Tuesday, August 5, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
please, read John Wesley.
boy, long posts sure are hard to read. i'll say.
first. i make no apologies. i will be zealous for what i believe in.
the Word needs no defending. i believe that the Truth as it is written is perfect, holy, complete, etc., yet also in the sense that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is perfectly explained and completely understandable from the Word. God's character is mysterious, but the Word is a guide to our paths.
Mark 10:15 - "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
we must talk about the idea of 'context', and to do so here is as good as at any other place. we use the word 'context' to identify what parts of the Word apply or do not apply in different environments. this is biblical, inasmuch as the new covenant renders the old covenant obsolete.
Hebrews 8:8-9 - "... The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers..."
Hebrews 8:13 - "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
a good rule of thumb is, inevitably, whether the adoption or dismissal of a particular piece of Word glorifies God. however,
Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
it is unbiblical to dismiss any part of the Word as having been decontextualised, or having been deconstructed, etc, for the fact that God breathed the Word to us, and it is perfect for us. it is incomplete to quote single verses with single points, but it is utterly wrong to pick out verses that do not apply to us in the belief that they are not in our context.
moving on. i believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit can be understood by a little child; no other wisdom will suffice. theologians may have been debating about stuff for as long as they have, the point is that there is only one Truth, just as God only has one eternal character. in heaven, we will all know the one Truth, therefore some must be right, and some must be wrong.
the key to what is right before God is surely to seek after him. and there is only one Truth.
i wiki-ed John Piper and Calvinism and predestination. let me truthfully summarise what i found. he is Reformed (aka Calvinist) and believes in double predestination. It is called double predestination because it holds that God chose both whom to save and whom to damn, as opposed to single predestination which contends that though he chose whom to save, he did not choose whom to damn.
Calvinists often quote Romans 8-9 for their belief in double predestination. please read them. Romans 9 says that God chose to hate Esau but love Jacob, God will have mercy on whom he has mercy, it does not depend on men's desire or effort, but God's mercy, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, God bore with patience the objects of his destruction to show his wrath and make his power known, and to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.
to begin with, (and this is rather long), read this:
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/. it is a sermon by John Wesley against predestination. and it is exactly right.
and after reading this, i must admit to being ashamed of myself for not being more humble and gentle... the Word does not need to be defended.
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/128/ this follows. it completely denounces predestination.
though these are long, yet in them is every answer for every thing we have discussed on friday.
please. as Christians, we all have to read this.
first. i make no apologies. i will be zealous for what i believe in.
the Word needs no defending. i believe that the Truth as it is written is perfect, holy, complete, etc., yet also in the sense that God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit is perfectly explained and completely understandable from the Word. God's character is mysterious, but the Word is a guide to our paths.
Mark 10:15 - "I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it."
we must talk about the idea of 'context', and to do so here is as good as at any other place. we use the word 'context' to identify what parts of the Word apply or do not apply in different environments. this is biblical, inasmuch as the new covenant renders the old covenant obsolete.
Hebrews 8:8-9 - "... The time is coming, declares the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers..."
Hebrews 8:13 - "By calling this covenant 'new,' he has made the first one obsolete; and what is obsolete and aging will soon disappear."
a good rule of thumb is, inevitably, whether the adoption or dismissal of a particular piece of Word glorifies God. however,
Matthew 5:17 - "Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished."
it is unbiblical to dismiss any part of the Word as having been decontextualised, or having been deconstructed, etc, for the fact that God breathed the Word to us, and it is perfect for us. it is incomplete to quote single verses with single points, but it is utterly wrong to pick out verses that do not apply to us in the belief that they are not in our context.
moving on. i believe that God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit can be understood by a little child; no other wisdom will suffice. theologians may have been debating about stuff for as long as they have, the point is that there is only one Truth, just as God only has one eternal character. in heaven, we will all know the one Truth, therefore some must be right, and some must be wrong.
the key to what is right before God is surely to seek after him. and there is only one Truth.
i wiki-ed John Piper and Calvinism and predestination. let me truthfully summarise what i found. he is Reformed (aka Calvinist) and believes in double predestination. It is called double predestination because it holds that God chose both whom to save and whom to damn, as opposed to single predestination which contends that though he chose whom to save, he did not choose whom to damn.
Calvinists often quote Romans 8-9 for their belief in double predestination. please read them. Romans 9 says that God chose to hate Esau but love Jacob, God will have mercy on whom he has mercy, it does not depend on men's desire or effort, but God's mercy, God hardened Pharaoh's heart, God bore with patience the objects of his destruction to show his wrath and make his power known, and to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy.
to begin with, (and this is rather long), read this:
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/58/. it is a sermon by John Wesley against predestination. and it is exactly right.
and after reading this, i must admit to being ashamed of myself for not being more humble and gentle... the Word does not need to be defended.
http://new.gbgm-umc.org/umhistory/wesley/sermons/128/ this follows. it completely denounces predestination.
though these are long, yet in them is every answer for every thing we have discussed on friday.
please. as Christians, we all have to read this.
My Thoughts & Extra Reading
Hey everyone, below's something I read in one of John Piper's sermons about what we talked about yesterday.
I know each of us prob have alot of questions after what we discussed yesterday but I hope we have an open mind about these things. The fact that many theologians have been debating about this issue for so many years shows that it's just something hard to grasp and accept. And so we shouldn't insist that this person is wrong and I am right kinda thing.
What I feel is most important is that we are assured of our salvation and faith in a God who is never changing. One thing I surely know is that God's Word NEVER contradicts itself and all the more it will NEVER contradict who God is Himself. So if some things we read or think seem to contradict the very fundamental characteristics of God - gracious, all-loving, compassionate, fair, it is us humans who haven't got it figured out.
Yup let's continue to reflect and keep an open mind and ask that the Holy Spirit will be our teacher and guidance in these matters :-)
Romans 8:28-30
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according go his purpose. 29) For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren; 30) and whom he predestined, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also justified; and whom he justified, these he also glorified.
2. The Meaning of God's Foreknowledge.
Verse 29a: "Those whom he foreknew."
