Augusta
Puritan Board Doctor
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?
Casting lots- yea or nay
- Thread starter Richard King
- Start date
- Status
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
Puritan Board Junior
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
Puritan Board Freshman
Skyler
Puritan Board Graduate
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:
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:
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
Puritan Board Graduate
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.
AThornquist
Puritan Board Doctor
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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
Puritan Board Junior
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Puritan Board Doctor
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.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.
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
Puritan Board Senior
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? 
)
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
Puritan Board Junior
I love the article that Whitfield wrote to wesley about casting lots.
- Status
