Wine and gambling

sandrocksam said:

Concerning the Apostles casting lots: I believe Jesus told them to not do anything until they received power from on high (Holy Spirit at Pentecost) I think they jump ahead of themselves.

Not at all. Jesus told them not to depart from Jerusalem (Acts 1:4) until they received the Holy Spirit (v. 5). In other words: Put the missionary work on hold for the time being. Acts records no evangelistic effort prior to Pentecost.

However, nothing in Jesus' command forbade them from meeting together for prayer, or taking care of internal administrative matters like choosing leaders for themselves.

In fact, there is nothing in Scripture to suggest that the Apostles' choosing of Matthias to succeed Judas was a mistake. That is something people read into the text, probably based on a faulty view of divine guidance.

 

OK, but its a matter of opinion.

One of the key words in the definition of casuistry is "rationalization".

When we rationalize we dismiss the obvious because of mitigating circumstances.

Many believe that the apostles made the wrong choice because they used a wrong method.
This has been debated to this very day.
The Book of Acts is an infallible record of history which includes the short comings of the Apostles (arguments,quarrels) as well as their obedience.

For instance we don't see any casting of lots in God's method of choosing the Apostle Paul.

Are there 12 Apostles or 13?

HankD

 

Phl 4:8 Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things [are] honest, whatsoever things [are] just, whatsoever things [are] pure, whatsoever things [are] lovely, whatsoever things [are] of good report; if [there be] any virtue, and if [there be] any praise, think on these things.

 

HankD said:

OK, but its a matter of opinion.

I would say, rather, a matter of proper definition.

Suppose, for example, that I have a dollar to spend, and I choose to spend it on a lottery ticket. Am I gambling? Of course, by the definition I gave earlier. I am risking my dollar on multiple possibilities of unequal outcome - either I win a million dollars, or, far more likely, I do not.

Now suppose that instead of buying a lottery ticket, I take my dollar to the cafeteria, where I am faced with the choice of a hot dog or a tuna sandwich for lunch. Since I am indecisive (I like both equally), I flip a coin and based on the outcome of that act, I choose the hot dog. Am I gambling? No - there was no risk (I had no reason to expect to get my loonie back) and all outcomes are equal (I am fed and satisfied).

Every time you let "chance" decide a matter is not necessarily a gamble. I would argue that the apostles' "lot" falls into the second scenario, not the first - though choosing an apostle is of far greater import than choosing a sandwich, the elements of the transaction are basically the same.

One of the key words in the definition of casuistry is "rationalization".

When we rationalize we dismiss the obvious because of mitigating circumstances.

Well, the "mitigating circumstances" in this scenario are that the apostles' methodology simply doesn't meet the definition of gambling.

Many believe that the apostles made the wrong choice because they used a wrong method.

In reality, the lot is only a very small part of the whole process. They didn't simply let chance decide who would be the next apostle. That would have been foolish and arbitrary. Rather, they had qualifying criteria (Acts 1:21-22) and it was only when those were met that they used the lot to decide between otherwise equal candidates, trusting God for the outcome.

Rather than being arbitrary, I would say this was both wise and fair, and certainly there is no inspired commentary in Scripture that even suggests it was the wrong thing to do.

For instance we don't see any casting of lots in God's method of choosing the Apostle Paul.

And there is no reason to assume there should have been. Paul was handpicked by the Lord Jesus for a particular mission (Acts 9:15).

Are there 12 Apostles or 13?

Scripture calls at least 15 people apostles:
</font>

• the Twelve, minus Judas, plus Matthias</font>
• Paul</font>
• James the brother of the Lord (Gal. 1:19)</font>
• Barnabas (Acts 14:14)</font>

(It's interesting to note that this list shows there was no one "standard" way of selecting apostles. The Twelve were hand-picked by Jesus during his earthly ministry. Matthias was chosen by the apostles according to merit, then lot. Paul had a vision. James got a visit by the resurrected Jesus. We're not told why Barnabas was numbered amongst the apostles.)

 

Like I said ransom, to me it is a matter of opinion. You introduce "no risk" as a mitigating factor. Well, what if the Apostles were wrong in their method (I'm not saying they were, its a "what if") then the risk is picking an Apostle against the Lord's will.

OK what if I like the Apostles asked the Lord to assist me in picking the number to play for the lottery (again its a "what if")?

