Casting lots- yea or nay

Richard King · #1 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 10:04 AM

It seems that Judas had his spot filled after followers of Christ cast lots.

Acts 1:21-26

What are your views regarding the Bible's teaching concerning casting lots?
Pro or Con?
Or ...toss up?

**KMK** · #2 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 10:10 AM

Are you asking if this practice condones gambling?

ewenlin · #3 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 10:14 AM

Are you suggesting the possibility of casting lots as a way of discerning certain matters pertaining to the will of the Lord?

Richard King · #4 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 10:17 AM

No Ken, I guess I was wondering if anyone thought God's will could be revealed in such a way.
If you use scripture you might think that at first.

I should have used the search feature on Puritan Board before posting. It seems this was discussed in 2004, 2005 and as recent as April of this year.
There are many takes on this. Like I say, I should have checked first. But if anyone else has a thought to contribute I would be interested in hearing it. The issue was mentioned this morning at a breakfast prayer group. I think the consensus was putting out a fleece or casting lots was done before Pentecost and the Holy Spirit's work in the body. That raises continual revelation issues I suppose.

I guess a better or more useful question might be how much time to spend on that part of Acts Chapter 1 if you are teaching a Bible study.

busdriver72 · #5 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 05:37 PM

Roll the dice...
7 means yes
11 means no
See? easy.

strangecharm · #6 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 05:55 PM

That means that you have a 1 in 6 chance of a yes and a 1 in 18 chance of a no....

What of snake eyes?

**KMK** · #7 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 06:01 PM

If the lot does not reveal God's will, whose will does it reveal? Chance?

Kevin · #8 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 08:35 PM

Ask me later.

Who knows?

Signs look good.

Whitefield · #9 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

If the lot does not reveal God's will, whose will does it reveal? Chance?

Perhaps just a function of force of the thrower and friction of the surface.

smhbbag · #10 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 10:01 PM

I'm going to go with 'yea.'

I certainly would not say it's prescribed, but neither do I think it's prohibited....as long as it is applied within certain, definable situations.

If the decision involves options in front of you that are of equal goodness Biblically, and equal in your own mind as far as practical wisdom, I would feel free to cast lots (or dice, etc.).

This criteria can apply to huge situations (choice between two careers) or small (what to have for lunch).

But it is terribly important that, before the the lots are cast,, you are sure of a few things: 1) The issue is small and insignificant in every way (like a meal) or if it is big....2) You are genuinely indifferent and/or indecisive after seriously considering all Biblical and practical wisdom, and regardless of how the lots come out, you will not be taking an action whose morality is in doubt in your mind (whatever is not from faith is sin).

***Contra_Mundum*** · #11 (**permalink**) 09-02-2009, 10:58 PM

Remember that the "lot" was not just "the short straw" in Scripture, but was a form of special revelation.

"Those former ways having now ceased..."

That said, there may well be some occasions today when one says, in effect, I will literally let Providence choose between two (or more) options for me--hopefully truly indifferent. Still may not be the best way to make a decision, but it is A way of choosing. Just don't confuse it with a strictly biblical "lot."

Rogerant · #12 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 12:03 AM

Yes the apostles drew lots to fill in the office for Judas. The lot fell onto Matthias. We never hear about him again. But God calls Saul to fill the position. The other apostles then recognize his calling and basically ordain him.

Calling does not come by lot.

Kings Bro · #13 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogerant

Yes the apostles drew lots to fill in the office for Judas. The lot fell onto Matthias. We never hear about him again. But God calls Saul to fill the position. The other apostles then recognize his calling and basically ordain him.

Calling does not come by lot.

I have heard that argument before but I think it is a very weak argument because you don't hear from multiple other apostles either. How do you explain this verse:

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

**KMK** · #14 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 01:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kings Bro

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogerant

Yes the apostles drew lots to fill in the office for Judas. The lot fell onto Matthias. We never hear about him again. But God calls Saul to fill the position. The other apostles then recognize his calling and basically ordain him.

Calling does not come by lot.

I have heard that argument before but I think it is a very weak argument because you don't hear from multiple other apostles either. How do you explain this verse:

Pro 16:33 The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.

Welcome brother! Please click on the words 'Signature Requirements' under my signature to find out how to fix yours.

I think what the Psalmist is saying is that from our perspective things may look like chance happenings, but from a heavenly perspective all things are by His providence.

kevin.carroll · #15 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rogerant

Yes the apostles drew lots to fill in the office for Judas. The lot fell onto Matthias. We never hear about him again. But God calls Saul to fill the position. The other apostles then recognize his calling and basically ordain him.

Calling does not come by lot.

True, but the Apostolic work was the tail end of the special revelation of Christ in the Incarnation.

AThornquist · #16 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 02:22 AM

I don't know if it's biblical or accurate, so I vote "nay." Even if it is described, it's not prescribed; thus, I'll probably stick with other methods.

