God's Perfect Law

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson



The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt is from "The Law's Failure and Fulfillment," a sermon originally preached at the Metropolitan Tabernacle on Sunday evening, 1 March 1891.



HE law of God is perfect. You cannot add anything to it, nor take anything from it, without spoiling it. If you will read the Ten Commands and understand them in their spiritual meaning, you will find that they are far-reaching, and that they deal with every sin.

I noticed, some time ago, that a learned prelate said that he could not find any commandment against gambling. Where were his eyes? Is it not plainly written, "Thou shalt not covet"? What is gambling but covetousness in action? Most manifestly, the gambler desires his neighbour's goods, and this desire gives zest to the vice, which the law of God quite plainly condemns.

Depend upon it, there is nothing wrong but the law condemns it, and there is nothing right but the law approves it. The Decalogue is an absolutely perfect law.

---

Gambling vs. Faithful Stewardship

by Phil Johnson

     closed Wednesday's post with a list of four distinguishing marks drawn from a standard definition of "gambling." All four of these are true of every variety of gambling:

One, something valuable is put at risk. Two, something belonging to someone else is at stake as a prize. Three, an element of chance is involved in determining the outcome. And four, no new wealth is created in the process.

Now, let's devote a few posts to considering each of those features of gambling, one at a time. It is my contention that there's something in each one of them that conflicts with biblical principles. We'll take them in order, starting with the first:

Gambling places something valuable at risk for an illegitimate purpose. That violates the most basic biblical principles of wise and faithful stewardship.

Let me point out first of all that one of the fundamental principles of all biblical stewardship is given to us in the Tenth Commandment, Exodus 20:17: "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's." It's is a sin to covet anything that belongs to your neighbor. This is not a gray area.

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.

Sorry to be blunt about it, but that is sin.

Note carefully: it's the principle of covetousness that makes that sort of "fun" sin, not the size of the stake. A Christian who thinks it's safe to cultivate covetous desires as long as the sum at stake is small has completely missed Paul's point in 1 Timothy 6:9-11:

But those who desire to be rich fall into temptation and a snare, and into many foolish and harmful lusts which drown men in destruction and perdition. For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil, for which some have strayed from the faith in their greediness, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. But you, O man of God, flee these things and pursue righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, gentleness.

Gambling involves an inordinate desire to get something from one's neighbor without a legitimate exchange. So it is a sin on those grounds, even if we said nothing further.

But There's More . . .

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-rick-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.
  
• 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.
       Numerous studies have shown that poor people tend to spend a much larger proportion of their income on gambling than people in middle—or upper-income brackets. Gambling is a particular plague on lower-income people, primarily because of its illegitimate promise of getting rich quick. More than one study has demonstrated that the poor bet more than three times the amount wagered by persons in middle-income and upper-income brackets.
       Meanwhile, those who are licensed to sponsor lotteries and casino games never lose—they gain enormous wealth by taking money off the top, and by skewing the odds overwhelmingly in their favor.
       In other words, money won in state lotteries and other forms of gambling is money taken from the poor. And money lost in such wagers is money given to the rich. So both of the evils condemned in Proverbs 22:16 are fostered by the machinery of gambling. If you want to oppress the poor and give your money to the rich, there is no more systematic way to do it than through gambling.
  
• Profligacy. Gambling is an expensive business. In 1974, statistics showed Americans were betting about $17 billion per year through legal channels. That was an astronomical sum, but it ballooned to $330 billion by 1992. By most estimates, Americans now wager more than $600 billion each year. That's more than we spend on food. It's seriously wasteful by any standard.
  
• A lack of self-control. Furthermore, as the above statistics (and many others) indicate, gambling is seriously addictive. Research suggests that one in every ten gamblers does so compulsively. There are an estimated ten million gambling addicts in the United States alone. And the average compulsive gambler has debts exceeding $80,000. It is a bigger problem than alcoholism. And in areas where gambling is widespread—such as Las Vegas and Atlantic City—the suicide rate is three times higher than the national average.
  
• Miscellaneous concerns. There is the stewardship of time. Gambling consumes people's leisure time with activities that are neither relaxing nor healthy for the body.
       We could also talk about gambling's negative impact on philanthropy and charity for the poor.
       And there's gambling's destructive consequences for marriage and the family; its detrimental effect on society, the crime rate, and the spiritual climate wherever gambling flourishes. Gambling has been shown to contribute to turmoil and physical abuse in the home, crime and violence in society, and all kinds of personal and psychological disorders in the person who is addicted to gambling.

The effects of gambling are virtually all bad. And no wonder. It is contrary to everything Scripture teaches about wise stewardship.

---

Grateful for the revealed Creator/creation distinction (Thanks from Genesis 1:1, part two)

by Dan Phillips

[Sorry, the RefTagger program messes up the title. In this second Valerie-inspired series on thankfulness, we stay with Genesis 1:1.]

As I observed last time, when Moses writes "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth," he is asserting that God's first creative act was producing the universe out of nothing. This truth is jam-packed with meaning. We shouldn't rush past it too hastily.

We know for a fact, then, that everything was created from nothing by Someone. That Someone — the infinite-personal God revealed in Scripture — thus stands apart from, above and beyond every created thing. Genesis 1:1 is Genesis 1:1; it is not 1:1b. It is not preceded by a verse detailing the origin of God.