Then again by your reasoning investing in the stock market is a form of improper gambling. There is great risk in investing in the fickle stock market.

Another BTW:

Revelation 21:14 And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

In the New Jerusalem there will only be 12 names of the Apostles, can you give me that list?

HankD

 

Have any of you ever heard of Doyle Brunson? He is a southern baptist and graduate of hardin-simmons university (SBC school). He is regarded as one of the greatest no limit hold em poker players who ever lived. He won the no limit hold em championship in 1977 at binion's horseshoe and casino in las vegas. The prize money was $340,000. That was a lot of money in 1977. He still plays texas hold em poker every day at the bellagio in las vegas at the age of 69. If you go to the bookstore you can get his book called supersystem on how to win at poker. He gives his Chrisian testimony at the front of the book. Doyle Brunson trusted Jesus Christ as his saviour as a young man and is on his way to Heaven when he dies. Brunson is my kind of Baptist, a "good ole boy" from texas. However, Hardin Simmons the SBC school would not put him on their list of successful business alumni because he is a professional gambler. Chip Reese is another pro poker player in las vegas. He is considered the greatest 7 card stud player who ever lived and he is a born again christian.

 

HankD said:

Like I said ransom, to me it is a matter of opinion. You introduce "no risk" as a mitigating factor.

It's not me who introduced "no risk." Risk is part and parcel of the very definition of gambling. No risk, no gamble. It is that simple.

Well, what if the Apostles were wrong in their method (I'm not saying they were, its a "what if") then the risk is picking an Apostle against the Lord's will.

Whether it was "the Lord's will" that they choose a successor by this or any other method is beside the point, which is that their drawing of lots cannot be cited in defense of gambling.

OK what if I like the Apostles asked the Lord to assist me in picking the number to play for the lottery (again its a "what if")?

First, your question assumes what you have yet to establish: that choosing a successor to Judas by lot is morally equivalent to gambling.

By your argument I could ask the Lord to assist me in a coin flip to determine whether I should hire a call girl or not. Does paying lip service to Providence legitimize adultery? Of course not! Neither does it legitimize playing the lottery.

Then again by your reasoning investing in the stock market is a form of improper gambling. There is great risk in investing in the fickle stock market.

There is risk in all investment. All gambling involves risk, but not all risk is gambling. If you are arguing that you are "gambling" every time you take a risk, then you have defined the word beyond significance.

In the New Jerusalem there will only be 12 names of the Apostles, can you give me that list?

I don't understand the point of the question. Are you trying to affirm or deny that Scripture explicitly labels at least 15 people as "apostles"?

 

andy said:

However, Hardin Simmons the SBC school would not put him on their list of successful business alumni because he is a professional gambler.

Good for them. "Professional gamblers" make their living by exploiting the misfortune of others. They take money and produce nothing of value in return. They are leeches. "Professional gambling" is a profitable form of laziness, and Paul tells us such brethren ought to be ashamed of themselves and we are not to keep company with them (2 Thess. 3:14).

 

Hardin-Simmons is a BGCT (Baptist General Convention of Texas) school, not a SBC (Southern Baptist Convention) school. It’s an understandable mistake, but a mistake nonetheless.

While many Southern Baptists have attended and will attend Hardin-Simmons, there is no formal relationship. In fact, the Southern Baptist Convention leadership doesn’t care much for Hardin-Simmons since they started their own seminary back in the late 1980s.

That’s not surprising since the BGCT has opposed gambling since its formation.

 

I'm not trying to affirm or deny anything.
I'm asking you the question, what are the 12 Apostles names of Revelation 21:14?

I'll simplify it, there are 12 apostles spoken of in the Gospels, Judas was disqualified "...and his bishoprick let another take...".
The 11 apostles remaining made a choice to fill his "bishoprick" with Matthias.

In your estimation is Matthias the 12th apostle of Revelation 21:14?

HankD

 

HankD said:

I'm not trying to affirm or deny anything.
I'm asking you the question, what are the 12 Apostles names of Revelation 21:14?

Then what is the purpose of the question, and how is it relevant to the discussion of gambling or the selection of Matthias?

John is speaking figuratively as he does in the majority of Revelation. He doesn't give the names. They don't matter. The undisclosed details of a metaphor have no significance.

Having answered your question, I will go no further with this particular rabbit trail until you tell me how it contributes to the main discussion of gambling/casting lots, as opposed to being a change of subject meant to distract from it.

