It is too bad that the person denied the perfection of Jesus. That is not a reason to attribute to the Bible something the Bible never claims for itself.
When you declare the Bible is inerrant, even though that claim is nowhere in scripture, then you are adding a doctrine that has not foundation.
I think that we can find bible referencing that pretty comprehensively infers that yes, illness is a result of sin. If you want me to put some references here i can, but then you could easily find them yourself and given you appear somewhat resistant to biblical theology, perhaps its important you go searching for yourself if it really interests you. You would gain a lot more from your own study than someone raming bible verses down your throat.
What i will do is just quote one verse from the last book of the bible that clearly infers illness is a result of sinâŚ
Revelation 21 (the apostle John is quoting Isaiah 65:17-25 here)
1Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth,a for the first heaven and earth had passed away, and the sea was no more. 2I saw the holy city, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride adorned for her husband.
3And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying:
âBehold, the dwelling place of God is with man,
and He will dwell with them.
They will be His people,
and God Himself will be with them as their God.b
4âHe will wipe away every tear from their eyes,âc
and there will be no more death
or mourning or crying or pain,
for the former things have passed away.â
Oh, and consider the story of Lazurus. Jesus was informed that Lazurus was sick and needed his help. Jesus did not immediately go to Lazurus aid and as a result he died. Christ then raised him from the dead. Clearly infering that death is not something God wants to continue beyond the fulfillment of the plan of salvation (ie the second coming). It is Gods intention that there will be no more sickness and death and in order to achieve that end, he will wipe sin from existence!
In stating that you are ignoring the details of my post. I did not make the claim without support, and the support was from the Bible. So donât claim
how can you say that?
Maybe because I do not hold it in the same manner as you? If I do not take your understanding I must therefore be wrong?
I showed you Biblical evidence that illness is not directly from sin. Perhaps I should have added âalwaysâ?
The flipside to that is that maybe the presence of sin does not always produce illness?
I take offence at this. You are claiming I do not know scripture. You do not know how much I know about anything let alone how much i have studied or know scripture.
Why? Because my view is not the same as yours perhaps? If I studied it more I would end up with your view? Maybe the reverse is true and you only hold onto parts that suit your views?
(I really did not want to go here, but you are forcing my hand)
At the risk of calling you a liar, that is a false conclusion. inerrancy is not about balance or consensus. One opposing view anywhere renders the whole thing null and void. And I have shown you one major example of the opposing view. It is not one verse it is a whole Book!
Tell me Adam, would you say that the decalogue is sacrosanct and unbreakable?
Read the first five verse of Romans 14 (again) and get back to me.
Richard
PS Perhaps I should ask @St.Roymond & @Daniel_Fisher to join this party. Granted, there is good reason for Paul saying what he did, but it does pour hot coals on the use and authority of Hebrew Scripture as a gentile.
Hi Daniel,
. . . . . . . .very well said!
Since I was a little child, as far as I can remember, Iâve believed the Bible to be inerrant, for example, I have always believed the words of Jesus have been faithfully and accurately recorded and translated in the gospels.
I have realised that I donât know why but in faith, it is clear to me at least, that our loving God, Who made time, Who made every single sub atomic particle in the universe, Who wrote the genetic codes of all life on Earth, Who is holding all of creation in existence right now, is way more than capable of ensuring His Word to repentant humanity is profoundly understandable as He intendedâŚ
For me, it goes without saying that our wonderful loving Creator God incarnate as the only name by which we must be saved, that is, through the gracious gift of our Lord and Saviour Jesus is inerrantly and faithfully documented in the Bible.
When He created the creation He spoke it into existence, our Lord God commanded and it was so. There is no mention of vast periods of time elapsing (i.e., millions or billions of years), anywhere in the Bible.
God spoke and it was so!
During His ministry on Earth to provide salvation and give the much needed direction to fallen humanity, Jesus commanded (it would appear to be actioned in a similar manner as He did in the creation, historically documented in Genesis), and it was immediately so, when He made the water into wine, when He raised the dead, when He healed the infirm, when He cleansed the demon possessed, when He calmed the storm, when He broke the bread and fishes and fed the five thousand, Jesus commanded and it was immediately so, there was no delay.
**35 On that day, when evening came, He *said to them, âLetâs go over to the other side.â 36 After dismissing the crowd, they *took Him along with them in the boat, just as He was; and other boats were with Him. 37 And a fierce gale of wind *developed, and the waves were breaking over the boat so much that the boat was already filling with water. 38 And yet Jesus Himself was in the stern, asleep on the cushion; and they woke Him and said to Him, âTeacher, do You not care that we are perishing?â 39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, âHush, be still.â And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. 40 And He said to them, âWhy are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?â 41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, âWho, then, is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?â Mark 4:35-41
The Bible records the miracles of our loving, merciful God accurately and I have never had a cogent reason to doubt the Scriptures. Jesus Himself did not doubt the Scriptures, and nor should we.
God Bless you all,
jon
Hi, Jon - and welcome back!
We can learn a lot by attending to how Christ handled scripture. He used scriptures as something to build on, to lead people upward - ever closer to himself, the True Word. Scriptures (Moses and the prophets) were used as a starting point, but not as an ending point in the way so many of the Sadducees and Pharisees were using them in his day. There is a letter of the law (that cannot save, as Paul so passionately reminds us), and then there is the Spirit (of Christ) that accomplishes what the letter did not and never could. It is that Spirit that we are called towards, and that is where I find my hope!
