Moral Perfection: Possible? or Impossible?

This morning I came across a verse that I think will dovetail very well with my discussion with "Anonymous" yesterday. Its Colossians 1:9-12. This verse provides a very concise explanation of what is moral perfection. Paul provides a wonderful summary of how one is transformed from sin (selfishness) to benevolence and love.

9 For this reason we also, since the day we heard it, do not cease to pray for you, and to ask that you may be filled with the knowledge of His will in all wisdom and spiritual understanding; 10 that you may walk worthy of the Lord, fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God; 11 strengthened with all might, according to His glorious power, for all patience and longsuffering with joy; 12 giving thanks to the Father who has qualified us to be partakers of the inheritance of the saints in the light.

Let me now break down this passage a little further. First, take v9. It states that Paul is asking God to provide the Colossians with "knowledge" . But what type of knowledge? The bible is explicit in that knowledge of God and his will for mankind is what Paul calls "Real Knowledge" or also known as the "truth", the "gospel". Paul goes onto to say in v10 that as a result of this "knowledge" this will allow someone to walk in a manner worthy of the Lord. What "manner" would be pleasing unto the Lord? A life of sin? A life of constant stumbling? Paul goes on in V10 to say

"fully pleasing Him, being fruitful in every good work and increasing in the knowledge of God"

Note that Paul emphasizes EVERY GOOD WORK and FULLY PLEASING the Lord. Folks, this is not partial obedience, this is not partial surrender - but this is total surrender of OUR will and desires and taking up the will of God in our own lives. Paul goes onto to say that we will also increase in this knowledge and by doing so we will be strengthened in attaining a steadfastness (a stability in our moral perfection) that will yield patience and joy!

V12 is also a key verse whereby it states that now as a result of this transforming knowledge we are now qualified to share in the inheritance (status) of fellow saints who have also lived a life free from sin.

Let me also add another verse in Colossians that Paul furthers this point with:

21 And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled

Notice that its not our flesh that is the problem - but our minds! Our minds is where the desires to fulfill our flesh reside or originate. For example, if someone is going to shoot up heroine, they don't just wake up one day and find themselves taking a needle and shooting into their vein. No! Instead that person made decisions with their mind to fulfill or satisfy themselves (flesh) with drugs. That person made a conscious decision to go against their own conscience to do drugs. It wasn't their "flesh" that caused them to sin, but rather it was their heart that decided to violate the knowledge of their own conscience and fulfill or satiate their desires of their body.

Another similar verse to the one in Colossians is Philippians 1:9-10:

9And this I pray, that your love may abound still more and more in real knowledge and all discernment, 10 so that you may approve the things that are excellent, in order to be sincere and blameless until the day of Christ; 11 having been filled with the fruit of righteousness which comes through Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God.

Again, it is through the love and the knowledge of God's Truth that will equip us so that we may be blameless (Same as sinless) until the return of Christ. Note that it didn't say we would be blameless after we receive our new resurrection bodies - but that we should be blameless today!

One other verse I think shows how it is through the transforming of our hearts and minds that allows one to over come sin. 1 Corinthians 15:34 states

34Become sober-minded as you ought, and stop sinning; for some have no knowledge of God I speak this to your shame.

Note that it doesn't say "try to stop sinning" or "you can't stop sinning" it says very plain and clear to "STOP SINNING". Paul eludes as to why those who continue to sin do so - its because they have no knowledge of the Truth or of the Will of God!

Finally let me say this. As Christians we all know that it is God's desire that we turn away from sin. Now let me ask you this. If ceasing to sin is an impossibility why then do we even try? The reason is we all know in our heart of hearts that it is well within our ability to stop sinning. The mind will not do things it knows is humanly impossible. If I were to ask you if you could jump to the moon would you even try to do it?? Of course not! However, why is it that every true Christian I know of attempts to live everyday free from sin? Its because we all know that stopping sin within our own lives is within our ability and it is good and right that we do so.

A Response to Anonymous on "Perfection"

I decided to post a response to an “Anonymous” Blogger who left the following remarks regarding moral perfection. I will answer the majority of his/her response in a later post, but I would first like to address a few misconceptions they seem to have about sin and obedience. I think it’s important we define the terms here so we’re both working with the same definitions.

