causes you or your children inflamed passions and anger towards your/their neighbor then you should desist from it, but that goes for everything you do.

But what is your point?

 

[twogunfighter]

I don't want to speak for Chuck, but I'm fairly confident that he was being a bit facetious rather than actually making any serious commentary about the Stock Market.

Yes I was being a bit facetious, but just a bit. There is a reason that stock market transactions are often called plays. They are bets that certain companies will perform better than others. There is no difference in playing the market In my humble opinion than playing poker; poker players are just more honest with themselves about the fact that it is gambling. Both games take skill and nerves. Since we know it is gambling we tend to risk only budget dust. Most would not think it a bad thing to take $20K and put it in the market but no right thinking Christian would wager that in a poker game.

I am not debating this or willing to make a long exegetical case for my position. I will continue to lurk to see if someone can change my mind.

 

[SRoper]

But his first point is that "games of mere hazard are indeed lots, and the use of a lot is an act of religion..." That argument has nothing to do with whether money is being wagered. The same could be said of the second point, "such games are not recreations, but rather matter of stirring up troublesome passions, as fear, sorrow." Kids especially can get worked up about such games even if they aren't gambling money.

If it causes you or your children inflamed passions and anger towards your/their neighbor then you should desist from it, but that goes for everything you do.

But what is your point?

My point is that Perkins would not allow playing a game like Chutes and Ladders for at least one if not two reasons. That seems rather extreme.

 

[tdowns]

Buck a hole....

For me, the "buck a hole" my friend and I play, when we play disc golf, just adds to the "value" of the round, we are getting a work out, we are using our minds, we are spending time with our kids, and 99% of the time, we're about a buck over or under the other at the end, and it all carries over, so money has never changed hands. But, like paying money to enter a tournament, where you might win money, it brings the game up a notch, the focus.

So, in this sense, I think, betting on golf, sports, in which we play, is in no way theft. Like one team buying the other dinner in a pick up game of hoops or something.

I def. believe gambling is becoming a huge problem in our culture today, and it's def. not an edifying trend, but, that doesn't mean it's all a sin.

 

[beenaround]

Whilst I should probably shut up and sit down, I have a coin to toss in.

Matthew 13:44 "The kingdom of heaven is like treasure hidden in a field, which a man found and covered up. Then in his joy he goes and sells all that he has and buys that field." [ESV]

If THAT'S not a gamble, what is? As I've acquired more responsibility (wife, kids) I've struggle with risk avoidance. I've gone from rock climbing and "high risk" activities when single, to playing it completely safe in every aspect of life; and that's really a lack of faith. I've passed up treasures in the field I should have bought. This verse and others like it are helping.

But there are levels of chance, of risk, and security. I feel far more comfortable dropping a quarter in a slot machine while walking through a hotel in Vegas than I do plunking down $3000 for a used (Japanese)car, even if I get it checked out by a mechanic. Why? Because the loss is minor if I fail. (Or so I think.) Other than the mechanic checking for gross problems there's no guarantee that the car's not going to fail tomorrow. So I have to do my diligence and trust the Lord for the future. I know a Christian businessman, a leading reformed elder, who regularly takes high dollar risks in the course of his business; far greater than I'm comfortable with. But he's not just speculating, it's the nature of big business itself!

But it comes down to stewardship, conscience, and faith.
I would assert that putting $5 on the wheel or a poker hand is bad stewardship, as is the $5 small coke I *didn't* buy at the Cubs-Pirates slaughter. (I was given free tix ;-)
Why? Because I know I *can* invest $5 in the kingdom and get a good return on my investment, here and abroad, now and in eternity.
So this is where stewardship, conscience and faith come in. That $5 may not be much for you relatively, but to another it's a fortune (consider the widow's two mites.) What can God do with my $5 given in joy and faith?
Would it be better to give the Lord an offering of that money somehow, than to indulge in that frozen-double-mochaccino or let it ride on 23-red? ...A "sacrifice" of my pleasure for the Lord, so-to-speak?

Hmmm...considering the widows mites, and the fact that "The earth is the Lord's and all that fills it, the world and those who dwell therein," (Psalm 24:1 ESV) maybe I need to rethink that aforementioned quarter in the slots as well. How big is my faith, and at what level does God "overlook the little details" of what I do?