Why not? Because it is the nature of God to be without origin. God alone is the Uncaused Cause. Think of it this way: there are two orders of things in the universe — caused, and uncaused. In the former column stretches a vast, almost endless list detailing every created thing. In the latter column, one entry alone: God.  As Moses himself would later sing,

Before the mountains were brought forth,
or ever you had formed the earth and the world,
from everlasting to everlasting you are God (Psalm 90:2)

That teaches us something vital, then, about all creation. It is all contingent. It all depends on something else for its origin. Nor is it surprising that it all continues to be contingent, depending on something else for its continued existence (cf. Colossians 1:17; I develop this theme more in this conference session). It is temporal, passing, evanescent (Psalm 102:25-26; Isaiah 34:4; 40:6-8).

But all those facts teach us corollary truths about the Creator. Unlike creation, He is unconditioned and non-contingent, depending on nothing for His being nor continuance (Exodus 3:14; Psalm 90:2; 102:27; John 8:58; Hebrews 13:8). He is supreme above all, in every sense.

All these "theological" truths bear very practical fruit. They tell me verities I desperately need to know, or I literally do not know the first thing necessary to make sense of Life, the Universe, much less All That.

1. I should not live for any created thing. All things are on the same plane, with a few variations: money, pleasure-in-things/experiences, fame, influence. All things are just things, and all things are temporary, contingent, secondary (at best). No created thing is sufficiently weighty, stable, significant, nor worthy to give ultimate meaning nor purpose. All will pass away, as will all who live for them (1 John 2:16-17a).
2. I should live for the Creator. Meaning and significance are not to be located in the effects, but in the Cause; not in the tributaries, but in the fountainhead. I should hold Him chief in my mind from my youth (Ecclesiastes 12:1), because I will only learn my design from my Designer. Neglect that, and I will live a meaningless, trivial, wasted life, no matter what I do.
   
3. I should not live in fear of any created thing. None is ultimate. No matter how fierce, powerful, nor forceful, there is One who transcends them. Like me, they are contingent. Like me, they are limited. Like me, they can be bested. What's more, the worst they can do to me is kill me.
4. I should live in fear of the Creator. The worst a creature can do is kill me, but the Creator can do far worse to me (Matthew 10:28). Unlike creatures, the Creator is unconditioned, relentless, unlimited, incapable of being bested. The buck always stops with Him. (Besides, whether a creature kills me or not is the Creator's call, anyway.)
5. In sum, the center of my life must be the knowledge, worship and service of the Creator, not the creature. Miss that, and I miss life, period: I am fatally off-target as to the meaning of myself, of my world, and of others. I'm like someone who thinks The Lord of the Rings is all about this forgetful innkeeper named Butterbur, or that A Christmas Carol centers around the tale of a woman named Fezziwig, married to a generous business owner. These are minor, peripheral characters — focus on them, and I've missed the whole story. Focus on creation rather than Creator, and I've missed the whole story, and far more beside.

To this day, vast millions and even billions have "exchanged the truth about God for a lie and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever" (Romans 1:25). Of course I mean the animists, of course I mean the polytheists and the idolaters — but no less do I mean the youth-worshipers, the health-worshipers, the trend-worshipers, the image-worshipers, and the sex-worshipers; the Greens, the Reds; the eco-fascists and the evo-fascists.

And so, from Genesis 1:1, I thank God for the stark and clear revelation of the Creator/creature distinction. In that light alone can I make sense of life, and find my place by finding His face.

Thus we can —

Know that the LORD, he is God!
It is he who made us, and we are his;
we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture (Psalm 100:3)

Thank God!

---

Oh, and one more thing . . .

by Phil Johnson



he following is adapted from comments I originally posted in other forums, but since what I have to say below is germane to the large subject under discussion, I've distilled it here and am posting it so that it will be permanently attached to this thread. Like my remarks in the immediately preceding post, this one answers several e-mails that have been sent to me directly, and a few posts that have appeared other forums:

The distinctions I made in the "definitions" post are not ideas I made up. And they are not as ambiguous as a few argumentative souls seem to want to pretend. What I have attempted to give is essentially a simple summary of the legal definition of gambling.

Please allow me first of all to try to cut through a lot of niggling questions that have been put to me about whether investing in the stock market is really any different from "gambling": The distinction I have made between gambling and investing in stocks is recognized by the laws of every state in the union. Investing in stocks is not a form of "gambling." That's what the law says, not merely how I "feel" about the question. In the preceding post I gave several sources that explain in careful detail why this is a valid distinction. Notice that the articles at the links I gave all expand on pretty much the very same arguments I made in the post itself. I'm not inventing these arguments as I go.

Unfortunately, I simply can't take time to respond individually to every dissenting "well, it seems to me . . ."-style argument. So if someone wants to try to make a cogent argument that investing in stocks is really exactly the same thing as gambling after all, please link to a credible source where someone who is knowledgeable about economics and the law agrees with and supports that position.

As John Calvin would say, Good luck.