However, this reminds me of when John Wesley cast lots to know if it was God's will for Whitefield to minister in America. The result of casting lots clearly said that it was not God's will and that Whitefield would gather no harvest from his labors. Considering the amazing ways the Lord used Whitefield in America after Wesley cast lots, I literally laugh out loud at how wrong Wesley's answer was.

ewenlin · #17 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 05:13 AM

Now Andrew, we all know how great a theologian Wesley was don't we.

Whitefield · #18 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AThornquist

I don't know if it's biblical or accurate, so I vote "nay." Even if it is described, it's not prescribed; thus, I'll probably stick with other methods.

However, this reminds me of when John Wesley cast lots to know if it was God's will for Whitefield to minister in America. The result of casting lots clearly said that it was not God's will and that Whitefield would gather no harvest from his labors. Considering the amazing ways the Lord used Whitefield in America after Wesley cast lots, I literally laugh out loud at how wrong Wesley's answer was.

What is your historical source for this? I am only aware of Wesley drawing a lot to decide whether or not to preach an Arminian free-will sermon at the Calvinistic Methodist church in Bristol which Whitefield had planted and pastored, and which Whitefield asked Wesley to superintend while he was absent. See here.

busdriver72 · #19 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 09:54 AM

Quote:

That means that you have a 1 in 6 chance of a yes and a 1 in 18 chance of a no....

What of snake eyes?

Ya just had to go and complicate things, didn't ya?

kevin.carroll · #20 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by busdriver72

Quote:

That means that you have a 1 in 6 chance of a yes and a 1 in 18 chance of a no....

What of snake eyes?

Ya just had to go and complicate things, didn't ya?

1 in 36 right? Probability = x(y), yes?

busdriver72 · #21 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 11:45 AM

Sounds good to me.......I think.....

Richard King · #22 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 02:33 PM

So if I am hearing most of you correctly...
casting lots to make a decision could be dicey?

C. M. Sheffield · #23 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard King

So if I am hearing most of you correctly...
casting lots to make a decision could be dicey?

Ha Ha! DICEY! Get it?!

AThornquist · #24 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Whitefield

What is your historical source for this? I am only aware of Wesley drawing a lot to decide whether or not to preach an Arminian free-will sermon at the Calvinistic Methodist church in Bristol which Whitefield had planted and pastored, and which Whitefield asked Wesley to superintend while he was absent. See here.

Just looked it up in the biography I read it in (Forgotten Founding Father - The Heroic Legacy of George Whitefield) and for that passage, which after reading it again only cites Wesley as saying that it was God's will for Whitefield to "return to London," the citation is from Belden's George Whitefield - The Awakener, 43. However, there is a letter from Whitefield to Wesley that addresses this directly and indicates the folly of Wesley's casting lots in three ways, 1) in testing God, 2) receiving the wrong answer about God's will for Whitefield in Amerca, and 3) receiving the wrong answer about what true doctrine is by casting lots. Wesley and some of his friends believed universal redemption because that was "revealed" to be the truth by casting lots. Here are Whitefield's words found at Whitefield to Wesley:

Quote:

The morning I sailed from Deal for Gibraltar [2 February 1738], you arrived from Georgia. Instead of giving me an opportunity to converse with you, though the ship was not far off the shore, you drew a lot, and immediately set forward to London. You left a letter behind you, in which were words to this effect: "When I saw [that] God, by the wind which was carrying you out, brought me in, I asked counsel of God. His answer you have enclosed." This was a piece of paper, in which were written these words, "Let him return to London."
When I received this, I was somewhat surprised. Here was a good man telling me he had cast a lot, and that God would have me return to London. On the other hand, I knew my call was to Georgia, and that I had taken leave of London, and could not justly go from the soldiers, who were committed to my charge. I betook myself with a friend to prayer. That passage in 1 Kings 13 was powerfully impressed upon my soul, where we are told that the Prophet was slain by a lion when he was tempted to go back (contrary to God's express order) upon another Prophet's telling him God would have him do so. I wrote you word that I could not return to London. We sailed immediately.
Some months after, I received a letter from you at Georgia, wherein you wrote words to this effect: "Though God never before gave me a wrong lot, yet, perhaps, he suffered me to have such a lot at that time, to try what was in your heart." I should never have published this private transaction to the world, did not the glory of God call me to it. It is plain you had a wrong lot given you here, and justly, because you tempted God in drawing one. And thus I believe it is in the present case. And if so, let not the children of God who are mine and your intimate friends, and also advocates for universal redemption, think that doctrine true—because you preached it up in compliance with a lot given out from God.

Emphasis mine.

I apologize for wrongly saying that Wesley received word from God that Whitefield would not gather any fruit from the spiritual harvest - he did not say this, as far as I know. From my memory bank that is what I recalled, though he in fact only said that it was God's will for Whitefield to not preach in America but return to London. No "reasons" from God were given.

Fortunately, my point in this was only to say why I don't trust casting lots, which Whitefield still demonstrates himself in his letter to Wesley.

busdriver72 · #25 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 03:41 PM

How about these?

