To offer an extension of yesterday’s thoughts, I believe this perspective that illness always just happens, and is never judgment for my sin (let me digress: surely these people do not disavow illness as a punishment for sin at times. The issue is that it is the result of my sin, not just an ethereal “someone’s” sin) is fundamentally humanism.
I was in a discussion with one of my roommates and we ended up talking about psychology. We were discussing the role of psychic changes and whether they preceded or followed faulty character. For instance, psychopaths feature a definite change in brain pattern and functionality. They also feature an amazing lack of conscience. Common thought (though unproven) is that the brain changes control the character. In other words, it is not a psychopath’s fault that he has no conscience. However, if we are using the Word Of God as our authority, and we look at Romans 1 (the man who has rejected God) yes, the psychopath may have a brain issue, but it is the result of his rejection of God, not the grounds of it. The view of psychology is a fundamentally humanistic perspective.
In a post-Job theology, the mindset is that sickness just happens. Yes, God saw fit to make me sick, but as was stated yesterday, this is just the roll of the dice. It’s not the result of sin. See, there is no concept of the cause of the sickness. Interpretation of illness (and other such things in life) starts with the man. It doesn’t start with God. This beginning with man is as humanistic as the popular view of the psychopath. It is simply unbiblical.