First, Anonymous stated:

“Deuteronomy 6:24-25 is a statement of this principle from the perspective that a person who keeps the law is righteous. Up until Jesus time, the bible tells us He is the only one who fulfilled the law. “

Indeed, Jesus is the only one who was able to keep or fulfill the law from cradle to grave. But this has nothing to do with man's moral ability. Jesus did not come so that you will now have the ability to keep God's Law. Man has always had within his ability to obey God. To say otherwise is just plain false and is unbiblical. First, Jesus was able to fully keep the law, not because he had the supernatural ability to do so, but out of His love for the Father, the Holy Spirit and mankind. It was through the committal of his will that he was able to overcome self, and love God supremely. Jesus was a living breathing example of how we all should live - and that is to walk as He walked, to love as He loved. So what is the missing component that we need in order to love as Jesus loved? It is not that we lack the ability, but that we lack the desire to do so, we lack the desire to change. We know from the bible that man changes once he or she receives knowledge of the Truth (“For it is the Truth that will set you free and "whatever you ask, ask for knowledge and it will be given unto you”). It is through the renewing of our minds by the truth of Jesus Christ that will transform our will from loving ourselves to loving God and others supremely. We lack not any capacity to obey, but we lack heart or motivation of the will. It is through the cross and the blood of Jesus that allows us to walk in humility and allows us to become morally perfect (I will address this further in a later post).

Let me first address a couple of points here. In regards to your comment about Deut 6:24-25 The bible is filled with “Saints” that clearly loved and obeyed God. A saint is not one who continually sins, or is still abiding in their selfishness, but lives according to the Moral Laws of God as a result of his/her's love for God. A saint is one who the bible defines as a person who is walking according to their present amount of moral knowledge and obeys the moral laws of God out of love. I especially like Luke 1:6 whereby it states:

Luk 1:5-6 There was in the days of Herod, the king of Judea, a certain priest named Zacharias, of the course of Abijah: and his wife was of the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elisabeth. (6) And they were both righteous before God, walking in all the commandments and ordinances of the Lord blameless.

Hmmmmm……interesting that Luke mentions that Elizabeth and Zacharias WALKED IN ALL THE COMMANDMENTS OF GOD & ORDINANCES OF THE LORD BLAMELESS………I would be interested in hearing how you explain this verse in the context to your statement that no one has kept the Laws or Commandments of God. This verse clearly states that the two of them were very much able to keep the moral commandments of God and did so.

There many more examples of men and women who obeyed God and were found to be righteous in the eyes of God. I suggest you look these over more thoroughly:

Noah Gen_6:9; Gen_6:22; Gen_7:5; Heb_11:7. Abraham Gen_12:1-4; Gen_17:23; Gen_21:4; Gen_22:12; Neh_9:8; Act_7:3-8; Heb_11:8-17; Jam_2:21 Bethuel and Laban Gen_24:50 Jacob Gen_35:1; Gen_35:7 Moses Num_27:12-22; Heb_3:2-3 Moses and Aaron Exo_7:6; Exo_40:16; Exo_40:21; Exo_40:23; Exo_40:32 Israelites Exo_12:28; Exo_32:25-29; Exo_39:42-43; Num_9:20-21; Deu_33:9; Jdg_2:7; Psa_99:7 Under the preaching of Haggai Hag_1:12 Caleb Deu_1:36 Joshua Jos_10:40; Jos_11:15 Reubenites Jos_22:2-3 Gideon Jdg_6:25-28 David 1Sa_18:14; 1Sa_25:28; 1Ki_11:6; 1Ki_11:34; 1Ki_15:5; 2Ch_29:2; Act_13:22 Elisha 1Ki_19:19-21 Hezekiah 2Ki_18:6; 2Ch_31:20-21; Isa_38:3 Josiah 2Ki_22:2; 2Ki_23:24-25 Asa 2Ch_14:2 –Jehoshaphat 2Ch_17:3-6; 2Ch_20:32; 2Ch_22:9 Jehoiada 2Ch_24:16 Uzziah 2Ch_26:4-5 Jotham 2Ch_27:2 Levites 2Ch_29:34 Cyrus 2Ch_36:22-23; Ezr_1:1-4 Ezra Ezr_7:10 Hanani Neh_7:2 Job Job_1:8 Daniel Dan_6:10 Three Hebrews Dan 3 Jonah Jon_3:3 Ninevites Jon_3:5-10 Zacharias Luk_1:6 Simeon Luk_2:25 Joseph Mat_1:24; Mat_2:14 John the Baptist Mat_3:15 Nathanael Joh_1:47 The disciples Joh_17:6 Cornelius Act_10:2 Paul Act_23:1; Act_26:4-5; 2Ti_1:3.