Incidentally, the argument (made by more than one person who e-mailed me) that there are always losers whose losses correspond to the gains of every winner in the stock market is essentially a jejune argument based on the long-discredited dogma of popular socialism. It simply is not true, and the economic growth in the United States since World War II seems rather convincing proof that the socialist argument holds no water whatsoever.

The comments in my in-box today make it clear that there are a lot of people who have never really thought through the issue of gambling but have strong feelings about "legalism" and whatnot. In many cases, it seems, they are prepared to offer a kneejerk denial to any suggestion that this or that questionable vice or popular "leisure" activity is inherently sinful. One of my more prolific critics basically admitted that he was making up arguments on the fly, but he wanted me to help him think out loud. Sorry. That's not what we are doing here.

My plea is simple: If you're just spoiling for a fight about some argument you think I am going to make—or if you have already made up your mind (no matter what) that gambling is OK and you are going to try to deconstruct any and every argument against it—please at least let me finish my whole argument first. I would also encourage you to read carefully and seriously think through what I'm saying before you react.

Finally, (for those who predictably demand that every argument START with biblical proof-texts) please notice that I'm making a rather systematic argument, and it's not nearly finished yet.

I'm sorry there is no easy biblical proof-text about gambling. Often the question of whether something is sinful or not has to be thoroughly considered as a matter of biblical principle rather than instantly dismissed with a Scripture reference. In such cases, it is usually necessary to be even more careful in defining and thinking through the foundational questions step by step.

But I acknowledged all of that at the very outset, and I have already said where I am going in the discussion (i.e., "Each of the essential characteristics of gambling violates one or more biblical principles. In the next post in this series, we'll begin to see why"). So comments e-mailed to me from lurkers who say things like "You haven't really given us anything biblical yet"—frankly are not particularly helpful.

The definitions I have given are essential groundwork for showing why gambling violates certain biblical principles. I actually said so in the post itself.

After I'm done, you can scold me if you think my argument isn't biblical. But to throw out that objection when I've barely finished defining terms isn't really a helpful approach to an issue like this one.

While I'm at it, here's a special note for some particularly mischievous first-time commenters: Please try to be serious if you comment. I'm really not looking for off-the-cuff arguments from every penny-ante poker aficionado who might be lurking. These are meant to be serious posts about a serious problem with serious ramifications in our society, and the feedback I'm most interested in is from church leaders who are serious about considering a tough subject carefully.

---

Answering a couple of objections

by Phil Johnson

et me respond to some feedback that appeared in a different forum. I don't participate in the other forum, but the person who wrote this e-mailed it to me and invited me to respond. I'm posting my response here, because it might clear up some confusion other people have, too.

He writes,

I would disagree with him on this one [no losers in stock trading] to a certain extent. If I buy a stock at $10/share, and the value goes up to $20/share, ON PAPER it appears that ALL investors have earned money . . .BUT, that's only on paper.

That's simply untrue. It completely misrepresents how the stock market works. (See the links below.) Buying stock is an actual investment in a company. When stock value goes up, real jobs are created, company assets increase, and the potential for future profits is also increased. The increased wealth is not merely "on paper."

He further says,

If I decide to sell that stock, SOMEBODY has to fork out that extra money in order to purchase for $20 what I bought for $10. So, I am not sure if his attempt to show that the stock market has NO losers is air-tight. I seem to recall at the end of each stock trading day, there is always a report of the winners and LOSERS."

You are turning language on its head and unnecessarily clouding the whole issue. The suggestion that someone who invests in stock at a higher price has "lost" money is absurd. Apply that claim to the buying and selling of real estate and you'll see why it simply doesn't work.

And the "winners" and "losers" in the stock market report are stocks whose value rose (winners) or fell (losers). What I said was not an "attempt to show that the stock market has NO losers." And nowhere did I say there are "no losers in stock trading."

What I said was, "There are no losers when a stock gains value." The point is that in the stock market, the winners' gains do not come at the losers' expense. It's not really a complex point, but it is a significant one. In fact, it touches on the central point of my whole argument, so please don't let it get buried under a mass of unnecessary confusion.

Anyone tempted to comment further in this vein ought to do a little reading about the stock market and how it works. Many fine articles are easily available on line that show why investing in stocks is not a form of "gambling." See for example:

• "The Five Biggest Stock Market Myths," from Investopedia
  
• "Chapter 1: Replacing Stock Market Myths," from Five-Minute Investing
  
• "Stock Market Investing Odds: The Odds Are in Your Favor!," from greekshares.com

And here's an article that graphically illustrates the difference between investing in stocks and betting on the stock market: Just Plain Crazy, by Charles Jaffe, The Investor Direct

---

A Glutton's gratitude

by Frank Turk



I think I'm ashamed to tell you that I am grateful that I struggle with my weight problem rather than whether or not my children will eat well each day. [Deu 6:10-12] I'm grateful for my moral dilemmas rather than the fundamental dilemma of subsistance.

Bless us, oh Lord, and these thy gifts, which we receive from thy Bounty, in Christ's name. Amen.

---

Gambling: Some Definitions and Distinctions

by Phil Johnson

This is part 2 of a series that started here. Bear in mind that all of this series was written more than 4 years before any of these comments. (You guys are so predictable!)

