# Casting lots- yea or nay



## Richard King

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

Are you asking if this practice condones gambling?


----------



## ewenlin

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


----------



## Richard King

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

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


----------



## strangecharm

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

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


----------



## Kevin

Ask me later.

Who knows?

Signs look good.


----------



## Whitefield

KMK said:


> 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

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

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

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

Rogerant said:


> 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

Kings brother said:


> Rogerant said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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

Rogerant said:


> 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

I don't know if it's biblical or accurate, so I vote "nay." Even if it is described, it's not _pre_scribed; 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

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


----------



## Whitefield

AThornquist said:


> I don't know if it's biblical or accurate, so I vote "nay." Even if it is described, it's not _pre_scribed; 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

> 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

busdriver72 said:


> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## busdriver72

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


----------



## Richard King

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


----------



## C. M. Sheffield

Richard King said:


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



Ha Ha! DICEY! Get it?!


----------



## AThornquist

Whitefield said:


> 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:



> *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

How about these?







Seem pretty clear to me.


----------



## Richard King

YES or ON?

I am so confused.


----------



## Augusta




----------



## tcalbrecht

KMK said:


> 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

tcalbrecht said:


> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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

Augusta said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> KMK said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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.
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Augusta

tcalbrecht said:


> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But playing Monopoly or poker does not reveal God's will pe se even if He ordains the outcome of each roll/deal.
Click to expand...


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

Augusta said:


> tcalbrecht said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Augusta said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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

> YES or ON?


----------



## 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:


----------



## py3ak

Skyler said:


> 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

py3ak said:


> Skyler said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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?
Click to expand...


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


----------



## py3ak

Why do you get to call it?


----------



## AThornquist

Skyler said:


> 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

py3ak said:


> Why do you get to call it?



God's will.


----------



## mvdm

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.


----------



## Glenn Ferrell

What do we make of WLC:

*Q. 112. What is required in the third commandment?
A. *The third commandment requires, that the name of God, his titles, attributes, ordinances, the word, sacraments, prayer, oaths, vows, lots, his works, and whatsoever else there is whereby he makes himself known, be holily and reverently used in thought, meditation, word, and writing; by an holy profession, and answerable conversation, to the glory of God, and the good of ourselves, and others.

*Q. 113. What are the sins forbidden in the third commandment?
A.* The sins forbidden in the third commandment are, the not using of God's name as is required; and the abuse of it in an ignorant, vain, irreverent, profane, superstitious, or wicked mentioning or otherwise using his titles, attributes, ordinances, or works, by blasphemy, perjury; all sinful cursings, oaths, vows, and lots; violating of our oaths and vows, if lawful; and fulfilling them, if of things unlawful; murmuring and quarreling at, curious prying into, and misapplying of God's decrees and providences; misinterpreting, misapplying, or any way perverting the word, or any part of it, to profane jests, curious or unprofitable questions, vain janglings, or the maintaining of false doctrines; abusing it, the creatures, or anything contained under the name of God, to charms, or sinful lusts and practices; the maligning, scorning, reviling, or any wise opposing of God's truth, grace, and ways; making profession of religion in hypocrisy, or for sinister ends; being ashamed of it, or a shame to it, by unconformable, unwise, unfruitful, and offensive walking, or backsliding from it.​


----------



## Tim

Instead of casting lots, let us rather use the wisdom God is growing in us as we proceed in our sanctification.


----------



## Contra_Mundum

Glenn,
The Puritans did indeed maintain a fairly biblical attitude toward lots, but its clear that it was not regarded as a sure word from God for guidance, the way it would have been in the days of special revelation. It should be classed under "providence".

If a decision must be made, and there seems no more wisdom available, then whether the choice is "impulsive" following prayer, or takes the cast of a coinflip (following prayer, surely), it is still a reliance on "lot". It is a step of faith, however...