Many others were called righteous, godly, holy, or sanctified, which is synonymous with “morally perfection”. However, these do differ from Christ in that He never sinned. They did sin, but when they did so they repented and persevered in obedient faith, they were once again compliant with their moral obligation and, hence, “morally perfect”. Contrary to popular beleif
everyone does not sin! “He that is born of God does not commit sin” (I Jn.3:9)! All true Christians have repented from their sins (quit sinning) and love God supremely and thus are morally perfect (I would be curious as to how you define biblical repentance?).

Another thing, sin is not a “cancer” or something that is passed along genetically or mysteriously to our offspring. Sin is not a “thing”, but is a moral choice. God does not hold mankind accountable for the sins of our mothers or fathers (or Adam for that matter), but for our own individual actions (Ezekiel 18). As for your use of the Jewish Encyclopedia you were not as forth coming as you could have been. Here is the part you left out:

“……..Jewish theologians are divided in regard to the cause of this so-called "original sin"; some teach that it was due to Adam's yielding to temptation in eating of the forbidden fruit and has been inherited by his descendants; the majority, however, do not hold Adam responsible for the sins of mankind.”

Most Jews I know do not believe in Original Sin (in the Calvinistic sense). Its primary roots are not Jewish, but can be traced back to the Gnostics who believed evil/sin was in the “flesh” of all human beings, rather than a moral choice. It wasn’t until the teachings of Augustine, who was heavily influenced by his previous religion the Manicheans, who incorporated the belief that sin was in the physical flesh (tissue or sperm) of human beings. Judaism has for the most part always adhered to the doctrine that man has a freewill choice and requires moral accountability.

You also stated:

“The difference between the Old Testament and New Testament is that now, sin is defined against the backdrop of Jesus as the standard for righteousness. His life is the example of perfection. If you can claim that you are living as Jesus, then you can claim that you are perfect and that you have stopped sinning.”

The fallacy here is there is no difference between the OT and NT when it comes to God’s definition of sin. Sin is the willful disobendience to God. The misconception you have is that God has somehow mysteriously changed when it comes to defining sin. Nothing about God has changed from the OT to the NT – his requirements remain the same and that is for all of mankind to keep His moral law. This is the same as today as it was 4,000 years ago! It seems you view man as someone who is either unable to keep God’s Moral Law or that God's laws are unattainable and can not be kept. God’s Laws are good and whenever they have been given to mankind, man has rightfully responded that they are indeed good and just laws (Exodus 24:3!). When God commands us to “Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind” (Matt. 22:37) and “love thy neighbor as thyself” (Matt. 22:39). The moral law of God, in essence, is the law of love, love being the total and complete fulfillment of the whole of the law (Rom. 13:8, 10; Gal. 5:14; Jas. 2:8). Are you telling me that you are unable to love God fully??? Is this not the fullness of salvation? That we love God and if we love God we will keep and obey that which he loves also?? How can one Love god and therefore continue in sin?? This is an impossibility. It is like saying a man can love his wife, but yet continue to have a mistress on the side. A person who says they love God and continues to sin is a hypocrite and hypocrites will find themselves in Hell.

God's Moral Law is good and we all know that in order for a Law to be good it must be within man's grasp to adhere to it. If not then God's Law is unjust. God does not command that we love Him with faculties that we do not possess, but rather that we love Him with all that we currently possess (keyword is “currently”). The commandments are directions to man as to how he is to use his ability. The commandments of God are not impossible, demanding that we love Him with a heart, soul, mind and strength that we do not have. Rather, it is possible to keep the law of God, which demands that we love Him with all of what we do have, with all that we are capable of, to the very highest of our ability, no more and no less. It is possible to keep the law because we are capable, and we are capable because it is possible to keep the law; our God-given commandments and our God-given ability directly correspond with each other.