2.1. Two Possibilities
God foreknows all things and ALL PEOPLE in one sense (Isaiah 46:10). But not all are predestined to be conformed to his Son. Therefore, the "foreknowing" must be qualified in some sense, because Paul says, "Whom he foreknew, he predestined." There are two ways to qualify or limit the idea of God's foreknowing:
2.1.1. Add a phrase like, "would believe on Jesus," so that it reads: "Whom he foreknew would believe on Jesus, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." In other words, in order to preserve the self-determining power of man in his own salvation, God predestines people only on the basis of faith which he foresees that certain people will produce by their self-determining power.
2.1.2. Make no additions, but construe the word "foreknew" to refer to that special kind of knowing in Scripture which signifies choice and acknowledgement and favor. In other words, interpret this foreknowledge of God as virtually synonymous with his election.
2.2. Arguments for the Second View (2.1.2)
2.2.1. While it is not impossible that Paul might want us to supply extra words to make sense out of his sentence, it would seem better not to insist on adding a whole phrase if the meaning of the verse is plain and coherent with the context without adding any extra words. The text simply says, "WHOM HE FOREKNEW, HE PREDESTINED," as though the idea of foreknowing contained its own limitation. If we find elsewhere in the Bible and especially in Paul that "knowing" can carry its own limited sense, then the addition other phrases would be unnecessary (see 2.2.3).
2.2.2. The hope of preserving man's power of self determination in salvation is futile in view of verse 30, where it says, "Those whom he called he also justified." See this morning's sermon: if all the called are justified, and if justification is only by faith, then the call must secure the faith because it secures the justification. But if the call of God brings about faith, then it is not the self-determining power of man that brings him to salvation.
Therefore, even if God did base his predestination on faith which he foresaw, it was a faith which he himself intended to create. So the whole motive for the idea of foreknown faith collapses. It still leaves us with the freedom and right of God to elect or choose whom he will call effectually into faith. For God to predestine someone on the basis of faith which he himself creates is the same as basing predestination on the basis of election.
2.2.3. The words "know" and "foreknow" commonly mean "choose" or "set favor upon" or "acknowledge." Therefore we do not need to add any phrase to limit whom God foreknows, because the word itself limits the group—it is those whom he chose or set his favor upon. Here are some texts to show this meaning of "knowing."
2.2.3.1. Romans 11:1–2:
I ASK, THEN, HAS GOD REJECTED HIS PEOPLE? BY NO MEANS! I MYSELF AM AN ISRAELITE, A DESCENDANT OF ABRAHAM, A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN. GOD HAS NOT REJECTED HIS PEOPLE WHOM HE FOREKNEW.
2.2.3.2. Amos 3:1–2:
Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel . . . You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.
2.2.3.3. Genesis 18:17–19:
The Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do . . . ? No, for I have chosen [literally: "known"] him, that he may charge his children . . . to keep the way of the Lord . . . so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised.
2.2.3.4. Hosea 13:4–5:
I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought.
2.2.3.5. Psalm 1:6:
FOR THE LORD KNOWS THE WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS, BUT THE WAY OF THE WICKED WILL PERISH.
2.2.3.6. Matthew 7:23:
AND THEN I WILL DECLARE TO THEM, I NEVER KNEW YOU; DEPART FROM ME, YOU EVILDOERS.
2.2.3.7. 1 Corinthians 8:3:
If one loves God, one is known by God.
2.2.3.8. Galatians 4:8–9:
FORMERLY, WHEN YOU DID NOT KNOW GOD, YOU WERE IN BONDAGE TO BEINGS THAT BY NATURE ARE NO GODS; BUT NOW THAT YOU HAVE KNOWN GOD, OR RATHER BEEN KNOWN BY GOD, HOW CAN YOU TURN BACK AGAIN TO THE WEAK AND BEGGARLY ELEMENTAL SPIRITS?
2.2.3.9. 2 Timothy 2:16–19:
AVOID SUCH GODLESS CHATTER, FOR IT WILL LEAD PEOPLE INTO MORE AND MORE UNGODLINESS . . . AMONG THEM ARE HYMENAEUS AND PHILETUS, WHO HAVE SWERVED FROM THE TRUTH BY HOLDING THAT THE RESURRECTION IS PAST ALREADY. THEY ARE UPSETTING THE FAITH OF SOME. BUT GOD'S FIRM FOUNDATION STANDS, BEARING THIS SEAL: "THE LORD KNOWS THOSE WHO ARE HIS," AND, "LET EVERYONE WHO NAMES THE NAME OF THE LORD DEPART FROM INIQUITY."
Conclusion: "Whom he foreknew, he also predestined" means that God's appointment of the destiny of his people is based on his prior election, and this election is not based on any foreseen faith that we could produce by some power of self-determination. The plan of redemption was never conceived to include the saving power of human self-determination.
3. What Is the Aim of Predestination for Our Good?
Predestination does not refer here to the choice of who will be saved. It refers to the destiny appointed for those who are chosen. First, God chooses, that is, he unconditionally sets his favor on whom he will, THEN, he destines them for their glorious role in eternity.
Paul mentions two parts to this destiny for the "foreknown" or the "chosen." One relates to our good. The other relates to Christ's glory. First, look at the aim of predestination as it relates to our good.
FOR THOSE WHOM HE FOREKNEW HE PREDESTINED TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON.
Other texts that deal with our conformity to Christ show that it probably includes both the final glorious state of the resurrection as well as the process of moral transformation on the way to that glory.
Philippians 3:20–21
BUT OUR COMMONWEALTH IS IN HEAVEN, AND FROM IT WE AWAIT A SAVIOR, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHO WILL CHANGE OUR LOWLY BODY TO BE LIKE HIS GLORIOUS BODY, BY THE POWER WHICH ENABLES HIM EVEN TO SUBJECT ALL THINGS TO HIMSELF. (This is the only other place in the NT where the word summorphous occurs besides Romans 8:29.)
1 Corinthians 15:42–49
SO IS IT WITH THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. WHAT IS SOWN IS PERISHABLE, WHAT IS RAISE IS IMPERISHABLE. IT IS SOWN IN DISHONOR, IT IS RAISED IN GLORY . . . JUST AS WE HAVE BORNE THE IMAGE OF THE MAN OF DUST, WE SHALL ALSO BEAR THE IMAGE OF THE MAN OF HEAVEN.
