Thanks, Andrew. This point from Thomas Boston I think directly addressed the issue: "The crook in the lot usually in its nature of circumstances, so naturally refers to the false step or course, that it serves for a providential memorial of it, bringing the sin, though of an old date, fresh to remembrance, and for a badge of the sinner's folly, in word or deed, to keep it ever before him." Is there anything else like this? I did not see anything else directly on point.

Using this, the guy who undergoes suffering would ask if there is any natural connection between the sin and the new suffering. That makes sense and seem the most obvious test. If a guy who sins by getting drunk crashes a car while under the influence, the connection is clear.

But there are other types of suffering that do not occur as naturally. For example, with respect to Israel, God said that a variety of sins (eg. stealing, murder, sexual immorality) could produce things like bad weather (eg. no rain for crops), military failure, or famine. There is no obvious connection between taking foreign wives (forbidden by the Law) and lack of rain as a punishment. Or, to use a NT example, unworthy receipt of communion caused some people to get sick and die. Physical sickness is not something I would naturally connect in my mind with unworthy receipt of the sacraments, certainly not in the same way as getting drunk and having a car wreck while under the influence.

Let me ask, this. In bottom line summary terms, what would someone consider in interpreting suffering as punishment for sin?

1. Whether is a clear connection b/t the sin and the suffering (eg. Boston above).

What about these:
2. The person is in known unrepentant sin.
3. The suffering occurs is close proximity to a sin.

Are these right? Anything else?

Scott

__________________
Scott Roberts
Ruling Elder, Lakeside Presbyterian Church (PCA)
Southlake, Texas