As for Sin and Moral Accountability ponder this. All sin is voluntary and avoidable; therefore sin must be a choice and not something we are born with. If sin is something we are “born with” then it is not voluntary, but is involuntary and therefore is not justifiably punishable. This would be like saying babies who are born with blonde hair are condemnable to hell, because they are born this way. Only that which is unavoidable is excusable, but what is inexcusable must be avoidable. If sin is punishable then it must be voluntary (a choice), and what is voluntary must be avoidable. Therefore, sin is inexcusable and punishable because sin is voluntary and avoidable, and it is voluntary and avoidable because God has given man free will. The false doctrine you have is that sin is something we are born with. If God is sending people to hell for sins they can not over come or stop committing because they do not have the ability, then God would be unjust and a tyrant! Sinners will be sent to Hell because they clearly have the ability to stop sinning, but yet they chose to remain in their in selfishness.


I would also like to address here several accusations you seem to make against me in your response:

#7: Love your enemies AND pray for them, and it can’t be that lightening strikes them. Do you love Calvinists? (Matt 5:44)

I most certainly love Calvinist (and everyone else for that matter)! As a matter of fact I would hope that every Calvinist would awaken from their false doctrine and find truth. Indeed I have been very firm at times and have even openly rebuked Calvinist over their false doctrine. But it is also commanded by God that as beleivers we openly rebuke false teachers, to do otherwise would be unloving and harmful to themselves and possible bystanders.

#8: Contentiousness is sin (Romans 2:8). Check out your answer to the person before me?

How was my previous response “Contentiousness”?? I think you need to understand the context here and what Paul means by “Contentiousness”. The context here does not mean we as Christians are not to argue or to not vigorously defend our faith. How were my comments to the previous post “contentious”?? Look at my comments and I even placed a smiley face after my comment so that it would not be taken out of context. Or maybe your just trying to find fault with me here??

#9: Judging others is sin (Matt 7:1)

Really!!??? What exactly are you doing in your response back to me - judging??? Are you not judging me and my doctrine??? Besides, where does it exactly say that to judge others is a sin?? It is indeed a sin to judge others unrighteously (hypocritically), but no where in the bible does it say it is a sin to judge?. When Jesus said “Judge not lest ye be judged” this is a warning that when we judge others we too will be judged to the same standard, so that in the event we do judge we are to be certain we don’t have sin in our own lives. Jesus calls us to judge – but to judge rightly (Luke 12:56-57, Rom 2:1) Christ does not condemn judging in a judicial sense, nor does he condemn our “opinion” of the conduct of others, for it is impossible “not” to form an opinion of conduct that we know to be evil or deceptive (ie. false doctrine).

# 11: You have to tame your tongue, according to James no man can do it (James 3:8)

James is not saying taming the tongue is an impossibility. Here he is using hyperbole to get his point across. If you read further to James 4 he clearly give us the answer as to how man can tame his tongue:

Jas 4:7-10 Therefore, submit yourselves to God. Resist the devil, and he will run away from you. (8) Come close to God, and he will come close to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. (9) Be miserable, mourn, and cry. Let your laughter be turned into mourning, and your joy into gloom. (10) Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will exalt you.

12: The very act of claiming to be sinless is a sin in itself, as this Scripture so ably demonstrates. A person claiming not to have sin deceives himself or herself, and in effect calls Christ a liar. I John 1:10

Again, you have taken this verse out of context. John is addressing individuals (primarily the Jews) who made the claim that they didn;t need to be saved because they were without sin. They had not fully submitted to Christ, they were lying about their rebellious condition. This verse is not addressing Christians, but non-beleivers. If you read further on in 1 John 3 he states:

1Jn 3:8-10 The person who practices sin belongs to the evil one, because the devil has been sinning since the beginning. The reason that the Son of God was revealed was to destroy the works of the devil. (9) No one who has been born from God practices sin, because God's seed abides in him. Indeed, he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born from God. (10) This is how God's children and the devil's children are distinguished. No person who fails to practice righteousness and to love his brother is from God.