To gamble is to wager on a contest or to play at a game of chance for stakes. When you gamble, you are risking money (or something else of value) on the outcome of something that involves an element of chance, uncertainty, or hazard—for the possibility of winning something someone else has put at stake.

A stake is a prize one person stands to gain through the loss of others.

Simple contest prizes, such as free sweepstakes and door prizes, do not involve gambling if no fee is charged for entry into the contest. Sweepstakes contests sponsored for advertising purposes are paid for by the sponsor. The winner's prize is not financed by the loss of other contestants. Therefore it is not gambling. Nothing is put at stake by the contestants in such events.

Likewise, investing in the stock market is not "gambling," regardless of how much risk is involved. If a stock gains value, all investors earn money. The gains of one investor are not financed by the losses of others. In other words, there are no losers when a stock gains value. When the stock value increases, the economic "pie" grows.

By contrast the size of the economic pie in a gambling contest is fixed. The prize is a pool of money contributed by the players. A casino may take a percentage of that pie off the top, but otherwise, the size of the pie is fixed by the aggregate total of the players' contributions.

Similarly, a farmer who plants seed hoping to yield a crop takes a calculated risk. (If weather or disease destroys the crop, he could lose all he has invested in the crop.) That risk is not, technically, a "gamble," because if the investment pays off, no one loses. Real wealth has been created, unlike in gambling, where no wealth is ever actually created.

In gambling, existing wealth merely changes hands. In other words, one person's gain always comes at the price of hurt caused to others. That is the reason an immoral principle underlies all gambling. (We'll probe this point more carefully before the end of this series.)

One more misconception is worth trying to clear up: You'll often hear someone compare the insurance business to gambling. But although buying and selling insurance involves risk, it is not the moral equivalent of gambling. Assuming risk per se is not gambling. As we know, life is full of risk, and if the act of taking a risk were inherently the same as gambling, you could say that we all gamble every day.

In fact, that is precisely what some who advocate gambling do say. They point out that you take a risk every time you get in an airplane or ride in a car—or walk across the street. You would also face some risk even if all you did was stay in bed trying to avoid risk. Therefore, they say, life itself is a gamble.

But all of that is based on a faulty understanding of what gambling is. Look again at our definitions: To gamble is to play a game of chance for stakes. And a stake is a prize that is obtained at another gambler's expense. Remember: in gambling, whatever one person wins is lost by another.

Furthermore, in gambling, the risk is artificial. It is risk that is created by a game of chance. And the sole purpose for assuming this risk is to try to gain something at someone else's expense.

Now, notice this: all gambling involves four elements: One, something valuable is put at risk. Two, something belonging to someone else is at stake as a prize. Three, an element of chance is involved in determining the outcome. And four, no new wealth is created in the process.

And those four characteristics of gambling are the very reasons gambling is wrong. Each of the essential characteristics of gambling, when combined with the other three, violates one or more biblical principles. In the next post in this series, we'll begin to see why.

---

Comedy Tragedy of Errors

by Phil Johnson

Warning: This is a long story, and it doesn't even have an ending yet. Settle in.

ongtime readers may recall that I managed to destroy my main desktop PC in May of 2007 when I used a vacuum cleaner hose to get dust out of its case without turning it off first.

Based on much welcome advice from you, dear readers, I replaced that clunker with an iMac and I haven't looked back. In the intervening months, I've become one of Apple's best customers, replacing Darlene's laptop, my laptop at the office, my home network server, and even the network router with Apple hardware. Exclusively. The only piece of HP equipment left in the house is the printer (and it's a workhorse).

After two-and-a-half years, however, that original iMac has become maddeningly sluggish. Well, in all honesty, it's the Windows virtual machine I run on the iMac that I've been having the most trouble with. It used to be lightning-fast. Now it takes almost 15 minutes to load completely. Once it loads, it runs fine, but when it's running, it's useless to try to run anything else other than small utilities on the iMac.

I began to notice this problem in March, immediately after the Foxmarks (bookmark-synchronization software) add-on was renamed to Xmarks and came out with a major new version. At first I thought it was a glitch in Xmarks—but at the time it was only mildly annoying, so rather than uninstall Xmarks completely, I waited for another Xmarks update and hoped that would fix my computer's performance problems. It didn't. In fact, the sluggishness grew ten times worse in June when Firefox came out with their 3.5 update. And then last month when VMWare updated to 3.0, the loading of my VM became slow as molasses in winter.

I tried everything; downsizing the VM; eliminating VMWare's "snapshots" (which are automatic backups of the Windows machine); and running every registry-fixer and optimization program available for Windows. On the Mac side I freed up as much hard-disk space as possible; cleaned the caches; repaired file permissions; and ran every maintenance script and optimization routine I could find.

So I'm pretty sure the real problem is that I've maxed out and overtaxed the 2 gigs of RAM that came with the iMac. I suspect the main culprits are a flood of Windows security patches, combined with the Firefox 3.5+ "upgrades" (which have also made Firefox take forever to load and shut down). The reason I concluded I need more RAM is that the only computer giving me problems is that original iMac, with 2 gigs of RAM. Both my laptop and the Mac Mini upstairs (the hub of my home network, used nearly full time by other people in my household) each have 4 gigs of RAM, and they still run everything like a breeze.