Philippians 3:10
THAT I MAY KNOW HIM AND THE POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION, AND MAY SHARE HIS SUFFERINGS, BECOMING LIKE HIM IN HIS DEATH . . .
2 Corinthians 3:18
AND WE ALL, WITH UNVEILED FACE, BEHOLDING THE GLORY OF THE LORD, ARE BEING CHANGED INTO HIS LIKENESS FROM ONE DEGREE OF GLORY TO ANOTHER; FOR THIS COMES FROM THE LORD WHO IS THE SPIRIT.
Conclusion: The aim of predestination as it relates to our good is that we are appointed to share the very glory of the risen Christ both morally in blameless righteousness and physically in a resurrection body of glory like his. This destiny is the "glorification" of verse 30 ("those whom he justified he glorified") and it is under way right now in all the children of God as we look into the face of Christ in the gospel and are changed from one degree of glory to another by the power of the Spirit.
4. What Is the Aim of Predestination for Christ's Glory?
God's ultimate goal in the eternally predestined plan of salvation does not terminate on humans. It terminates on the Son of God. His glory has precedence over our glory. The glory of the preeminence Christ is the ultimate goal of predestination.
FOR THOSE WHOM HE FOREKNEW HE ALSO PREDESTINED TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FIRST-BORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN.
God appointed us to share the greatness of the Son so that the Son might be exalted as the greatest among the great.
God destined us to share Christ's glory in order that the glory of the Son might be magnified in the countless mirrors of those who are conformed to his image.
God created a second-born and a third-born and a millionth-born so that Christ might be exalted and praised and honored in the midst of a redeemed people.
Conclusion: The unspeakable wonder of predestination is that it aims at and secures the end which God must have in order to be God and the end which we must have in order to be happy—namely, the preeminent glorification of Christ in the glorification of his people.
I know each of us prob have alot of questions after what we discussed yesterday but I hope we have an open mind about these things. The fact that many theologians have been debating about this issue for so many years shows that it's just something hard to grasp and accept. And so we shouldn't insist that this person is wrong and I am right kinda thing.
What I feel is most important is that we are assured of our salvation and faith in a God who is never changing. One thing I surely know is that God's Word NEVER contradicts itself and all the more it will NEVER contradict who God is Himself. So if some things we read or think seem to contradict the very fundamental characteristics of God - gracious, all-loving, compassionate, fair, it is us humans who haven't got it figured out.
Yup let's continue to reflect and keep an open mind and ask that the Holy Spirit will be our teacher and guidance in these matters :-)
Romans 8:28-30
And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according go his purpose. 29) For whom he foreknew, he also predestined to become conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the first-born among many brethren; 30) and whom he predestined, these he also called; and whom he called, these he also justified; and whom he justified, these he also glorified.
2. The Meaning of God's Foreknowledge.
Verse 29a: "Those whom he foreknew."
2.1. Two Possibilities
God foreknows all things and ALL PEOPLE in one sense (Isaiah 46:10). But not all are predestined to be conformed to his Son. Therefore, the "foreknowing" must be qualified in some sense, because Paul says, "Whom he foreknew, he predestined." There are two ways to qualify or limit the idea of God's foreknowing:
2.1.1. Add a phrase like, "would believe on Jesus," so that it reads: "Whom he foreknew would believe on Jesus, he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son." In other words, in order to preserve the self-determining power of man in his own salvation, God predestines people only on the basis of faith which he foresees that certain people will produce by their self-determining power.
2.1.2. Make no additions, but construe the word "foreknew" to refer to that special kind of knowing in Scripture which signifies choice and acknowledgement and favor. In other words, interpret this foreknowledge of God as virtually synonymous with his election.
2.2. Arguments for the Second View (2.1.2)
2.2.1. While it is not impossible that Paul might want us to supply extra words to make sense out of his sentence, it would seem better not to insist on adding a whole phrase if the meaning of the verse is plain and coherent with the context without adding any extra words. The text simply says, "WHOM HE FOREKNEW, HE PREDESTINED," as though the idea of foreknowing contained its own limitation. If we find elsewhere in the Bible and especially in Paul that "knowing" can carry its own limited sense, then the addition other phrases would be unnecessary (see 2.2.3).
2.2.2. The hope of preserving man's power of self determination in salvation is futile in view of verse 30, where it says, "Those whom he called he also justified." See this morning's sermon: if all the called are justified, and if justification is only by faith, then the call must secure the faith because it secures the justification. But if the call of God brings about faith, then it is not the self-determining power of man that brings him to salvation.
Therefore, even if God did base his predestination on faith which he foresaw, it was a faith which he himself intended to create. So the whole motive for the idea of foreknown faith collapses. It still leaves us with the freedom and right of God to elect or choose whom he will call effectually into faith. For God to predestine someone on the basis of faith which he himself creates is the same as basing predestination on the basis of election.
2.2.3. The words "know" and "foreknow" commonly mean "choose" or "set favor upon" or "acknowledge." Therefore we do not need to add any phrase to limit whom God foreknows, because the word itself limits the group—it is those whom he chose or set his favor upon. Here are some texts to show this meaning of "knowing."
2.2.3.1. Romans 11:1–2:
I ASK, THEN, HAS GOD REJECTED HIS PEOPLE? BY NO MEANS! I MYSELF AM AN ISRAELITE, A DESCENDANT OF ABRAHAM, A MEMBER OF THE TRIBE OF BENJAMIN. GOD HAS NOT REJECTED HIS PEOPLE WHOM HE FOREKNEW.
2.2.3.2. Amos 3:1–2:
Hear this word that the Lord has spoken against you, O people of Israel . . . You only have I known of all the families of the earth; therefore I will punish you for all your iniquities.
2.2.3.3. Genesis 18:17–19:
The Lord said, "Shall I hide from Abraham what I am about to do . . . ? No, for I have chosen [literally: "known"] him, that he may charge his children . . . to keep the way of the Lord . . . so that the Lord may bring to Abraham what he has promised.
2.2.3.4. Hosea 13:4–5:
I am the Lord your God from the land of Egypt; you know no God but me, and besides me there is no savior. It was I who knew you in the wilderness, in the land of drought.
2.2.3.5. Psalm 1:6:
FOR THE LORD KNOWS THE WAY OF THE RIGHTEOUS, BUT THE WAY OF THE WICKED WILL PERISH.
