Casting lots- yea or nay

Status
Not open for further replies.
Richard King

Richard King

Puritan Board Senior
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?
 
Are you suggesting the possibility of casting lots as a way of discerning certain matters pertaining to the will of the Lord?
 
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.
 
If the lot does not reveal God's will, whose will does it reveal? Chance?
 
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).
 
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."
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

True, but the Apostolic work was the tail end of the special revelation of Christ in the Incarnation.
 
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.
 
AThornquist said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...


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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
How about these?

yesno_dies.jpg


Seem pretty clear to me.
 
KMK said:
If the lot does not reveal God's will, whose will does it reveal? Chance?
Click to expand...

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?
 
tcalbrecht said:
KMK said:
If the lot does not reveal God's will, whose will does it reveal? Chance?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Augusta said:
tcalbrecht said:
KMK said:
If the lot does not reveal God's will, whose will does it reveal? Chance?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Puritan Sailor
  • Locked
Casting pearls before swine?
Replies
11
Views
4K
andreas
A
chatwithstumac
  • Locked
Church or World or Both?
Replies
5
Views
2K
Ken
K
Eoghan
  • Locked
Hebrew or Aramaic?
Replies
1
Views
3K
TimV
TimV
Eoghan
  • Locked
Sanhederen NT or OT
Replies
1
Views
2K
TimV
TimV
ServantofGod
  • Locked
Pilate acknowledges or mocks?
Replies
6
Views
3K
Semper Fidelis
Semper Fidelis
Back
Top