Think I'll meditate on that today.

 

[Thomas2007]

http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/gambling-unbiblical-26401/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f54/powerball-340-million-play-not-play-9687/
http://www.puritanboard.com/f24/gambling-3408/

William Perkins, quoted by I.D.E. Thomas, A Puritan Golden Treasury:

Is the children's game Chutes and Ladders then to be condemned?

If you are wagering money on it, then yes.

Hey Ben,

This has been an interesting and informative thread, I appreciate your stand, but I have some comments and questions. You've had a few responses that have posed several situational ethical questions and how your stand may answer those. Others have deferred to various investment strategies such as stock market investing, and then others have provided some historical background on the difference between sports and games of hazard, as they are called.

I would tend, because of my general presuppositions, to side with you on strong stands such as you've taken. On the other hand, I haven't settled this in my mind and have some questions for you. The Scripture says that a man seems right until he is cross - examined, so if you don't mind I have some ethical questions of my own I would like you to consider. In particular, I am interested in how you would deal with them holding to this dogmatic position.

In our country because of the strong Christian ethic that has historically rooted the morality of our laws gambling has been viewed as a vice and in most instances criminal activity. It's only of late that it has really grown and become a common place thing with State's having Lotto's and Casino's of various sorts popping up all over the country - and it's legalization.

You seem to have taken your stand based upon, presuppositionally, the extent of wagering "money." Indeed, criminal laws have historically also based their sanctions upon the same idea. For example, most States have historically criminalized gambling, but that has been sanctioned based upon playing for "money."

Here is my question and I'll explain the dilemma I see as well.

Here are some court rulings, most less than a seventy five years old, regarding people that have been indicted for gambling in violation of various criminal laws prohibiting playing games for "money."

" "Money" as used in an indictment charging the betting of money, does not include United States treasury notes, such notes not being money in the legal acceptation." Williams v State, 20 Miss 12 Smedes & M 58, 63​

"The term "money" does not include bank notes. Hence an indictment under a statute making it an offense to play at games, etc., for money - the indictment charging that the defendant played at a game of faro for money - cannot be sustained by proof that bank notes were bet, nor would such an indictment be sustained by proof that property was bet." Hale v. State, 8 Tex. 171, 172​

"The term "money," though it may have a popular import which in ordinary parlance means, or at least includes, bank notes, in its true technical import means lawful money of the United States, or, in other words, gold or silver coins, and, when used in judicial proceedings, is always to be taken in its technical sense; and thus an indictment for keeping a gaming table, at which a game of chance was charged to have been played for money, is not supported by proof that bank notes were played for." Pryor v Commonwealth, 32 Ky, 2 Dana 298​

In our law in the United States "money" is defined Biblically, the dollar itself being a common law term of weight of money and used in the Constitution of the United States, although, the last seventy five years it has been redefined primarily through judicial means, then Congress has built upon that redefinition and passes off its bankruptcy receipts as "money". This, however, doesn't change the law - it only means we've all went along with the lawlessness and accepted it as normative. We all live in and work in the trust of the United States economy and discharge our debts in its bankruptcy - yet we act as if we are honest men.

With the right hand we reach out to an absolute of God's Word on the morality of gambling as being a violation of one or more of the Ten Commandments, but with the left we accept an arbitrary fuzzy principle upon which to apply it. An arbitrary fuzzy principle that is explicitly in violation of one or more of the Ten Commandments. How do you resolve that dilemma?

For example, the same situation exists in terms of theft. Here are some court cases from the early 1900's reflecting that:

" "Money," as used in Crimes Act § 18, providing that any person stealing any money, the property of another, shall be guilty of larceny, cannot be construed to include bank bills, for strictly bank bills are not money, though for many purposes they are treated as such." Johnson v State, 11 Ohio St 324, 325​

"The term "money," in the statute defining robbery as taking from the person of another any money or personal property of any value whatsoever, with forc​

 

[Backwoods Presbyterian]

Thomas,

The WLC primarily makes its argument against gambling as a waste of what God has provided for you. In other words gambling is not a wise use of one's resources.