Again, I hope to address the remaining topic of "Perfection" in an upcoming post shortly. In the meantime I would like to say to Anonymous that I find it somewhat disturbing that a so called Christ Follower is defending Sinning more so than "holiness" or "righteousness", but then again its hard to defend holiness when you see man as being morally incapable or that God requires the impossible from mankind (the keeping of His laws) and that God will send mankind to hell for doing that which he is unable to do.

Its OK Ray (Boltz) to be Gay, John Calvin says it just your DNA!

Many of you may have heard by now the news that “former” Christian artist Ray Boltz publically announced he is a homosexual. But what many may have not heard was the reasoning that Ray gave as to why he feels he is justified in living this sinful lifestyle. In a Pro-Homosexual newspaper called the “The Washington Blade”, Boltz said the following:

“If this is the way God made me, then this is the way I’m going to live. It’s not like God made me this way and he’ll send me to hell if I am who he created me to be … I really feel closer to God because I no longer hate myself.”

The sad thing is Ray is simply coming to the logical conclusion that his theology has probably brought him to. The doctrine of Original Sin is taught in a majority of Christian denominations these days. Even those denominations that don’t even considered themselves Reformed or Calvinistic hold to this theological myth that sin is something your born with rather than a moral choice.

Why then are so many Christians so upset or sadden that Ray Boltz is a homosexual? Why is it when it comes to this particular sin we don’t hear all the lame excuses we usually hear from Calvinist and others such as:

"Who are we to judge, were all sinners”
"We sin in word, thought and deed everyday"
"Nobodies perfect"
"We are only human"
"You can't stop sinning"
"We have a sinful nature"
"God's law is impossible to keep"

I can’t help but think how hypocritical those folks must sound right now as they tell Ray he must “Repent”. In my opinion, this is one of the problem with most churches theology these days – is it’s logically inconsistent and hypocritical. When it comes to so called “mortal sins” – those sins that fall into the “biggie size” of sins – homosexuality, pedophilia, adultery, murder, etc. it seems then and only then the church seems to take issue with. I typically think this is not done so for moral or spiritual reasons, but that these sins are so heinous most churches are afraid of the bad PR these sins might bring to that particular church. This reminds me of a leader at a church we used to attend who once told me that we (Christians) all “sin in word thought and deed everyday”, and that “all sin is sin”. But yet when it was discovered someone in the church “choir” had committed a horrible “mortal” sin, this leader was the first to have that person quietly removed from their position. I thought it was such hypocrisy. Here was this same leader who loved to go around touting that “we all sin everyday”, but yet when a rather hideous sin was committed by a fellow member of the church this was also the first person to ask them to step down – in “secret” nonetheless. For me I felt like asking this leader– “Remember when you said we as “Christian’s” sin everyday? So why then are you making such a big deal of this particular person’s sin? If Christians are “sinning everyday” why then would you discipline or shun this person from your church - aren’t they simply behaving as you’ve stated all along??

Personally, I think we are starting to see the impact of years and years of this doctrine being preached and why many of our churches are filled with nothing more than reformed pagans. Most of the attitude towards sin in our churches is apathetic and weak – and much of this attitude stems from this very theology that says “Men can’t help but sin”, "that sin is not a choice" and that even as Christians we are still expected to sin everyday. I don’t know about you, but I never have once read in the Bible of a “Sinning Saint” or someone who is “Sinfully Righteous” or of “Benevolent Demon”. Any 2nd grader could tell you this is not so! But yet isn’t this the doctrine of most churches these days? We tell people that they are a victim of sin rather than a criminal and a rebel towards God?