2.2.3.6. Matthew 7:23:
AND THEN I WILL DECLARE TO THEM, I NEVER KNEW YOU; DEPART FROM ME, YOU EVILDOERS.
2.2.3.7. 1 Corinthians 8:3:
If one loves God, one is known by God.
2.2.3.8. Galatians 4:8–9:
FORMERLY, WHEN YOU DID NOT KNOW GOD, YOU WERE IN BONDAGE TO BEINGS THAT BY NATURE ARE NO GODS; BUT NOW THAT YOU HAVE KNOWN GOD, OR RATHER BEEN KNOWN BY GOD, HOW CAN YOU TURN BACK AGAIN TO THE WEAK AND BEGGARLY ELEMENTAL SPIRITS?
2.2.3.9. 2 Timothy 2:16–19:
AVOID SUCH GODLESS CHATTER, FOR IT WILL LEAD PEOPLE INTO MORE AND MORE UNGODLINESS . . . AMONG THEM ARE HYMENAEUS AND PHILETUS, WHO HAVE SWERVED FROM THE TRUTH BY HOLDING THAT THE RESURRECTION IS PAST ALREADY. THEY ARE UPSETTING THE FAITH OF SOME. BUT GOD'S FIRM FOUNDATION STANDS, BEARING THIS SEAL: "THE LORD KNOWS THOSE WHO ARE HIS," AND, "LET EVERYONE WHO NAMES THE NAME OF THE LORD DEPART FROM INIQUITY."
Conclusion: "Whom he foreknew, he also predestined" means that God's appointment of the destiny of his people is based on his prior election, and this election is not based on any foreseen faith that we could produce by some power of self-determination. The plan of redemption was never conceived to include the saving power of human self-determination.
3. What Is the Aim of Predestination for Our Good?
Predestination does not refer here to the choice of who will be saved. It refers to the destiny appointed for those who are chosen. First, God chooses, that is, he unconditionally sets his favor on whom he will, THEN, he destines them for their glorious role in eternity.
Paul mentions two parts to this destiny for the "foreknown" or the "chosen." One relates to our good. The other relates to Christ's glory. First, look at the aim of predestination as it relates to our good.
FOR THOSE WHOM HE FOREKNEW HE PREDESTINED TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON.
Other texts that deal with our conformity to Christ show that it probably includes both the final glorious state of the resurrection as well as the process of moral transformation on the way to that glory.
Philippians 3:20–21
BUT OUR COMMONWEALTH IS IN HEAVEN, AND FROM IT WE AWAIT A SAVIOR, THE LORD JESUS CHRIST, WHO WILL CHANGE OUR LOWLY BODY TO BE LIKE HIS GLORIOUS BODY, BY THE POWER WHICH ENABLES HIM EVEN TO SUBJECT ALL THINGS TO HIMSELF. (This is the only other place in the NT where the word summorphous occurs besides Romans 8:29.)
1 Corinthians 15:42–49
SO IS IT WITH THE RESURRECTION OF THE DEAD. WHAT IS SOWN IS PERISHABLE, WHAT IS RAISE IS IMPERISHABLE. IT IS SOWN IN DISHONOR, IT IS RAISED IN GLORY . . . JUST AS WE HAVE BORNE THE IMAGE OF THE MAN OF DUST, WE SHALL ALSO BEAR THE IMAGE OF THE MAN OF HEAVEN.
Philippians 3:10
THAT I MAY KNOW HIM AND THE POWER OF HIS RESURRECTION, AND MAY SHARE HIS SUFFERINGS, BECOMING LIKE HIM IN HIS DEATH . . .
2 Corinthians 3:18
AND WE ALL, WITH UNVEILED FACE, BEHOLDING THE GLORY OF THE LORD, ARE BEING CHANGED INTO HIS LIKENESS FROM ONE DEGREE OF GLORY TO ANOTHER; FOR THIS COMES FROM THE LORD WHO IS THE SPIRIT.
Conclusion: The aim of predestination as it relates to our good is that we are appointed to share the very glory of the risen Christ both morally in blameless righteousness and physically in a resurrection body of glory like his. This destiny is the "glorification" of verse 30 ("those whom he justified he glorified") and it is under way right now in all the children of God as we look into the face of Christ in the gospel and are changed from one degree of glory to another by the power of the Spirit.
4. What Is the Aim of Predestination for Christ's Glory?
God's ultimate goal in the eternally predestined plan of salvation does not terminate on humans. It terminates on the Son of God. His glory has precedence over our glory. The glory of the preeminence Christ is the ultimate goal of predestination.
FOR THOSE WHOM HE FOREKNEW HE ALSO PREDESTINED TO BE CONFORMED TO THE IMAGE OF HIS SON, IN ORDER THAT HE MIGHT BE THE FIRST-BORN AMONG MANY BRETHREN.
God appointed us to share the greatness of the Son so that the Son might be exalted as the greatest among the great.
God destined us to share Christ's glory in order that the glory of the Son might be magnified in the countless mirrors of those who are conformed to his image.
God created a second-born and a third-born and a millionth-born so that Christ might be exalted and praised and honored in the midst of a redeemed people.
Conclusion: The unspeakable wonder of predestination is that it aims at and secures the end which God must have in order to be God and the end which we must have in order to be happy—namely, the preeminent glorification of Christ in the glorification of his people.
Wednesday, July 9, 2008
unimaginable
what if tonight you went to sleep, and tomorrow you wake up and you're not You?
what if tomorrow morning you wake up, and you forget everything about yourself that you've ever known. you forget all the lessons you've learnt, memories you've kept, values you've upheld, secrets you've protected, treasures you've cherished, friends you've held dear, every last thing that made you yourself. you forget every experience that has shaped you into the person you are. you forget the sins you've committed. you're not _______, that name means nothing to you.
you have no obligations to keep, no reputation to preserve, no identity to adhere to, nothing to tie you down, to hold you back.
you see the world as if for the first time. as when a baby opens his eyes.
and you remember only one thing: that you are a perfect Christian; you are a perfect child of God.
and you live it, by His grace.
what do you think?
what if tomorrow morning you wake up, and you forget everything about yourself that you've ever known. you forget all the lessons you've learnt, memories you've kept, values you've upheld, secrets you've protected, treasures you've cherished, friends you've held dear, every last thing that made you yourself. you forget every experience that has shaped you into the person you are. you forget the sins you've committed. you're not _______, that name means nothing to you.
you have no obligations to keep, no reputation to preserve, no identity to adhere to, nothing to tie you down, to hold you back.
you see the world as if for the first time. as when a baby opens his eyes.
and you remember only one thing: that you are a perfect Christian; you are a perfect child of God.
and you live it, by His grace.
what do you think?
