Meaning of "Just Cause" Directory Public Worship

Discussion in 'The Confession of Faith' started by Afterthought, May 18, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Afterthought

    Afterthought Puritan Board Junior

  2. Afterthought

    Afterthought Puritan Board Junior

    My own educated guess would be that "just" refers to a matter of "justice" and therefore a matter of "legality" or "lawfulness." In other words, parents cannot withhold consent from a lawful marriage. This understanding could also be reinforced by thinking about resistance of lawful authority in general. Lawful authority cannot be resisted unless their actions force one to sin; Protestants have viewed the hindering of lawful marriages as causing one to sin (along with thoughts about vocation); so parental consent must not be withheld from a lawful marriage.

    Some implications.

    Parental consent can be withheld if the marriage is to a Papist, heretic, idolater, schismatic, etc.

    Parental consent can be withheld if the child is not mature enough to make a perpetual life-long vow.

    Parental consent can be withheld if things like fornication are involved.

    Parental consent can be withheld if it is believed the man is not able to provide for a spouse at the current time.


    Parental consent cannot be withheld if the person is a godly Christian but there are disagreements on theology (whether Baptist and Presbyterian; or things more minor).

    Parental consent cannot be withheld because the parents see some character defects or other (non-essential for living the married life) immaturities in prospects.

    Parental consent cannot be withheld merely because a prospect is not as wealthy as the parents desire or of the desired social class.
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  3. Post Tenebras

    Post Tenebras Puritan Board Freshman

    When I hear "Just Cause," I immediately think of employment law and the 7 elements:

    1. Did the company warn the worker in advance of taking action?
    2. Is there a clearly communicated work rule which covers the conduct and which is reasonable and related to the orderly, efficient and safe operation of the employer’s business?
    3. Did the employer investigate before taking action?
    4. Was the investigation fair and objective? Does the supervisor serve as prosecutor, judge and witness all rolled into one?
    5. Is there substantial evidence that the worker is guilty?
    6. Has the employer been fair and even-handed in its enforcement of the rule(s) in question? Is there "disparate treatment?"
    7. Was the degree of discipline related to the seriousness of the worker’s offense and worker’s prior work record.
    In terms of the OP, I imagine something like "you can't marry that bum just 'cause I said so!"
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page