Gambling, John MacArthur, Grace To You
A few months back I tried to engage everyone in a conversation on gambling, but unfortunately, no one wanted to join me. Historically, when I discuss gambling with someone, inevitably they get to the point where they say something like, “Well, I can’t come up with anything else right now, but I know it is wrong.” In other words, “Since you have pointed out that my biblical ‘proofs’ were not infact proofs at all, I just cling to my preconceived opinion I had before I even opened the scriptures.”
Recently I had may first visit to gty.org. If you are unfamiliar with it as I was, it is John MacArthur’s website. I was shocked and dismayed that prominently displayed on the front page of their site was a post about gambling. In fact, on further research, I discovered that, Phil Johnson, Executive Director, has written a whole series of posts on this topic.I actually took the time to join and reply to his blog, but to no avail. So far he has not had the courage/ integrity to approve my rebuttal. In fact it appears he only approves 1 rebuttal for every 4 mindless agreements. Bear in mind, I did not do a hard count, but this is the general impression I get by my observations.
Here at increasing faith, we allow all comments regardless if they agree with us or not. . The only thing we disallow is obvious spam. Comments like, “I agree”, and then linking back to their own site are not permitted, and also attacking other commenters is not permitted either. Other than that, disagree with me all you want. I challenge Phil to have the same courage and integrity. Allow people to freely comment. If your are in the truth, you should have no fear. Otherwise, it just appears like you are afraid of the other side making you look foolish.
All that being said, here is my point by point reply to his article:
“Gambling places something valuable at risk for an illegitimate purpose.”
First off, he has failed to establish that gambling is an illegitimate purpose. Just because he states it does not make it so. I can say the moon is made of cheese, but that does not make it so. So let’s reword it in a more accurate, truthful way- “Gambling places something at risk for entertainment.” Well that now opens up a whole mess of things like cable, high speed internet, movies, eating out at restaurants. All of them place something at risk for the benefit of the person placing it at risk. The reality is, gambling is the only one of these activities that gives you a chance to receive greater value for what you pay. The others do not.
“Gambling is covetousness distilled to its very essence
I know people—and in all likelihood you do, too—who claim that they gamble only for entertainment or recreation; not out of greed or covetousness.
But if it’s mere entertainment they seek, why not play a game without staking any money on the outcome? Every gambler to whom I have ever posed that question has given me the same answer: “To play a game with nothing at stake is not as much fun.” The stake makes the game more “fun” or more “interesting.”
As a matter of fact, one commenter made that very point: “Poker simply doesn’t work without some money at stake . . . the money at stake adds to the enjoyment of the game.” He said he plays for small amounts—so that “the financial losses are not enough to be any more than entertainment money, and the prize not enough to create greed.”
Analyze that for a moment. Why would the element of gambling make a game more “fun?” There is only one reason: because the “fun” is derived not from the game itself but from the possibility of winning something that belongs to your neighbor. In other words, what makes gambling “fun” is pure covetousness.”
So the reason people go to work is for a paycheck, so that is ‘pure covetousness’? The reason someone writes a blog like gty.org is to make money, so they are now coveting? Phil, if John stopped paying you, would you still show up? If the answer is no, then by your definition you are coveting and in sin. Pure and simple. You need to apply your arguments with equal integrity if they are valid. One must assume they are not since you fail to equally apply them.
Also, the only thing that brought me to gty.org was someone posting that they were having a 20% off sale. Does that mean that gty.org has been overcharging everyone for the past years by 20% which means they have been coveting 20% more of our money than they are due? Placing the desire for money as motive the means test of coveting, then every person that goes to work for a paycheck is therefore in sin by your standard. SERIOUSLY?
“Gambling can be a sinful dereliction of the steward’s duty for several other reasons as well. Note: I’m not arguing here that every act of gambling is necessarily tainted by all the following sins. But these are all major factors in the complex of evils that commonly accompany gambling. Anyone who practices gambling as a pattern of life is systematically tolerating and even cultivating the sin of covetousness in his or her heart. That person will of course be especially susceptible to many of the corresponding temptations, too:
•Slothfulness. Get-rich-quick schemes are practically all foolish and immoral. Solomon wrote this in Proverbs 28:22: “A man with an evil eye hastens after riches, and does not consider that poverty will come upon him.”
The promise of easy wealth is an overt appeal to slothful desire. Yet most gamblers freely acknowledge that the promise of gaining money quickly and with little effort is one of the major factors that adds to the “fun” of gaming. In other words, gambling fuels both covetousness and sloth.”
So now by your standard Phil, every person who analyzes mutual fund returns and picks the one with the highest return is sinning. His desire to earn a return in the quickest possible way is by your standard, ’slothfulness’ and therefore a sin. In fact, you should go to John and offer to work for minimum wage, otherwise, you are just trying to get rich quick. Oh, and hide your money under a mattress or else you are trying to get rich quick.
See ‘quick’ is relative. Is 100% a year quick? What about 20%? 5%? Phil, who appointed you the god of proper investment returns to determine what is quick and what is not? Please enlighten us all. What percent return is acceptable to you to keep out of sin? Almost like asking the Pharisees how many steps are ok to take on the Sabbath, but we will hold off on the Pharisee comparisons for now.
“•Foolishness. Listen to Proverbs 22:16: “He that oppresseth the poor to increase his riches, and he that giveth to the rich, shall surely come to want.” That’s an interesting verse. Most of us will instinctively understand that it is sinful to oppress the poor in order to increase our riches. But the verse also says that you shouldn’t just give your money to the rich. Who would give their money away to rich people? People who gamble in casinos are doing it all the time.”
The same can be said for any purchase you make. When you pay for cable, you are giving your money to the rich. When you pay $8 at restaurant for a $1 slab of beef you are giving to the rich. When you buy clothing at the store rather than sewing your own, you are giving to the rich. The reality is, gambling venues are selling entertainment, you are giving them nothing. If you go to the movies, you are giving money to the rich. If you got to a show, you are giving money to the rich. PHIL- EITHER HAVE INTEGRITY AND CALL OUT ALL THESE ACTIVITIES, OR ADMIT, GAMBLING IS NOT A SIN!
“We could also talk about gambling’s negative impact on philanthropy and charity for the poor.”
As we could regarding eating out, going to the movies, etc. Weak argument Phil.
The truth is, gambling does cost money. It can be very unwise for some people to get involved with, but it is not sin. The reality is, gambling is the only activity that one can spend money for entertainment and have a chance at getting some back. Imagine if you went to a movie and they announced that 2 patrons would get triple their ticket value back to them at random. Now it would be declared a sin by many folks to go to movies because it would now be gambling. In other words the 100% chance of losing your money is more spiritual than a 2% chance of making money. Does that make any sense? Is that wise?
I can spend 2 hours playing in a $10 poker tournament or $10 at a movie. Only one of those activities allows me the chance to walk away with some money in my pocket. Also, the movie is giving money to the rich’ by Phil’s standard which makes it a sin. If I lose, I am just giving my money to some middle class friends, so therefore it must not be a sin by Phil’s standard.
All I ask in discussing gambling, is so called Christian leaders do so with integrity. Otherwise, they prove themselves to be the modern day Pharisees they are.
You see, I have this foolish notion that God through the Bible should determine what is sin and what is not. Not some made up man made rule. Otherwise, the Amish arguments for not driving cars are valid and we are all in sin. If gambling is the great sin that the Pharisees say it is, then I believe God would have addressed it. Didn’t they cast lots to determine the next Apostle after Judas killed himself? Imagine, a game of chance to determine Apostleness. Joseph called Barsabbas should have condemned their sin and not participated in it.