Wednesday, July 2, 2008
losing my wallet
i was supposed to meet my friend at mambo tonight. dressed up and all, i put my keys and phone in my left pocket and my camera in my right pocket. and if you'd asked me at that time, i'd be one hundred percent confident that i'd put my wallet in my right back pocket.
so i went downstairs to my bike, started it, and with my stuff still in my pockets, i rode off to zouk. when i reached there, i realised my right back pocket was empty. full of despair, i came to the conclusion that my wallet had slipped out along the way. i rode home to see if i'd dropped it downstairs.
along the way, i was totally fed-up. i hate losing things, and losing my wallet and all the stuff inside it sucked. i went through an erp without a cashcard. i thought, Lord, why does it have to be like that? if you don't want me to go, why make me lose my wallet?
God is the God of all the small things and all the big things.
The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
God, if i don't find my wallet, i guess i'm not going. but if i find it, then what?
why do i want to go clubbing? to dance and drink? no. to meet up with friends? yeah. but clubs are such bad places to get to know people better. what if my friend, who's a girl, starts getting interested in me? should i, supposedly seeking after God, be in a club?
i reached home and i didn't find my wallet where i usually park my bike. i thought, ah, faggots and bombs. haven't felt so pissed off in awhile. i thought, just so you know, that one hurt. that was painful. i sure hope the guy who finds it needs it more than i do.
if losing one wallet hurt so badly, how much did it hurt Jesus to think of those persons who would die without salvation.
and i went upstairs and looked in my room for my wallet. and i found it in my bag. my gosh i left home without it.
(God is good.)
so i went downstairs to my bike, started it, and with my stuff still in my pockets, i rode off to zouk. when i reached there, i realised my right back pocket was empty. full of despair, i came to the conclusion that my wallet had slipped out along the way. i rode home to see if i'd dropped it downstairs.
along the way, i was totally fed-up. i hate losing things, and losing my wallet and all the stuff inside it sucked. i went through an erp without a cashcard. i thought, Lord, why does it have to be like that? if you don't want me to go, why make me lose my wallet?
God is the God of all the small things and all the big things.
The Lord gives and the Lord takes away, blessed be the name of the Lord.
God, if i don't find my wallet, i guess i'm not going. but if i find it, then what?
why do i want to go clubbing? to dance and drink? no. to meet up with friends? yeah. but clubs are such bad places to get to know people better. what if my friend, who's a girl, starts getting interested in me? should i, supposedly seeking after God, be in a club?
i reached home and i didn't find my wallet where i usually park my bike. i thought, ah, faggots and bombs. haven't felt so pissed off in awhile. i thought, just so you know, that one hurt. that was painful. i sure hope the guy who finds it needs it more than i do.
if losing one wallet hurt so badly, how much did it hurt Jesus to think of those persons who would die without salvation.
and i went upstairs and looked in my room for my wallet. and i found it in my bag. my gosh i left home without it.
(God is good.)
Monday, June 9, 2008
personal relationships with God
fellas,
i went to visit rentze and zhenghui not so long ago (as you know, we're neighbours), and rentze asked me how i was spiritually. i said i was good, fine, praying, talking, waiting on God, etc. she asked how i talked to God and i said well, i have a conversation, sort of, i ask questions and he answers. and she asked how'd you know the answers are from God, and i said, i trust them.
and she said when i'm waiting on God, in the time i'm listening to him there's a lot of distractions and random thoughts, so it's hard to concentrate.
hmm i can't remember if there's anything else about this that we talked about.
so let's share. how do we seek after God? what's in our approach, what's in the exchange?
ian
i went to visit rentze and zhenghui not so long ago (as you know, we're neighbours), and rentze asked me how i was spiritually. i said i was good, fine, praying, talking, waiting on God, etc. she asked how i talked to God and i said well, i have a conversation, sort of, i ask questions and he answers. and she asked how'd you know the answers are from God, and i said, i trust them.
and she said when i'm waiting on God, in the time i'm listening to him there's a lot of distractions and random thoughts, so it's hard to concentrate.
hmm i can't remember if there's anything else about this that we talked about.
so let's share. how do we seek after God? what's in our approach, what's in the exchange?
ian
Thursday, May 8, 2008
Is there anything wrong with gambling?
hi, this is to elaborate on what was discussed during cg time at the previous TF, where calvin brought up the topic of betting
the following answer is taken from a study bible i have:
"In the Bible, the sacred lot was cast as a means of determining the mind of God (Lev. 16:7-10); Jon. 1:7; Acts 1:24-26). In ancient Israel it was assumed that God in control of the dice and that He would speak to His people this way. Although there is no such thing as luck and God is in control of everything, when somebody takes money that belongs to God (because everything we have belongs to God) and bets it on the turn of a roulette wheel, or a turn of a card, he is asking for trouble. He is saying by his actions, 'God, I am risking Your money and my faith on the hope that You'll "make it happen!"' When you act like that, you are putting to Lord to the test. You are tempting God, and that is a sin (Deut. 6:16; Luke 4:10-12).
"Gambling can destroy a person, becoming an obsession and a compulsion just like alcoholism. The habitual gambler ruins his family and his life, and some have stolen to get money for gambling. It can become a disease that has destroyed literally tens of thousands of people.
"The pervasiveness of gambling in our society teaches people that fame, success, and fortune are available without work or struggle. The virtues of industry, thrift, careful investment, and patience are all undermined by this vice. In their place come human greed, lust, avarice, sloth, and a live-for-the-moment mentality. How tragic to see legislatures link their budgetary futures to legalised gambling and lotteries that will undermine the very virtues their citizens need for true long-range growth and prosperity!"
the following are some email that were forwarded among cg leaders in my previous church, in light of the government announcing it was gonna go ahead with building the IRs. one of them is a mail from a cg leaer, and the first response to it is a mail from another cg leader, and the 2nd response is from the then-youth pastor. it's all very long so, if nothing else, just read the response from the youth pastor:
Mail 1:
hmm I'm not entirely sure how this goes down with you guys, but I think as an act, gambling is an activity motivated (generally speaking) by greed and self gain, materialistically speaking.