In some respects Ray Boltz is trying to live consistent with his theology. Clearly he believes that God has created him to be a homosexual. So how does this really differ from the doctrine that is preached in our churches day in and day out? If Ray was born sinful, then how is this any different than saying Ray was born Gay? If you hold to the doctrine of Original Sin and Total Depravity you must surely answer yes! However, if Homosexuality is a sin and it was something he was born with, it would be unjust for God to send Ray to Hell for all eternity for simply being the very person God created him to be! I must say one thing about Ray Boltz, and that is it seems to me he can not come to rationalize how a loving God who created him to be born sinful (ie Gay), could also be the same God who would send Him to eternal hell and torment, for simply being that which God created him to be. The problem is Ray has believed into a lie that the sins he has committed and continue to commit are something outside of his control and therefore are not his responsibility but rather God’s responsibility. This is why it is crucial we tell others within our community and our churches not to be deceived into believing such a false and destructive doctrine such as Original Sin and Total Depravity. As you can see the damage that can come from this theology is devastating.

Instead, I believe if Ray Boltz does not repent and is not reconciled back unto God, he will someday stand before a righteous and loving God and be found guilty and be sent to Hell for all eternity– not for being born gay or for being born sinful – but rather for willfully choosing to disobey God and fulfill the pleasures of his flesh. The tragedy of Ray’s sin, as well as anyone else’s sin for that matter, is we have chosen to go astray. Sin is not some ill-fated behavior that God has ordained, nor is it some sin filled birth defect, but rather the real travesty of sin, is we have all chosen to go our own way and forsake the love and wisdom of the Lord. I pray that Ray Boltz will soon repent and be reconciled to God. But if he does not, then it is he who is guilty and his guilt and sins will remain.

Pro 14:14 The backslider in heart shall be filled with his own ways; And a good man shall be satisfied from himself.

Just Ask A Calvinist!

The other day I was listening to the new Blog Radio Show: Refining Fire by Jesse Morrell and Kerrigan Skelly. During last week's show Kerrigan brought up what I thought was a great line of questioning for a Calvinist. Here is what he had to say:

First, ask a Calvinist "Do you believe in freewill?" Most will say "Yes, they believe in Freewill".

Then ask them "Does God hate sin?", they should most rightly answer "Oh Yes, God most definitely hates sin".

The ask them "Does God Command you to stop sinning", and they should rightly answer "Oh Yes God commands us to stop sinning".

Then ask them "Does God allow you to be tempted beyond that which you can handle (1 Cor 10:13)?", they should agree that God does not allow a person to be tempted beyond that which they can handle.

Then ask them "Can YOU do ALL things through Christ Jesus (Phil 4:13)?", and they should rightly answer "Oh yes we can do all things through Christ Jesus".

And then ask them "Do they believe they can Stop Sinning?" Most will respond that no one can live holy as they have a "Sin Nature" and that sin resides within our flesh and until the flesh has been eliminated or we are given a "new Nature" upon or after death, it is only then we can truly live beyond sin. Most will say that we sin daily and commit "countless" number of sins within a day - as Christians no less! (I recall a Calvinist tell me one day at our small group that he had sinned even before he got up out of bed that day"!)

But yet the bible says nothing about man being cursed with a "Sin Nature" or that sin is in the "flesh". Sin is a moral choice and is a condition of a persons heart and will. If sin is something we are "born with" then this would be like saying a man should be punished or sentenced to eternal hell for the color of their skin or the color of their eyes! This would be unjust for God to sentence people to eternal Hell for that which they could not choose. Sin is a condition of the heart - it is our hearts and our will that needs to be renewed through REPENTANCE and FAITH. A changing of the heart and mind from loving ourselves to loving God! Sin is a choice!

Besides, doesn't it seem odd that a Calvinist would agree that God hates sin, commands us to not to sin, that we are never tempted beyond that which we can handle, and that we can do ALL things through Christ Jesus but yet we can't still can't seem to stop sinning for one day? This friends is a contradiction of the highest degree! It is no wonder our churches are filled with men and women who believe it is acceptable and even expected that Christians should sin. What hypocrisy and what deceit these Calvinist preach!

Tainted Funds: How the Church can use Evil so that Good May Come of it!

Recently, Pastor Bert Crabbe of the True North Community Church in Port Jefferson Station, New York, had a church member win $3 million in the lottery and he decided to give it all to the church. The man wished to remain anonymous, but he won his big prize by scratching off the “Ba Da Bling” lottery ticket. This story has made it around the Christian blogosphere and you can see what some are saying here and here.

