Monday, June 26, 2006

6/26/06, PRCE List : Providence interpreted; Household management by magnalia_dei

[The entire hypothetical analogy series can be found here.]

From: magnalia_dei
Sent: Monday, June 26,2006, 11:27 PM
Subject: PRC List : Providence interpreted

Providence interpreted

For anyone to interpret providence so as to conclude (as a basis of their faith acting), and thereupon pronounce to the public, that a given calamity in providence is a specific judgment on a specific person for their actual sin supposed, is a presumption on interpreting providence that, apart from special revelation, is tantamount to a claim of a providential hermeneutic that is inerrant. Such kind of ignorant presumption, and the putrid and malicious application to the victims arising therefrom, is everywhere taught against in the scriptures (even explicitly by the Lord Christ); and, it exceeds, by orders of magnitude, the degrees of the sins of the merciless "friends" of Job. But those engaging in such behavior, of course, conveniently omit themselves from the same public self-condemnation that ought, by the same principle, to necessarily follow from the calamities of providence relative to their own persons or families, which they conveniently overlook or more charitably judge. Such is not Christian behavior, but is more consistent with the presumptuous divinations and pronouncements of the papal antichrist and his sergeants. Away with such vile excrement, even though it may be dressed in the lace of pietistic language so as to commend a religiosity and beguile the ignorant into such stupidity. The curse of a broken covenant must lay hard upon a conscience to drive it to such a degree of self-justification, that it must act so incongruous to scripture and even to common charity.

Reply | Forward | Messages in this Topic (1)

From: magnalia_dei
Sent: Monday, June 26,2006, 11:46 PM
Subject: PRC List : Household management

We cannot effectually cause anyone either to act sin or to act faithful. Effects are of God, and actions are the responsibility of the person acting. Our blamelessness in obedience or repentance thereunto arises not from any effecting of faithfulness in ourselves or others, but rather in the proper adaptation of suitable means in circumstances so as to put ourselves in the way of faithfulness -- so as to be wrought upon by God (though he can also work above or without such means). To arrogate to ourselves the claim, or responsibility, to work spiritual effects in ourselves or others is (though a delusion) a volitional usurpation of the divine prerogative.

Therefore if anyone implies that a child's sin was effectuated by parental neglect or mismanagement, and that the parents were rather responsible to effect and even to maintain the child's faithfulness (as though this were a condition of office), then they are far a field in some kind of thinking that does not comport with God's pure doctrine, nor does it honor him in the same, but rather assumes a usurpation of his right.

The proper governing and managing of a household is one thing, the "requirement" of an effectual working of faithfulness in those in it and / or a preventing of the sinful acts of those therein, is quite another. Faithful management, in its several and various circumstances, as aiming at ends of faithfulness (be it unto progress therein or correction thereto), is rather what God requires, that our eyes may always be upon him who makes all things effectual or ineffectual, and that we may always give deference to his wisdom in executing his decrees.

Eli nor Samuel were disqualified by the actions of their sons: Eli was not upbraided for the sinful behavior of his sons, but rather for his unfaithfulness in dealing with them according thereto; and Samuel is everywhere in scripture highly spoken of, though his son's were hardly exemplary.

__._,_.___ _,_._,___