Tackling it based on a few concepts:1)Focus, 2) Love, 3)Prudence
To me, what comes to mind as 'wrong' about gambling is the fact that in general, the objective of gambling is the monetary gain itself. Gambling, then, would reflect the priorities in our hearts: Money is the most important.
Even if the idea is to 'get enough money to provide for some need', the focus is still on money--which is the wrong focus. It is indeed true that even in the workplace, this can happen, for people that do 'honest' work are sometimes as (or even more) concerned with hoarding up wealth and providing for financial needs. As Christians, however, I believe we are called to a different standard. Based on Matt 6:19 and Luke 12:16-21, I should say that Scripture warns fairly explicitly against storing up wealth for its own sake. Coupled with Matt 6:25-34 (Jesus' promise that the Lord will provide) I think Scripture urges us to release ourselves from concern about our daily needs.
I believe the difference between 'honest' work and gambling (inclusive of playing around in the stock market) is that at the workplace, you actually render a certain service to others. As Christians, this service/attitude is what our focus should be on, because that is the thing that is counted towards the 'treasures in heaven moths and rust do not destroy and thieves do not break in and steal'. At the workplace, the focus on money can be replaced by a focus on people and relationships with people, thus fulfilling the 2 greatest commandments: Loving God by loving your neighbour.
In contrast, gambling is highly individualistic; your gain comes at the expense of another's loss--there is no such thing as a win-win situation, unless both people get a winning bet (which, if I'm not mistaken, implies that the reward is shared. I imagine neither party will be too happy about that). The focus of gambling is exclusively the self, not others, as we ought to be focused on.
With regards to risk taking; I imagine that the idea of prudence is raised. Gambling leaves everything in the hands of chance--I don't think God favours the idea of tweaking the odds in our favour. While this chancy nature of gambling is part of the thrill and the high of it(and the thing that makes it so addictive), it is firstly a focus on gratifying the flesh with adrenaline charges etc, and secondly It is bad stewardship because of the extreme risk involved. It was mentioned that we would then need to define what is a 'reasonable' level of risk: I have no idea, but I know gambling falls way short of the mark. Even investing in chancy property and stock is bad stewardship. A prudent investment involves research, analysis of the market in question and taking calculated risks. Certainly there is no such thing as a 100% certainty in investments, but the element of preparation is crucial for a good (and thus prudent) investment. If there is good preparation and foresight, even if the investment fails, I think it can be considered good stewardship... I think God doesn't look at our material result, but at the heart we put into it. The preparation and thought that goes into a good investment also shows the attitude we serve God with; Reckless with what we are given materially, means reckless with what we are given in every other way.
Mail 2:
" I believe... Loving God by loving your neighbour." In contrast...The focus of gambling is exclusively the self, not others, as we ought to be focused on."
I believe that for most people - Christians, even - in the labour force, the primary motivation for waking up each morning and going to work is to earn his keep. We're called to be others-centred, yes, but whether that means we should be making our inter-personal relationships in the workplace as the focus of our careers is highly questionable.
Gambling, for many, is entertainment. Along with watching soccer, having good meals and taking long strolls along the beach, gambling is an indulgence that gratifies, admittedly, the individual. My question is: do we, as Christians, need to plan our existence around activities that focus on other people? Is it a sin to, every now and then, engage in activities that satisfy us (and only us)? I doubt it.
With regards to risk taking...Reckless with what we are given materially, means
reckless with what we are given in every other way"
As much as we'd like to believe that capital investments can be "prepared" for, the fact of the matter is that stock market fluctuations are almost entirely unpredictable. This is why people invest in mutual funds - by trading in hundreds of different companies, you lower the risk you take. My main problem with the "good stewardship" argument is this: if this is true, then it would justify a gambler that painstakingly reads up on the myriads skills and strategies of Texas Hold 'Em before going to the casino. Did he prepare extensively? Most certainly. Did he take calculated risks? Yes he did. Is it then okay for him to gamble? Just to extend this a bit further, it's interesting to note also how the top players in the annual World Poker tournament tend to be the same people though thousands take part each year, proving that poker is as much about skill, if not more, as it is luck.
Next, the problem with the "bad stewardship" argument is that it makes the assumption that people are going to wage entire fortunes and life savings on the roulette table. If I had $10,000 in the bank, and I took $10 and recklessly splurged it all in a round of poker, knowing full well before I played that chances are, I was going to lose - does this make me a bad steward of my money, considering I still have $9,990 in savings?
I admit that I'm struggling very much with this issue, because I'm not convinced that a casino is necessarily a hotbed of sin. The Anglican diocese has made a very strong stand against this, one which I'd like to support as a cell leader, but until arguments that are backed strongly by the word are made, this will continue to be a struggle for me.
Mail 3 (by the youth pastor):
hmm I'm not entirely sure how this goes down with you guys, but I think as an act, gambling is an activity motivated (generally speaking) by greed and self gain, materialistically speaking.
Good work Han Min. At least some are thinking about this. My comments about your reply though, and this in some way reflects my own thoughts, is that while most people can demonstrate that:-
1. Gambling is a stupid thing to do (per risks)
2. Gambling tends to be motivated by greed
3. Gambling can have bad consequences (directly or indirectly)
4. Gambling promotes bad character
etc. but no one has demonstrated how this is a sin. There are many stupid
things in the bible, but they are not tantamount to sin.
Take the following few verses and think about it a little:-
Deut 14:26:- "You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires. ...."
There seems to be a sense in which if you have fulfilled your responsibilities and have some extra money (read disposable income), it's really up to you how you want to spend it, even if on some risky exercise such as gambling, or risky investment.
Deut 23:20:- "You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, ...."
Here we can see that monetary gain is not intrinsically bad, except when it oppresses (in this case God's people).
Matt 25:27 (and also Luke 19:23) ".... you ought to have put my money in the bank .... I would have received my money back with interest."
It appears that the master in this parable is looking for a return on his investment, one way or another.