So at the beginning of October I decided to order a new iMac. Apple was running a promo with BarclayCards, so that if you signed up for a BarclayCard and ordered a Mac straightaway, you could charge the computer and have a year to pay it off interest-free. That payment plan worked for me, so I was set.

Of course, I knew the rumors that Apple was preparing a new generation of iMacs, so I had to wait until Apple announced their new machines. They finally did so on October 20, and I ordered my new iMac that very day. With 8 gigs of RAM. And the monster 27-inch monitor.

After I ordered the machine, however, I learned the computer I wanted wouldn't ship until "November." They didn't say whether that meant November 1 or mid-November. I took it gracefully as an opportunity to learn patience.

On November 12, I finally got a notice by e-mail that the new computer had shipped. It had a Fedex tracking number, and when I checked it, it said the computer would be shipping from China, but the shipment had just missed the Friday cutoff, so it was still in Shanghai.

I watched the tracking number for several days as the computer made its way to Anchorage, from there to Memphis, and from there to Santa Clarita. Don't ask me to explain the circuitous route. I was just happy to see it making progress. In my head, I was expecting a Wednesday delivery but hoping for Tuesday. I was therefore thrilled when it was delivered on Monday—yesterday.

Well, not technically "delivered." The Fedex guy mistakenly took it to my next-door neighbor (even though it was correctly addressed), and when the neighbor didn't answer the door, he left it on the neighbor's front porch!

Fortunately, I have honest neighbors, and the neighbor, emerging from the shower, came to see why his doorbell had been rung and discovered this heavy box addressed to me. He was understandably irritated. He came over and rang the doorbell about five times in rapid succession. Fortunately for all, I was home (I'm having a relapse of the flu). He explained that Fedex had left this heavy box on his porch and it wasn't even for him, plus it was too heavy for him to carry up the steep incline to my house (We're on a hill.) Of course, I was thrilled and told him I'd be over immediately to get my computer. I wasn't even annoyed at the Fedex guy; I was just glad the computer had arrived early, and on a day when I was home and with enough time to get it out and set it up. It all seemed so wonderfully providential! The box was in pristine condition, without so much as a scratch after the long journey from Shanghai.

So I lugged the box over from the neighbors' and happily began unpacking it. Mac designs are wonderful—right down to the way products are packaged. One of the true delights in this otherwise hazy postmodern society is unpacking a fresh piece of Apple hardware.

And everyone knows Macs "can do it all, right out of the box," right? So I was stoked with expectation and delight.

The new iMacs have an edge-to-edge glass screen, and they come with an ingenious sticky-but-not-too-sticky protective film. The last thing I did was peel off that plastic film and step back to admire the 27-inch monitor.



That's when I saw that the glass was broken. Not chipped or scratched, but the whole lower left corner of the screen was shattered. It must have been broken before the film was applied and the machine boxed up, because there was no damage to the box and no sign of impact on the protective film. Some assembly-line inspector in Shanghai seems to have missed this ginormous divot in the glass screen.

So I groaned. (Darlene says it was more like a deep growl of profound agony: "Arrgh!") Then I called Apple support.

I have to say Apple's support people are among the most polite and pleasant customer-relations people in the world. And I ought to know; I talked to at least seven of them in an hour-and-a-half on that first phone call. I'm not sure why I needed to be transferred so many times, but obviously, they needed to get some kind of verification that the computer arrived DOA and that I didn't drop it while lugging it up the hill from my neighbor's.

After a recorded intro, the first live rep I spoke to asked me what the issue was, and then immediately transferred me to a representative who asked me all the numerical data about the original order. Then that guy transferred me to someone asked a list of detailed questions about the damage. He asked me to hold while he connected me with someone who could authorize the return. After that, I was transferred to someone who ordered a replacement computer; and then I talked to a completely different guy who made the arrangements for me to return the damaged computer. There may have been a couple of other people along the way; I lost track. I suppose that's an efficient system, but they actually put you on hold to make the transfer, and the on-hold times between reps were each at least 5 minutes. Furthermore (if I can say this kindly) whoever chooses the holding music for Apple has really lousy taste. It was after noon before I got off the phone, and I had a headache.

But anyway, everything was taken care of in one long phone call—except for one detail. Just before I hung up, the rep I was talking to explained that a hold would be put on my replacement computer until I shipped the damaged one back.

So I packed it up and shipped it back right away. Never even plugged it in and turned it on.

After dropping it off at the local Fedex Kinko's, I rang Apple support again and gave them the tracking number so that they would be able to release my replacement. That's when they told me the replacement isn't scheduled to ship until December. The rep was as polite as all the others, but assured me that lots of people have ordered these computers, and everyone is having to wait. There was simply no way to expedite my replacement computer.

Of course, the clock is already ticking on my one-year no-interest deal with BarclayCards, and by the time I actually receive the computer, one-sixth of that year-of-grace will be gone already. In fact, if I stick to the payment schedule I originally made, and if the computer takes as long to deliver as they are saying it might, I'll have made three of eleven payments before I even see the computer.

Meanwhile, I've been reading the early rumors and reviews of the new iMacs. The thought occurred to me that perhaps this is all a providential opportunity to cancel my order, save some headaches, and wait until Apple gets some stuff sorted out. I could probably make do with my laptop alone for a few months.