From this dilemma Christians have been discussing "Should a Church or Christian Organization take such funds from a organization that destroys lives or causes people to sin?". First, let me say that most of the comments I've read seems to support the idea that the Church should take something from bad and use it for good. Although this seems to be a valid idea on the surface, one must keep in mind that God is not so much concerned about promoting outward benevolence, but rather what effect will this have on the motivation of peoples hearts. In addition, I think many have taken a Robin Hood like approach on this subject and that is take from the bad (gamblers) and give to the "good". I think we need to turn to the Scriptures in order to get some guidance on this matter................

Romans 14:13-15 Therefore let us stop passing judgment on one another. Instead, make up your mind not to put any stumbling block or obstacle in your brother's way. As one who is in the Lord Jesus, I am fully convinced that no food is unclean in itself. But if anyone regards something as unclean, then for him it is unclean. If your brother is distressed because of what you eat, you are no longer acting in love. Do not by your eating destroy your brother for whom Christ died.

I Corinthians 8:9-13 Be careful, however, that the exercise of your freedom does not become a stumbling block to the weak. For if anyone with a weak conscience sees you who have this knowledge eating in an idol's temple, won't he be emboldened to eat what has been sacrificed to idols? So this weak brother, for whom Christ died, is destroyed by your knowledge. When you sin against your brothers in this way and wound their weak conscience, you sin against Christ. Therefore, if what I eat causes my brother to fall into sin, I will never eat meat again, so that I will not cause him to fall.

I would like to point out one very interesting point. Paul says in Corinthians that people watch us and if they see us doing something that they wouldn’t necessarily do, they will become “emboldened” and do what we are doing. We see that God is concerned about how we might be perceived by others (i.e. Non-believers) and that our actions might have influence on the attitudes or behaviors of others. This reminds me of a parent or an adult who drinks or smokes and then tells their children - "don't do what I do". Its the old adage - "Do as I say and not as I do". Sadly, this comes off as being hypocritical and it weakens our influence and reputation as Christ followers.

I realize some might say that taking the money as the end result of gambling is not the same as someone gambling themselves, but we must consider that gambling may be fine for some, but what happens to the person, who sees us (the church) taking and accepting this money and then becomes emboldened, tries it and becomes addicted? Could our acceptance of this money not possibly cause someone to think "Hey those Christians don't have such hard time with gambling after all". Have we not sinned against God and that person?

From these verses I think that we can extract a very good practice for all Christians. Even if an activity is acceptable before God, this isn’t the end of the question. If others weaker than ourselves are caught up into something as a result of our actions and they are in the end destroyed, we have sinned against them and God. Therefore, while the act wasn’t maybe a sin in itself, how we exercised our freedom in Christ was, and we sinned. This is a very serious thing indeed and one that we as Christians must be very aware. Now if God is concerned that our dietary habits might possibly cause someone to morally stumble - then don't we think gambling or the acceptance of the funds from gambling might also be of even a greater concern?

Let me also give another example, would it be alright for the church to take money from the windfall profits made by an abortion clinic or Planned Parenthood? Would the church be OK with accepting money donated from the pornography industry? What if a convicted pedophile wanted to give a $100,000 dollars to a Christian orphanage? I think even many in secular society would have problems with these types of ethical situations. But yet why is it our churches and Christians blogging in the blogosphere seem to take little if any issue with all of this? It would seem to me that by accepting these funds the church could be construed by society as being accepting of these immoral issues.

Granted I've read folks saying "what if a stripper or a thief gave funds to the church, who are we to say we shouldn't take these funds?". But let me ask you this - what if that stripper or drug dealer or thief is giving to the church so he can quiet his or her conscience from their lifestyle of sin?! As a church accepting funds from such persons and turning a blind eye or by not rejecting such behavior, are we not actually contributing to that person's moral downfall? By accepting these tainted funds are we not allowing that person to slip further and further in rebellion and allowing them to quiet their conscience?? What if we caused only one person to sin as a result of accepting these funds would we be OK with that? Is the sins of one really worth any amount of money?

Secondly, God states clearly in his word that we are not to do evil so that good will come of it (Rom 3:8). But I can't help but think that's the attitude of many who have stated that they would accept this money, money that has destroyed countless lives, money that has ruined families and marriages as a result of gambling and now we as Christians want to take that which has resulted in evil and do good with it? Are we not using evil so in hopes to do good??