 

To get an answer.

Which you gave but not the answer to the question I asked.

the answer is relevant, if the method they used to select Matthias is wrong then he is not an apostle. Paul is another matter.

HankD

 

HankD said:

Which you gave but not the answer to the question I asked.

No, I answered the question. You just didn't like the answer I gave. Tough cookies.

the answer is relevant, if the method they used to select Matthias is wrong then he is not an apostle.

Nothing in Scripture says Matthias is not an apostle, for your reason or any other. That is an assumption imported into the text by the reader who is bringing his presuppositions into the text about the way God's guidance is supposed to work.

Paul is a different matter.

What of it?

 

Ransom we are debating remember? As far as I'm concerned this is not a contest of wills or who is right or who is wrong or more spiritual, etc.

Rather than continue in this atmosphere of animosity, I'll give you my opinion, yes it's an opinion because to me the Scripture is not 100 percent clear.

First of all the word "apostle" appears in the Scripture in other places in the original language:

2 Corinthians 8:23 Whether any do enquire of Titus, he is my partner and fellowhelper concerning you: or our brethren be enquired of, they are the messengers of the churches, and the glory of Christ.

Philippians 2:25 Yet I supposed it necessary to send to you Epaphroditus, my brother, and companion in labour, and fellowsoldier, but your messenger, and he that ministered to my wants.

The word "messenger" is "apostolos" in both these passages, so now we would have 17 apostles (among others) who were "sent" if we simply looked at the word itself.

Strong's: 652 apostolos {ap-os'-tol-os}
Meaning: 1) a delegate, messenger, one sent forth with orders 1a) specifically applied to the twelve apostles of Christ 1b) in a broader sense applied to other eminent Christian teachers 1b1) of Barnabas 1b2) of Timothy and Silvanus.

The KJV translators did a pick and choose where and when to translate the word as "apostle", "messenger" or one who was "sent".

There can only be 12 (Capital A) Apostles (IMO) specifically because of the action and requirements of the Apostles in Acts Chapter 1:

21 Wherefore of these men which have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and out among us
22 Beginning from the baptism of John,, unto that same day that he was taken up from us, must one be ordained to be a witness with us of his resurrection.

So, that person who was to take Judas place had to have been one who had accompanied Jesus and the apostles from the baptism of John and been a witness of the resurrection with then "with us".

Pesonally I cannot accept the view that the Revelation passage is a metaphor of the "12 apostles", so if one accepts the conditions laid down by the 11 Apostles then Paul cannot be one of the "12 Apostles".

"who is the 12th apostle"?
I don't know, would be my answer to my own question

It would seem to me to have to be Matthias or Paul, but I don't know, I guess I'll have to wait and see.

There is another possibility I suppose. There is the same difficulty when one tries to list the 12 tribes of Israel and take into account Joseph's two sons Ephraim and Manasseh who are also numbered among the twelve tribes in the various OT lists, although in the Revelation Joseph is included, Manasseh is included but Dan is missing even though every list in the OT includes Dan (I believe).

Maybe there will be a shared Capital A Apostleship: Matthias-Paul as there is a shared tribal authority of Israel : Joseph-Manasseh-Ephraim.

So, I guess I'll just have to wait and see.

If I were forced to choose, I would say Matthias but what to do with Paul?

Please note that I never said Matthias was NOT an apostle but treated their choice as a "what if" (in terms of being a wrong choice) for the sake of the debate.

HankD

 

I knew that this irrelevant argument about the names on the door of the New Jerusalem was going to be the means you used to change the subject. So as I promised beforehand, I'm taking it no further with you. Bye.

 

Admit it.

You're scared!



But like I said it's not irrelavant, was it proper for the Apostles to "cast lots" or not.

Was it a "game of chance"?

If it was wrong did God honor their choice or choose Paul instead?

IMO, It is entirely relevant

HankD

 

HankD said:

Admit it.

You're scared!

If I were "scared," I wouldn't have answered your question already. Don't whine at me because you didn't like the answer you got.

Was it a "game of chance"?

I already answered that question. No, it was not.

If it was wrong did God honor their choice or choose Paul instead?

I already answered that question too. Scripture doesn't say that.

IMO, It is entirely relevant

Bull-oney.

 

In your heart you know I'm right.

HankD

 

Wow, you sure convinced me with that irrefutable argument, Hank. I'm going to go buy a lottery ticket right now.