Blessings to you too.
-merv
What is interesting is that if you put in !inerrancy" into a search engine the few sites that try and refute it base their arguments on philosophy rather than evidence. However, if you put in âcontradictionsâ in the Bible there are a plethera of people eager to point out any small contextual or apparent factual discrepancy. According to one site there are over 101,
So it would appear that inerrancy has nothing to do with facts or textual discrepancies.
I find this very interesting.
My previous post would indicate that there are also theological or doctrinal differences. There is a fairly common argument over whether Paul and Jesus sang from the same hymn sheetâŚ
Am I missing some definition of inerrancy here?
Richard
Well, as has been mentioned somewhere above, there are a plethora of definitions for âinerrancyâ. So itâs probably rare that two random people in conversation mean the same thing by it.
It would be interesting to know if the use of that word (whatever is meant by it) is highly correlated with certain denominations or demographics. If one visited web sites of churches, where does it pop up the most? Reformed (Calvinist?), Baptist?, Rural churches? Urban? Young? Old? Southern? Northern? Maybe Ryan Burge has something about it in all his stuff. But my bet, until Iâm better informed, is that the word finds its heaviest (positive) use in more fundamentalist settings.
That is consistent with what I understand is true of the appeal of fundamentalism: It gives clear black and white answers and guidelines to those of us who are overwhelmed by the multiple choices of life these days. The Holy post Skye-Pod recently compared it to the feeling you get looking at the menu of the Cheesecake Factory as compared to going to your local burger place and being able to just chose from a few combos. To have an inerrant Bible means you donât really have to choose, but only decide to follow, and ignore those parts that donât align with your beliefs.
Of course they wouldnât put it like that ⌠Regarding anything that supposedly doesnât align, they would respond, âwhat parts?â. And if you pointed them out, thatâs when their theological gymnastics begin ⌠you know ⌠the ones they claim they never do because theyâre âjust plain reading itâ. 
Sorry but I canât see where you are going with this, or even where it came from?
Theology would be the study (understanding) of theos (God) and would seem to be the basis of any god based religion
Doctrine would be the set of beliefs within a religion.
Neither would be denomination or even Christian specific.
Incidentally, My church is called the United Reformed Church and has nothing to do with Calvinism, but everything to do with the reformation.
All I am saying is that I have seen on this forum a definition of inerrancy that claims it is only the Doctrine or theology that is totally consistent and inerrant. I would beg to differ on at east two counts that I have cited. One being the correlation between sin and suffering (illness or disability) and the other being Paulâs apparent ignoring of the commandment about the sabbath⌠And there are probably more.
Richard
Sorry I wasnât clear. I was just musing if the word âinerrancyâ has more usage in some denominations than others. Probably not a particularly enlightening question.
I would be right alongside you, begging to differ as well. Not sure if anybody on this thread has actually claimed such a thing for themselves or their thoughts. But weâre sure quick to make such inferences out of what we hear. And if somebody was to stretch the tattered cloak of inerrancy yet further to try to cover themselves or their tribe with it too, it just rips open even more.
Dear All, the Scriptures are inerrant.
22 At that time the Feast of the Dedication took place in Jerusalem; 23 it was winter, and Jesus was walking in the temple area, in the portico of Solomon. 24 The Jews then surrounded Him and began saying to Him, âHow long will You keep us in suspense? If You are the Christ, tell us plainly.â 25 Jesus answered them, âI told you, and you do not believe; the works that I do in My Fatherâs name, these testify of Me. 26 But you do not believe, because you are not of My sheep. 27 My sheep listen to My voice, and I know them, and they follow Me; 28 and I give them eternal life, and they will never perish; and no one will snatch them out of My hand. 29 My Father, who has given them to Me, is greater than all; and no one is able to snatch them out of the Fatherâs hand. 30 I and the Father are one.â
31 The Jews picked up stones again to stone Him. 32 Jesus replied to them, âI showed you many good works from the Father; for which of them are you stoning Me?â 33 The Jews answered Him, âWe are not stoning You for a good work, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself out to be God.â 34 Jesus answered them, âHas it not been written in your Law: âI said, you are godsâ? 35 If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be nullified), 36 are you saying of Him whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, âYou are blaspheming,â because I said, âI am the Son of Godâ? 37 If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; 38 but if I do them, even though you do not believe Me, believe the works, so that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.â 39 Therefore they were seeking again to arrest Him, and He eluded their grasp.
40 And He went away again beyond the Jordan to the place where John was first baptizing, and He stayed there. 41 Many came to Him and were saying, âWhile John performed no sign, yet everything John said about this man was true.â 42 And many believed in Him there.
John 10:22-42
God bless,
jon
Richard,
I will again cite Christs own demonstration in refuting your statementâŚand you are 100% wrong btw Lazurus got sick and died. Christ raised him from the dead.
If you cannot reconcile that christ in resurrecting dead people who died from sickness as proof that life is the opposite of death and that death is a consequence of sin,
Might i also suggest you read Matthew 9
âWomen, thy faith has made thee wholeâ
And luke 5.31
âIt is not the healthy who need a doctor but the sickâ
Finally romans 6.23
âFor the wages of sin is deathâ
Given severe sickness left untrest usually results in death (a modern secular observarion btw), are you honestly going to maintain the claim biblical sin and sickness are not directly linked in this way?
Adam, would you say then that Lazarus has already experienced the resurrection? Which ⌠on the common understanding of that would mean heâs still alive somewhere now?
âLet your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.â -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.