So I'm interested in your feedback, especially if you are an IT-support type who has had experience with the new iMacs. Any advice? Am I going to think all this hassle was worth it when I finally get the new iMac, or is this one of those "upgrades" I'm going to regret for a long time?

---

Thanks for the universe (Thanks from Genesis 1:1, part one)

by Dan Phillips

[Not sure why the title reformatted itself; nothing I did. I think it's the RefTagger program, that automatically identifies all Bible references - even in titles, evidently.]

Preface. It seems as if, with each passing year, I see more significance in Genesis 1—3 generally, and Genesis 1:1 specifically. It has been well said that anyone who accepts Genesis 1:1 as true is prepared to understand and believe the rest of the Bible. Deny it, and all falls apart.


So when I introduced this Valerie-inspired series on thankfulness, my mind turned first to Genesis 1:1. I just may not have to go anywhere else, by Thursday the 26th (Thanksgiving Day in America).

Basic assumptions. Genesis 1:1 is probably the best-known verse in the Bible: In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. For this series, I am going to assume without debate that this is the sense of the verse:

• Genesis 1:1 points to the first and only beginning of all things
• Genesis 1:1 is not a summary-statement nor a title
  
• Genesis 1:1 relates God's first act, followed immediately by the seven days narrated in 1:2—2:4
  
• Genesis 1:1 describes ex nihilo creation
  

Today's item for thanks. The Hebrew phrase "the heavens and the earth" form a merism. In a merism, one names two poles, thereby including everything in-between. For instance "young and old" means all ages. Other merisms might include "root and branch," "here and there," and "night and day."

Thus in Genesis 1:1, "the heavens and the earth" means the universe (cf. Genesis 2:4; 14:19; Psalm 69:34; 148:13, etc.). In the beginning, this one true and living God created the universe in an unformed and undeveloped state, then set about to order and define it.

This verse, then, asserts that one God is responsible for the creation of all things. There is no created thing that did not come from His hand; all created things trace their origin to that one, original burst of command. The infinite-personal God of Scripture had conceived of a "plan of the ages," which He made in Christ (Ephesians 3:11, Greek), and now He began its execution with the creation of everything from nothing.

What this means, then, is that we live in a universe, not a multiverse. There are not many realities competing with each other, vying for dominance. It is one universe, from the hand of one God. It is all defined and ruled over by Him.

Ironically, atheists — who have made "doing Science" their sacrament — depend on this truth, even as they deny it. Repetition only has meaning in a universe. Generalization from particulars only has meaning in a universe. If we can't proceed from the premise that everything is united by a common origin, we can neither predict nor generalize. In that existence, even if a series played out identically a hundred times, a thousand times, a million times, we would have no basis for predicting that it would proceed the same the next time. And even if it proceeded identically with our test subjects, no matter how large the sample, we could never justifiably assert that it would proceed the same with any untested subject.

Put it another way. Last Thanksgiving, you fed your family untainted, normal turkey (or pizza). They lived and thrived. How do you know that, if you feed them untainted, normal turkey this year, they won't die, or explode, or burst into flames because of it? How do you know that, when you poke your fork into some pumpkin pie, your house won't fly out into space as a result? How do you know that, when you click in the "Leave your comment" box, so that you can argue with me, your face won't be torn off and your veins filled with acid as a result? In fact, how could you even form an argument, attempting to arrange reasons in any logical or compelling form, with any thought that shapes on a page would even appear the same to each viewer, and convey meaning to rational readers?

Because of Genesis 1:1.


So there's the irony of the atheist. If Genesis 1:1 were not true, he could never deny that Genesis 1:1 is true.

So back to us. As you live your life in this one universe, with its designed predictability and order; and as you pursue your life confident that it is even possible to find meaning and live meaningfully — thank God for it. Thank Him for making a universe for you to live in. Thank Him that, because of Him, even the bare concepts of meaning and purpose and cohesion are not only intelligible and possible, but discoverable.

Discoverable, that is, if we proceed on the premise that "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

Which, thank God, we can.

---

Is Gambling OK? Don't Bet on It

by Phil Johnson

I posted this series of articles on the original Pulpit blog several years ago and it generated a lot of discussion. Somehow in the many URL-changes and format redesigns over there, these articles went missing from the Pulpit archives, so I am recreating the series here at PyroManiacs. Be advised: If you are someone who loves gambling and are convinced there's no principle of Scripture that forbids it, you might want to wait until the series is complete before posting an angry note of disagreement. No pun intended, but I'll bet I'm going to anticipate and answer most of your arguments before the series is over. Here is a list of all the posts in the series: Is Gambling OK? Don't Bet on It Gambling: Some Definitions and Distinctions Answering a couple of objections Oh, and one more thing . . .      While we're on the subject, see this.

s it a sin to gamble? There's not an easy or instantly-obvious prooftext answer to that question. If you are looking for a "Thus saith the Lord: Thou shalt not gamble," you won't find it anywhere. Nothing expressly forbids gambling anywhere in Scripture.

Does that automatically put gambling into the realm of adiaphora, or indifferent matters? I don't think so. I would argue that gambling is a sin, full stop.