Finally, as Christians would it not be better to take the route Paul has put forth for us all:

Eph 5:1-5 Be ye therefore imitators of God, as beloved children; (2) and walk in love, even as Christ also loved you, and gave himself up for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for an odor of a sweet smell. (3) But fornication, and all uncleanness, or covetousness, let it not even be named (hint) among you, as becometh saints; (4) nor filthiness, nor foolish talking, or jesting, which are not befitting: but rather giving of thanks. (5) For this ye know of a surety, that no fornicator, nor unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, hath any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

As Christians we should not even have a HINT of sin among us. But yet why does it seem so many don't seem to take issue with this? Why is it we seem to think that we can take such "blood" money and use it for good? Where is our faith that God will provide - and provide through a better means than gambling profits? Is not our God greater than that? I think churches who are all too willing to jump up and say "well take that kind of donation" is a church that is seeking the approval of men, rather than of God and are not truly thinking beyond themselves.

Side note: I noticed many so called Christians on these blogs have tried to justify gambling by saying its the same as a 401K or the stock market - I have news for you its not!

When you invest in businesses that produce products, you are supplying much needed capital so that they can expand and maintain operations. This in turn will produce an increase in your investment if the company is managed correctly. The goal here is that you have a realistic expectation that the company will succeed. Either you or your funds manager will take the time to research the company to make sure that their business plans are sound and that the risk you take is minimized. Is this the case with gambling? Surely everyone knows that the odds are in the favor of the house. They will not lose money. Yes someone will win some, but at the end of the day, the house will always turn a profit, and a very big one at that. Basically, anyone who views Las Vegas as an investment opportunity is completely diluted at best, and an utter fool at worst.

But some may say that the only reason to invest in the stock market is for money so isn’t the underlying motivation the same? The answer as I see it is no. Investing is a long term approach that will provide fruit over time. You are helping some company succeed in their business which is producing products that people need and want. The overall impact to society by investing in stocks is good. Due diligence and patience is required. Gambling is a rush, a quick fix, and a “trill”. Gambling is not prudent or a wise choice of investment strategies. The casinos are not producing anything useful for society. They don’t even have a product. Their product is the illusion of quick riches.

The Bible speaks of investing in positive terms.

Luke 19:22-23 His master replied, 'I will judge you by your own words, you wicked servant! You knew, did you, that I am a hard man, taking out what I did not put in, and reaping what I did not sow? Why then didn't you put my money on deposit, so that when I came back, I could have collected it with interest?

Matthew 25:26-27 His master replied, 'You wicked, lazy servant! So you knew that I harvest where I have not sown and gather where I have not scattered seed? Well then, you should have put my money on deposit with the bankers, so that when I returned I would have received it back with interest.

Does anyone think that the Master would have been congratulatory of one of his servants if he come back empty handed having lost everything shooting dice? Or how about he doubled the Master’s money by rolling sevens? Do you think that the master would have considered this a reckless gamble? I think so, but then again, the reader may have a different view.

New Discovery in Open Thiesm and Church History

I thought I would pass along this article from Greg Boyd's Blog regarding some recent discoveries in the area of Open Theism! This is exciting news, as most critics of Open Theism claim it is historically baseless. I highly recommend you read this article. You can find it here.

A Test - How Would You Score?

How would you answer the following test?

T F 1. A good description of a Christian is a "Sinner" saved by Grace?

T F 2. You can sin and not know it?

T F 3. It is normal for Christians to sin everyday?

T F 4. A bad thought is sin?

T F 5. It is easier for a Christian to sin than to do right?

T F 6. The closer we get to Christ, the less we will be tempted?

T F 7. We get closer to Christ through actions of righteousness?

T F 8. Sainthood is attained by only a few Christians?

T F 9. To be tempted is a sign of sinfulness?

10. How many sins have you committed today (You may have to approximate)

11. How many acts of righteousness have you committed today?

12. How righteous is Jesus Christ on a scale of one to hundred?

13. How righteous are you on a scale of one to hundred?


See my later post for the "Answers".