And just for fun, Ecc 10:19:- ".... and money is the answer to everything."
Of course, it should be pointed out that greed cannot be confined to money alone, for money is afterall just a symbolic representation for work or effort. (Marx and Adam Smith has more to say on this subject).
You may consider all those circus games where you spend 20 cents and try to win something, or the UFO picker game. Silly? Yes, but are they sins?
Concerning the issue of gain at the loss of another. I'm not sure this is such a clear issue. After all, ALL gain comes at the loss of another except in perfectly fair exchanges. For example, if the shopkeeper marks up his product by 20%, he gains 20% at the loss of another when he sells it. Is this a sin? Now suppose he decides to employ a random markup as a marketing scheme, ie. you pick the product and the computer will randomly assign a markup (or down) from -40% to 40%. If you get lucky you gain 40% at the expense of the shopkeeper. On the other hand, the shopkeeper could gain 40% at your loss. A very chancy proposition, and a gamble. Is this a sin? What about those closeout sales? The consumers are buying things below cost, ie. they gain at the loss of the shop owner. Is this sin? What about "lucky draws" where if you spend an amount, you are entitled to win something big?
To give a direction to this thought, you cannot say if something is a sin based simply on the idea of gain or loss. There are several reasons to this:-
1. You need to consider what is called fair value, which is not a fixed thing.
2. You need to consider the free choice of both parties involved in the exchange.
In a sense, this is the basis for what we call the free-market or the capitalistic system. Both parties exercise their freedom of choice in an exchange. If both agree to the risks and the value involved, then it's fair for them. When people go to the gambling table, well aware of the potential risks involved, even if the actual price is not a fixed point, but a range (from loss to gain), then they are exercising their free choice. In this case, it would be hard-pressed to argue that exploitation is involved because no one forced them to go there. The exceptions to this would be if:-
1. The odds are secretly altered (ie. cheating)
2. The person is an addict and his weakness is being exploited
So, to reiterate, I agree strongly that gambling is a stupid thing to do, but what I am looking for is what makes this stupid thing a sin.
For the record, I've never been in a casino, ever. I personally avoid all lucky draws, have never bought a lottery ticket in all my life, and never even tried the UFO picker game! I think, with Paul in 1 Tim 6:10 that "the love of money is a root or all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (NASB)
"Stupid is as stupid does" (but does that make it a sin?)
the following answer is taken from a study bible i have:
"In the Bible, the sacred lot was cast as a means of determining the mind of God (Lev. 16:7-10); Jon. 1:7; Acts 1:24-26). In ancient Israel it was assumed that God in control of the dice and that He would speak to His people this way. Although there is no such thing as luck and God is in control of everything, when somebody takes money that belongs to God (because everything we have belongs to God) and bets it on the turn of a roulette wheel, or a turn of a card, he is asking for trouble. He is saying by his actions, 'God, I am risking Your money and my faith on the hope that You'll "make it happen!"' When you act like that, you are putting to Lord to the test. You are tempting God, and that is a sin (Deut. 6:16; Luke 4:10-12).
"Gambling can destroy a person, becoming an obsession and a compulsion just like alcoholism. The habitual gambler ruins his family and his life, and some have stolen to get money for gambling. It can become a disease that has destroyed literally tens of thousands of people.
"The pervasiveness of gambling in our society teaches people that fame, success, and fortune are available without work or struggle. The virtues of industry, thrift, careful investment, and patience are all undermined by this vice. In their place come human greed, lust, avarice, sloth, and a live-for-the-moment mentality. How tragic to see legislatures link their budgetary futures to legalised gambling and lotteries that will undermine the very virtues their citizens need for true long-range growth and prosperity!"
the following are some email that were forwarded among cg leaders in my previous church, in light of the government announcing it was gonna go ahead with building the IRs. one of them is a mail from a cg leaer, and the first response to it is a mail from another cg leader, and the 2nd response is from the then-youth pastor. it's all very long so, if nothing else, just read the response from the youth pastor:
Mail 1:
hmm I'm not entirely sure how this goes down with you guys, but I think as an act, gambling is an activity motivated (generally speaking) by greed and self gain, materialistically speaking.
Tackling it based on a few concepts:1)Focus, 2) Love, 3)Prudence
To me, what comes to mind as 'wrong' about gambling is the fact that in general, the objective of gambling is the monetary gain itself. Gambling, then, would reflect the priorities in our hearts: Money is the most important.
Even if the idea is to 'get enough money to provide for some need', the focus is still on money--which is the wrong focus. It is indeed true that even in the workplace, this can happen, for people that do 'honest' work are sometimes as (or even more) concerned with hoarding up wealth and providing for financial needs. As Christians, however, I believe we are called to a different standard. Based on Matt 6:19 and Luke 12:16-21, I should say that Scripture warns fairly explicitly against storing up wealth for its own sake. Coupled with Matt 6:25-34 (Jesus' promise that the Lord will provide) I think Scripture urges us to release ourselves from concern about our daily needs.
I believe the difference between 'honest' work and gambling (inclusive of playing around in the stock market) is that at the workplace, you actually render a certain service to others. As Christians, this service/attitude is what our focus should be on, because that is the thing that is counted towards the 'treasures in heaven moths and rust do not destroy and thieves do not break in and steal'. At the workplace, the focus on money can be replaced by a focus on people and relationships with people, thus fulfilling the 2 greatest commandments: Loving God by loving your neighbour.
In contrast, gambling is highly individualistic; your gain comes at the expense of another's loss--there is no such thing as a win-win situation, unless both people get a winning bet (which, if I'm not mistaken, implies that the reward is shared. I imagine neither party will be too happy about that). The focus of gambling is exclusively the self, not others, as we ought to be focused on.
With regards to risk taking; I imagine that the idea of prudence is raised. Gambling leaves everything in the hands of chance--I don't think God favours the idea of tweaking the odds in our favour. While this chancy nature of gambling is part of the thrill and the high of it(and the thing that makes it so addictive), it is firstly a focus on gratifying the flesh with adrenaline charges etc, and secondly It is bad stewardship because of the extreme risk involved. It was mentioned that we would then need to define what is a 'reasonable' level of risk: I have no idea, but I know gambling falls way short of the mark. Even investing in chancy property and stock is bad stewardship. A prudent investment involves research, analysis of the market in question and taking calculated risks. Certainly there is no such thing as a 100% certainty in investments, but the element of preparation is crucial for a good (and thus prudent) investment. If there is good preparation and foresight, even if the investment fails, I think it can be considered good stewardship... I think God doesn't look at our material result, but at the heart we put into it. The preparation and thought that goes into a good investment also shows the attitude we serve God with; Reckless with what we are given materially, means reckless with what we are given in every other way.