A Sin? Are you Serious? Why Would Anyone Believe that in this Enlightened Age?

Here are three reasons that instantly come to mind:

1. The absence of a single commandment or proof-text against gambling ultimately proves nothing.There are lots of things that are not explicitly mentioned in the Bible that we would probably agree are clearly sinful.
        There isn't anything in Scripture that forbids arson, for example. But we know arson is wrong because it violates other biblical principles. It's a violation of the commandment in Leviticus 19:18: "Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."
        As a matter of fact, even thinking about burning down your neighbor's property violates Zechariah 8:17: "Let none of you imagine evil in your hearts against his neighbour . . . [for] these are things that I hate, saith the Lord." So I don't think anyone would seriously argue that arson is OK, just because it isn't named in the Bible as a sin. Ditto with recreational drug use, graffiti-vandalism, and a host of other societal evils.
   
2. Gambling is inconsistent with biblical virtue. It is fueled by—and it fuels—covetousness, greed, and materialism. It is associated with crime, vice and corruption, so that wherever gambling exists, crime rates rise. And it is contrary to the biblical work ethic, because it is an attempt to gain wealth without working for it.
   
3. Our possessions are not our own to squander. They are given to us as a stewardship, and we will be accountable to God for how we use them. To put God-given resources at risk is to fail in the faithfulness required of stewards.

I once gave that answer to a college student who asked me about gambling in a public Q&A session in GraceLife. He stayed at the microphone while I gave my answer, and I could see he was not satisfied with it. When I finished, he asked if he could respond.

"By all means," I told him. "If that doesn't answer your question, ask a follow-up, and I'll expand on my answer.

Can't You Make a Better Case Than That?

"Well," he said, "I still don't think you have shown that gambling is a sin. Let me reply to your arguments one by one.



"First," he said, "take the example of arson. It is wrong to burn down your neighbor's field or his house only when there is no mutual consent. But suppose he wanted your help burning his field because he wanted to clear the land. Then it would not be a sin for you to set fire to his property.

"As a matter of fact," he continued, "My neighbors had an abandoned building they were going to demolish for a new commercial development. So they allowed some fire department trainees to set fire to the building and practice putting it out. It wasn't a sin for the rookie fireman to set fire to that house, because the owner had given his consent.

"And gambling is always by mutual consent," he said. So it cannot be wrong done against your neighbor, because you have his concurrence before the game of chance begins."

He wasn't finished.

"Second," he said, "gambling isn't necessarily motivated only by covetousness and greed. I like to gamble for recreation and sheer entertainment."

Looking at me, he asked, "What is your favorite form of entertainment?"

"I like to take my sons to a baseball game," I said.

"Fine," he answered. "If you take your family to a baseball game, by the time you bought tickets, paid for parking, and got some food or drinks, you would probably have spent $100 to $150. All that money to watch an athletic contest! You get nothing tangible for your money except maybe a Coke and a large pretzel. The whole game is over in two and a half hours, and you go back home, with nothing to show for the money you spent. It is just entertainment; sheer recreation.

"Now, the form of recreation I prefer is gambling. I can take the same $100 and go to a casino, where I might spend the entire evening playing Blackjack. I get all the Cokes and pretzels I want for free. And if I have a good night, I can play for four or five hours with my $100—twice as long as you spent at your two-and-a-half-hour ball game.

"Furthermore," he said, "I might win, and then I will go home with even more money than I came with. But I don't do it because of greed. I do it because that is what I enjoy, just like you enjoy baseball."

I started to respond, but he held up a finger to signal that he wasn't through yet.

"Now," he said, "Let's talk about the stewardship issue. You went to an athletic event and have nothing permanent to show for the money you spent. I might have more money coming out than I had going into the casino.

"But even if I lose," he said, "I am a disciplined loser, and I always set a specific amount I am willing to lose—never more than about 100 dollars. And if I lose that much, I quit and walk away. That is still less money than you spent on your baseball outing, and it usually buys me several hours of exciting entertainment. Sometimes I even win, so I can even make money through my form of entertainment. Now I ask you, which is better stewardship?"

I took a deep breath and pondered the best way to reply.

But before I could answer, he continued. "There are risks involved in gambling," he said. "But the farmer who spends money to buy seed and plant a field also takes a huge gamble every year. If the weather destroys his crop, he will lose far more than I ever risk. Risk is a normal part of all our lives."

And then he asked me, "Do you have any of your retirement savings in mutual funds?" As a matter of fact, I do, so I acknowledged that fact.

"Well," he said, "you are taking a risk with that money. You yourself are gambling that the market will rise. What if it goes down? You will lose money. So you are gambling that it will go up. Meanwhile, you have put your savings at risk. How in the world can you tell me you think gambling is sinful? You aren't even practicing what you preach. If it is wrong to gamble, it is wrong for you to put your retirement savings in the stock market. And if it is unwise stewardship for me to gamble at cards, then it is also bad stewardship for you to invest money in mutual funds.

"And finally," he said, "My enjoyment of gambling has got nothing to do with my work ethic. In addition to my student class load, I work a full time job during the week and make good money. For me to spend $100 on Friday night at the casino is no more a reflection on my work ethic than for you to spend $150 on Friday evening at a baseball game.