It would only seem the route for making a choice in desperate circumstances, casting oneself on God's providential control. The problem we have to acknowledge is, that while we may have been certain in the days of the Bible that a priest-thrown or prophetic interpreted lot was infallible, today we have no way of interpreting the results of our lot. Perhaps we were sinning in the lot, or due to the result. Well, we can hardly blame God.

One example that was given was some solemn charge to A not to do X, because a lot had told the caster B such and such was not God's will. A did it anyway, and the results (short or long) cannot be interpreted. How does anyone really know if God indicated anything of his good pleasure by the lot? Is that not akin to horoscopes?

I think I've given the scenario (at first) of the only possible proper use of lots in our day. A believer, at an impasse, makes an impulsive or random choice, and promises to accept the results with equanimity, as from the Lord's Providential decree.


----------



## JennyG

In Acts, the apostles had a situation where there genuinely was nothing to choose, from a human perspective, between two men. Only God could know who was the right choice, and he orders the way the lot falls, because as already pointed out, if he doesn't then who does?
It was clearly the right thing to do in that situation.
(I've often thought that if the Roman church _really_ believed in apostolic tradition, they would follow the clear precedent set, and save a lot of time and expense by casting lots among the cardinals for a new pope).

But when it comes to church accounts etc there is not likely to be the same perfectly equal balance of alternatives. It could never be a universally normative decision-making method.


----------



## Augusta

tcalbrecht said:


> py3ak said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why do you get to call it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God's will.
Click to expand...


 Just for clarification, I am _against_ lot casting for discerning the will of God. I was, badly I guess, trying to point out the Puritan view. They were against all dice throwing because they thought it was testing God. Yes, he ordains everything, but, he will not be mocked.


----------



## ewenlin

I just recalled a story told by Paul Washer when he was in the jungle, unsure of what to do next. Either go to a village that never had any evangelical pastor visit in years, with a high chance he'll get killed by rebels or pack up his things and head home as he was due to be married.

Not knowing what to do he prayed to God and flipped a coin saying if it is heads 3 times he'll go to the village. It turned out heads 3 times and he went. As he was telling the story he said most theologians will probably laugh at him, but he was desperate at that time.

Just for everyone's info.


----------



## Eoghan

When my wife asks me to choose she is very seldom asking me to choose. Rather she is wanting me to vindicate her own choice. i.e. "which pair of jeans should I wear to church" She does not want me to say neither - what about that denim skirt   

I often think that we ask God to vindicate our own inclination. If it were vindicated by lot we accept it as guidance, if contrary to our inclination we have "second thoughts" about the reliability of fleeces and lots.

I am minded more to look to scripture in the first instance, scriptural principles in the second instance, duties and obligations in the third instance.

For example - work promotion. 
1. Is the occupation lawful? (i.e. tarot reading)
2. Would it involve working on Sunday, selling alcohol in a bar or p0rnography in a newsagents (paper shop?)
3. How would it affect family life - we have a duty to our wife, children, parents...

As you consider all these factors I doubt that any decision truly comes down to the toss of a coin. If it did I would go with my wifes gut feeling!

I went for a job interview on a remote island of the Orkneys. I knew I might be asked at interview to accept the job. So I took my wife and kids (at my expense) to the interview. We flew out the night before the interview and had a chance to walk down main street, visit both shops and find out about the church. By the morning of the interview we had agreed not to take the job if I was offered!

-----Added 9/20/2009 at 03:29:34 EST-----

When it comes to taking turns - tossing a coin helps with my two children it shows/demonstrates impartiality. Did those serving in the Temple not do so by lot. I seem to recall this at the beginning of Mathew (?) In this was it not to show impartiality rather than the Lord's anointing?

In this context "casting lots" is a way of showing impartiality rather than making a choice as an alternative to a "reasoned choice".

(Should my daughter come to faith, and a true understanding of the sovereignty of God,  will she ever be angry that providence forced her to have the first shower more often than not?  )


----------



## puritanpilgrim

I love the article that Whitfield wrote to wesley about casting lots.


----------