Seem pretty clear to me.

Richard King · #26 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 04:49 PM

YES or ON?

I am so confused.

Augusta · #27 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 04:56 PM

tcalbrecht · #28 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 04:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

If the lot does not reveal God's will, whose will does it reveal? Chance?

Isn't that begging the question? You must first demonstrate that is it God's will to always reveal His will to us via the lot wherever and however we choose. No?

Augusta · #29 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

If the lot does not reveal God's will, whose will does it reveal? Chance?

Isn't that begging the question. You must first demonstrate that is it God's will to always reveal His will to us via the lot wherever and however we choose. No?

I think he is going from the truth that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. The Puritans thought that even playing a game that used dice like Monopoly was testing God. He ordains how they will fall each time, and you are appealing to him each time you throw them.

tcalbrecht · #30 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augusta

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally Posted by KMK

If the lot does not reveal God's will, whose will does it reveal? Chance?

Isn't that begging the question. You must first demonstrate that is it God's will to always reveal His will to us via the lot wherever and however we choose. No?

I think he is going from the truth that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. The Puritans thought that even playing a game that used dice like Monopoly was testing God. He ordains how they will fall each time, and you are appealing to him each time you throw them.

But playing Monopoly or poker does not reveal God's will pe se even if He ordains the outcome of each roll/deal.

Augusta · #31 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 05:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augusta

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Isn't that begging the question. You must first demonstrate that is it God's will to always reveal His will to us via the lot wherever and however we choose. No?

I think he is going from the truth that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. The Puritans thought that even playing a game that used dice like Monopoly was testing God. He ordains how they will fall each time, and you are appealing to him each time you throw them.

But playing Monopoly or poker does not reveal God's will pe se even if He ordains the outcome of each roll/deal.

Doesn't it? If he ordains whatsoever comes to pass and you roll the dice and win a game, did he not ordain that you should?

tcalbrecht · #32 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augusta

Quote:

Originally Posted by tcalbrecht

Quote:

Originally Posted by Augusta

I think he is going from the truth that God ordains whatsoever comes to pass. The Puritans thought that even playing a game that used dice like Monopoly was testing God. He ordains how they will fall each time, and you are appealing to him each time you throw them.

But playing Monopoly or poker does not reveal God's will pe se even if He ordains the outcome of each roll/deal.

Doesn't it? If he ordains whatsoever comes to pass and you roll the dice and win a game, did he not ordain that you should?

I believe the idea in the OP was more along the lines of, let's play a game of monopoly and if I win I'll buy a new car and if you win I won't. That's how I'll know God's will as to whether or not I should buy a new car. (Playing monopoly is just a sophisticated form of casting the lot. OK, I know there is some skill involved. Bear with me.)

The idea of knowing God's will has to do with situations before the fact, e.g., who should be the newest apostle, Matthias or Joseph? Not after the fact; what exactly do you know about God’s will if you pick five cards “at random” and they all come up hearts?

There seems to be a qualitative difference of several orders of magnitude between the two scenarios.

busdriver72 · #33 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 06:12 PM

Quote:

YES or ON?

Skyler · #34 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 06:39 PM

I often flip a coin to make a difficult decision. When all other factors seem equal, I flip a coin--either physically or mentally.

I do think it's a way to determine God's will, and that there's Biblical precedent. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

So... heads it's fine, tails it's sin:

**py3ak** · #35 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyler

I often flip a coin to make a difficult decision. When all other factors seem equal, I flip a coin--either physically or mentally.

I do think it's a way to determine God's will, and that there's Biblical precedent. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

So... heads it's fine, tails it's sin:

But if what if heads it's sin, tails it's fine?

Skyler · #36 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyler

I often flip a coin to make a difficult decision. When all other factors seem equal, I flip a coin--either physically or mentally.

I do think it's a way to determine God's will, and that there's Biblical precedent. I wouldn't have a problem with it.

So... heads it's fine, tails it's sin:

But if what if heads it's sin, tails it's fine?

It's not. It's as easy as that.

**py3ak** · #37 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:10 PM

Why do you get to call it?

AThornquist · #38 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skyler

It's not. It's as easy as that.

Oops. I meant to hit "Quote," not "Thanks." This sentence is . . . interesting. How can you say this with such confidence? Note, I ask this with true curiosity.

tcalbrecht · #39 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by py3ak

Why do you get to call it?

God's will.

mvdm · #40 (**permalink**) 09-03-2009, 11:16 PM

When my former church introduced lots for the choosing of officebearers, they reasoned that it removed men's prejudices and left it purely to God's choosing.

I asked that if they really believed that, then why didn't they just cast lots on approving the church budget. If the the lot was negative, well, the council will have to revise the budget and try it again. If the lot continued to come up negative, it must mean God wanted them to close the church.

I see no evidence to suggest other than the lot was an extraordinary occasion, not NORMATIVE for the church. God ordinarily uses men and their God-given faculties to accomplish his purposes.