Mail 2:
" I believe... Loving God by loving your neighbour." In contrast...The focus of gambling is exclusively the self, not others, as we ought to be focused on."
I believe that for most people - Christians, even - in the labour force, the primary motivation for waking up each morning and going to work is to earn his keep. We're called to be others-centred, yes, but whether that means we should be making our inter-personal relationships in the workplace as the focus of our careers is highly questionable.
Gambling, for many, is entertainment. Along with watching soccer, having good meals and taking long strolls along the beach, gambling is an indulgence that gratifies, admittedly, the individual. My question is: do we, as Christians, need to plan our existence around activities that focus on other people? Is it a sin to, every now and then, engage in activities that satisfy us (and only us)? I doubt it.
With regards to risk taking...Reckless with what we are given materially, means
reckless with what we are given in every other way"
As much as we'd like to believe that capital investments can be "prepared" for, the fact of the matter is that stock market fluctuations are almost entirely unpredictable. This is why people invest in mutual funds - by trading in hundreds of different companies, you lower the risk you take. My main problem with the "good stewardship" argument is this: if this is true, then it would justify a gambler that painstakingly reads up on the myriads skills and strategies of Texas Hold 'Em before going to the casino. Did he prepare extensively? Most certainly. Did he take calculated risks? Yes he did. Is it then okay for him to gamble? Just to extend this a bit further, it's interesting to note also how the top players in the annual World Poker tournament tend to be the same people though thousands take part each year, proving that poker is as much about skill, if not more, as it is luck.
Next, the problem with the "bad stewardship" argument is that it makes the assumption that people are going to wage entire fortunes and life savings on the roulette table. If I had $10,000 in the bank, and I took $10 and recklessly splurged it all in a round of poker, knowing full well before I played that chances are, I was going to lose - does this make me a bad steward of my money, considering I still have $9,990 in savings?
I admit that I'm struggling very much with this issue, because I'm not convinced that a casino is necessarily a hotbed of sin. The Anglican diocese has made a very strong stand against this, one which I'd like to support as a cell leader, but until arguments that are backed strongly by the word are made, this will continue to be a struggle for me.
Mail 3 (by the youth pastor):
hmm I'm not entirely sure how this goes down with you guys, but I think as an act, gambling is an activity motivated (generally speaking) by greed and self gain, materialistically speaking.
Good work Han Min. At least some are thinking about this. My comments about your reply though, and this in some way reflects my own thoughts, is that while most people can demonstrate that:-
1. Gambling is a stupid thing to do (per risks)
2. Gambling tends to be motivated by greed
3. Gambling can have bad consequences (directly or indirectly)
4. Gambling promotes bad character
etc. but no one has demonstrated how this is a sin. There are many stupid
things in the bible, but they are not tantamount to sin.
Take the following few verses and think about it a little:-
Deut 14:26:- "You may spend the money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen, or sheep, or wine, or strong drink, or whatever your heart desires. ...."
There seems to be a sense in which if you have fulfilled your responsibilities and have some extra money (read disposable income), it's really up to you how you want to spend it, even if on some risky exercise such as gambling, or risky investment.
Deut 23:20:- "You may charge interest to a foreigner, but to your countrymen you shall not charge interest, ...."
Here we can see that monetary gain is not intrinsically bad, except when it oppresses (in this case God's people).
Matt 25:27 (and also Luke 19:23) ".... you ought to have put my money in the bank .... I would have received my money back with interest."
It appears that the master in this parable is looking for a return on his investment, one way or another.
And just for fun, Ecc 10:19:- ".... and money is the answer to everything."
Of course, it should be pointed out that greed cannot be confined to money alone, for money is afterall just a symbolic representation for work or effort. (Marx and Adam Smith has more to say on this subject).
You may consider all those circus games where you spend 20 cents and try to win something, or the UFO picker game. Silly? Yes, but are they sins?
Concerning the issue of gain at the loss of another. I'm not sure this is such a clear issue. After all, ALL gain comes at the loss of another except in perfectly fair exchanges. For example, if the shopkeeper marks up his product by 20%, he gains 20% at the loss of another when he sells it. Is this a sin? Now suppose he decides to employ a random markup as a marketing scheme, ie. you pick the product and the computer will randomly assign a markup (or down) from -40% to 40%. If you get lucky you gain 40% at the expense of the shopkeeper. On the other hand, the shopkeeper could gain 40% at your loss. A very chancy proposition, and a gamble. Is this a sin? What about those closeout sales? The consumers are buying things below cost, ie. they gain at the loss of the shop owner. Is this sin? What about "lucky draws" where if you spend an amount, you are entitled to win something big?
To give a direction to this thought, you cannot say if something is a sin based simply on the idea of gain or loss. There are several reasons to this:-
1. You need to consider what is called fair value, which is not a fixed thing.
2. You need to consider the free choice of both parties involved in the exchange.
In a sense, this is the basis for what we call the free-market or the capitalistic system. Both parties exercise their freedom of choice in an exchange. If both agree to the risks and the value involved, then it's fair for them. When people go to the gambling table, well aware of the potential risks involved, even if the actual price is not a fixed point, but a range (from loss to gain), then they are exercising their free choice. In this case, it would be hard-pressed to argue that exploitation is involved because no one forced them to go there. The exceptions to this would be if:-
1. The odds are secretly altered (ie. cheating)
2. The person is an addict and his weakness is being exploited
So, to reiterate, I agree strongly that gambling is a stupid thing to do, but what I am looking for is what makes this stupid thing a sin.
For the record, I've never been in a casino, ever. I personally avoid all lucky draws, have never bought a lottery ticket in all my life, and never even tried the UFO picker game! I think, with Paul in 1 Tim 6:10 that "the love of money is a root or all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith and pierced themselves with many griefs." (NASB)
"Stupid is as stupid does" (but does that make it a sin?)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)