"Gambling is just entertainment for me, and unless you are prepared to argue that all forms of entertainment are sinful, give me better arguments to show that gambling violates the Bible's moral standards, or show me where the Bible says gambling is a sin, I am going to keep visiting the casino."

That's a pretty thorough off-the-cuff reply to my off the-cuff answer to his original question, isn't it? It was obvious that he had spent a great deal of time thinking through these issues. He had heard the standard arguments, and he believed he could answer them all.

Well, OK. Let's Think This Through More Carefully . . .

By then, unfortunately, we were running short on time, and I only had enough time left to give him a quick reply.

I told him first of all that I still believe a sinister principle underlies all gambling, and it is this: for every winner, there are losers. And the winners' gains come at the losers' expense. There is no other way to gain money through gambling. When you win, you are taking that which belongs to another. The winners' profit always comes directly from the losers' pocket. There's something more sinister about that than merely winning an athletic competition, which involves no material loss for the loser.

In other words, gambling is the moral equivalent of stealing. His argument about mutual consent between the players didn't seem to make it OK, because in real life many gambling losses lead to ruin for the loser. Prior consent doesn't eliminate the evil in that.

I also told him I did not completely buy his rationale that gambling might be just a form of pure entertainment—something better by which to pass the time than watching television. While the argument has some appeal at first glance, I pointed out that if there is an immoral principle that underlies all gambling—if gambling per se violates any clear principle of Scripture—then it is wrong on any grounds. To say that you gamble only for entertainment is not really a good defense against the argument that gambling is rooted in greed and covetousness.

For example, what if someone tried to claim it was OK to fornicate because he was doing it only as a form of entertainment? My point was this: if it's wrong to gamble on matters of biblical principle, then it is wrong to gamble in any circumstance, and it is wrong to gamble in any amount. If there are principles that make gambling a sinful activity, then it is wrong to gamble for "entertainment," and it is wrong whether you are gambling 50 cents or gambling your whole paycheck.

I regretted that we had to end our Q&A session at that point. He went away unsatisfied with my reply, and so did I.

While I still felt all my arguments were biblically sound, I didn't feel I had done enough to highlight the real heart of the matter. And that prompted me to give more thought to the issue of gambling so that I would be better prepared to give an answer if the question ever came up again.

Since then, I have thought through the issues more carefully than ever. I've considered the arguments further. I've taken an even closer look at the biblical data. And I hasten to say that I am even more convinced than ever that gambling is a sinful activity. It is not a valid form of entertainment, and it is not a harmless matter of indifference. It violates a number of biblical principles and therefore ought to be avoided in all its forms.

Hold on; I'm Not Finished Yet

A blog is a great medium for exploring such a questions in careful detail. So in a couple of follow-up posts, I plan to give you a series of biblical arguments showing in further detail exactly why I still believe gambling is a sin.

Stay tuned for more . . .

---

On Keeping in Step with the Zeitgeist

Your weekly dose of Spurgeon
posted by Phil Johnson

The PyroManiacs devote some space each weekend to highlights from The Spurgeon Archive. The following excerpt comes from a sermon titled "To the Saddest of the Sad," first published in June of 1888.



    often wonder what those preachers do who feel called to make up their message as they go on; for if they fail, their failure must be attributed in great measure to their want of ability to make up a moving tale.

They have to spread their sails to the breeze of the age, and to pick up a gospel that comes floating down to them on the stream of time, altering every week in the year; and they must have an endless task to catch this new idea, or, as they put it, to keep abreast of the age. Unless, indeed, like chameleons, they have a natural aptitude to change colour, they must have a worrying time of it, and a horrible amount of shifting to get through. When they have done their best to preach this gospel of their own, then they are accountable for having made that gospel. For every bit of its teaching they are accountable, because they were the manufacturers of it, and it came forth from their foundry, bearing their stamp.

If they take this yoke upon them, and so refuse to learn of Christ, they will find no rest to their souls. To me the preaching of the Lord's own gospel is a joy and a privilege; for notwithstanding that concern for your souls loads me with the burden of the Lord, it is his burden, and not one which I have selected for myself. I often feel on a Sabbath night when I go home weary: "I know that I have preached what I believe to be God's gospel." I have not said anything—I have not intended to say anything that was my own.

---

Thanks a lot

by Frank Turk

So in light of Dan's suggestion, here's my first post on being thankful, which is really written by my wife, who is the greatest blogger never once to blog. I'll take the "as told to" credit.

For those who don't follow me on Twitter or FB, my kids have been sick all week -- the big one since Saturday, and the little one since about Wednesday after AWANA. Same stuff. Blech. And of course Mrs. Cent and I are now not feeling so hot ourselves, but I'm optmistic it's just the lack of sleep and not the other stuff.

But last night my wife said to me, "I'm grateful that our kids are sick." And since I am the Drunken Master®, she can't trick me like that, so I said, "Tell me more."

"I'm in there, cleaning [graphic detail omitted], and every time there's a [graphic detail omitted], I know that the child is alive, and that God has given this child to me as a gift, and that He knows what's best for both of us. And I'm glad I can do something about this which the child understands. So I'm grateful."

Many of you do not have a spouse like this (she does not have a spouse like this), so you may admire her from a distance.

---