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

__________________
Brad
PCA Member
Virginia

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap; but the whole disposing thereof is of the LORD.

Isa 8:20 To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them.

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:

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

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

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.

__________________
Andrew Myers
Husband of Jessica, Father of Jackson, Katie and Samuel
Member, Presbyterian Reformed Church of Northern Virginia
Warrenton, VA USA
Editor, The Matthew Poole Project

"Let your Morning Thoughts, and your last Evening Thoughts, be what shall become of you to all Eternity." -- Matthew Poole

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

__________________
Benjamin P. Glaser
Pittsburgh, PA,
Fairmount ARP Church
Candidate Under Care Pittsburgh Theological Seminary & Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary
"The benefit of deliverance becomes the more precious in the same proportion in which we are brought to apprehend the magnitude of the evil from which we have been rescued"
-- Zacharias Ursinus, Commentary on the Heidelberg Catechism

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

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.

__________________
Michael Mason (a.k.a. Dwimble)
Fort Worth PCA
Fort Worth, Texas
www.dwimble.com

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!

__________________
Chuck
PCA

"Duty is ours, consequences are God's."
Thomas J "Stonewall" Jackson

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.

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.

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

__________________
Scott Roper
Member, Redeemer Presbyterian Church (PCA): "A bunch of hippie Calvinists"
Winston-Salem, NC

If you are wagering money on it, then yes.

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.

How about governor of poker on bigfish games

__________________
Lukester
Seminary Student
Pilgrim OPC
Bangor, ME

Romans 8:28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,for those who are called according to his purpose.

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.

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?

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 IMHO 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.

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.

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.

__________________
WWW.SURFWRITERS.BLOGSPOT.COM
Trevor
Christian/Husband/Father/Writer/Teacher--
--In that order.
Bethany Church, Sierra Madre, CA.
God is my King
"You've got to accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative, latch on to the affirmitive, and don't mess with Mr. in-between." Tony Bennett.

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.

__________________
David
Member, PCA
Pittsburgh, PA

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

[indent]"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

__________________
Thomas Weddle
Member, Covenant Reformed Presbyterian Church
Evansville, Indiana