third commandment

[student]

In his treatment of the Third Commandment, James Durham speaks about lotting. A previous thread has some discussion of this with respect to science, but a different question here.

Durham states: "We may gather from what is said, what is to be thought of such games and pastimes as run on lottery (having that for the very foundation of them) and having an immediate dependence on providence for the issue of them." He then outlines his argument, for example, with respect to dice games:
1. Since the dice are guided by God, it is lotting.
2. In games, dice are used for trivial purposes.
3. In games, dice are used without reference to God.
4. Therefore, using dice for games is sinful.
Is his argument here legitimate? All things are in God's providence, but using dice as a random number generator doesn't feel wrong, and yet there are Christians that try to avoid games that use dice.

Could this apply to random draws (e.g. at a trade show, where you would enter to get an iPad or a gift bag)?
1. The name selected in the draw is guided by God.
2. We don't rely on God in putting our names in the draw, and in the end, the prize is trivial.
3. Therefore, entering random draws is sinful.

Would you come to a different conclusion on either of these? I realize we must each be persuaded in our own mind, but I'm trying to think through Durham's argument.
The full text is available here, starting about 3/4 of the way down the page, starting at the heading "Concerning Lots".

 

[Logan]

This is an interesting question. Archibald Hall in his "Gospel Worship" had an entire chapter on it in which he concludes much the same as Durham (he may actually have quoted from him a good bit if I recall). I can see where he is coming from (demanding God give the outcome of the dice over trivial matters), but I think it also comes from a very different mindset, for better or worse.

I believe that God orders all things and that the outcome of the lot is from him. Nevertheless, I use random number generators all the time. Actually, modern computing wouldn't work without and certainly cryptography doesn't work without it. Are we being trivial every time we connect to a website using https (including this one)? I don't think so. We are exercising dominion over creation as we are supposed to. God orders all things whether the person casting the lot recognizes it or not. Now, he may be condemned for not recognizing God's sovereignty, but I don't think he's condemned simply for the act of generating a number.

Using it for divination is a completely different matter.

 

[davejonescue]

Puritan Thomas Gataker also wrote a book on lots, I believe specifically dealing with lotteries or lusorious (player) lots. I have been meaning to do it for Monergism, just havent got around to it yet.

Item Information | Of the nature and vse of lots a treatise historicall and theologicall; written by Thomas Gataker B. of D. sometime preacher at Lincolnes Inne, and now pastor of Rotherhith. | Early English Books Online | University of Michigan Libr

 

[Deleted member 6112]

In his treatment of the Third Commandment, James Durham speaks about lotting. A previous thread has some discussion of this with respect to science, but a different question here.

Durham states: "We may gather from what is said, what is to be thought of such games and pastimes as run on lottery (having that for the very foundation of them) and having an immediate dependence on providence for the issue of them." He then outlines his argument, for example, with respect to dice games:
1. Since the dice are guided by God, it is lotting.
2. In games, dice are used for trivial purposes.
3. In games, dice are used without reference to God.
4. Therefore, using dice for games is sinful.
Is his argument here legitimate? All things are in God's providence, but using dice as a random number generator doesn't feel wrong, and yet there are Christians that try to avoid games that use dice.

Could this apply to random draws (e.g. at a trade show, where you would enter to get an iPad or a gift bag)?
1. The name selected in the draw is guided by God.
2. We don't rely on God in putting our names in the draw, and in the end, the prize is trivial.
3. Therefore, entering random draws is sinful.

Would you come to a different conclusion on either of these? I realize we must each be persuaded in our own mind, but I'm trying to think through Durham's argument.
The full text is available here, starting about 3/4 of the way down the page, starting at the heading "Concerning Lots".

Yes, the same applies to raffles, lotteries, etc. They are all examples of the abuse of the lot.

 

[student]

Puritan Thomas Gataker also wrote a book on lots, I believe specifically dealing with lotteries or lusorious (player) lots. I have been meaning to do it for Monergism, just havent got around to it yet.
Of the nature and vse of lots a treatise historicall and theologicall; written by Thomas Gataker B. of D. sometime preacher at Lincolnes Inne, and now pastor of Rotherhith.

Thank you for this. On page 142 of this book, I read the following:

"The Proposition of this Syllogisme (such as it is) is further confirmed by an Argument taken from the tenor of the third Commaundement.
b Gods name is not lightly or vainely to be vsed.
Gods Prouidence is Gods name.
Gods Prouidence therefore is not lightly or vainely to be vsed.
The Assumption is confirmed by two testimo∣nies: the one diuine, a sentence of Salomons,cThe Lot is cast into the lap, but the whole disposition of it is of the Lord:dSo that the nature of a Lot lieth who∣ly in this that although the things be of vs, yet the dispo∣sition is wholy of God: that is, hee vseth not here our meanes of cunning, practise, strength, stedinesse of hand or such like, but taketh it wholy to himselfe. The other humane, a saying of Hierome,eHierome saith a Lot is an hidden and incomprehensible predestination, ruled by God: who dare play with this then?"

This matches Durham. But then Gataker goes on:

"First the principall Syllogisme it selfe is not sound, there are foure Tearmes, as they say, in it. I shew it by the like Paralogisme built of the same frame and set vpon the same ground.

Gods Prouidence, being his name, is not to be vsed lightly, or to recreation and disport.
But in all things, or in euery action that is, there is a Prouidence of God.
No thing or action therefore may be vsed to disport.
And so all recreations shall bee vtterly cut off. This and that are both of one making: but neither of both sound: the conclusion therefore followeth not, albeit the premises were both true."

This is the conclusion I kind of come to. On the one side, it underscores that all must be done to the glory of God, and I'm afraid I may be trying to justify board games, draws etc that I haven't seen a problem with in the past. On the other hand, it seems like Durham and others are isolating providence in some aspects where the world has an obvious aspect of "chance", but passing by so much more.

 

[davejonescue]

Thank you for this. On page 142 of this book, I read the following:

This matches Durham. But then Gataker goes on:

This is the conclusion I kind of come to. On the one side, it underscores that all must be done to the glory of God, and I'm afraid I may be trying to justify board games, draws etc that I haven't seen a problem with in the past. On the other hand, it seems like Durham and others are isolating providence in some aspects where the world has an obvious aspect of "chance", but passing by so much more.

I was going to do this book, but the more I think about it, the more I am going to kind of refrain for doing it now. I think, since the Bible doesnt specifically forbid or promote recreational lots; such as a family playing Yahtzee, a book raffle, etc. That this may be an area of trying to deduce a command the Bible is silent on. The Bible does warn us about making the traditions of man into the commands of God, so, trying to outlaw something like this goes a little bit too far for me at this time, and in good conscience I cannot promote a treatise that would bar a family from playing Rummy, or a church raffling of a new TV to raise money for missions. I think there is a distinct prohibition for using lots for divination; which would fall under sorcery; but I also think Lots can be used for decisive reasons if all conventional wisdom has been exasperated and yet the query remains.