Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

14498Re: Usury or the Charging of Interest on Money Lent

Expand Messages
  • multiplose
    Apr 12, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      Thank you Chris, for your thoughtfulness on this matter.

      Do you mind expounding upon your position with historical examples?
      In particular, I want to know more about this, "I believe it is
      contrary to the known historical testimony of faithful church courts,
      which never abolished commercial interest-bearing loans (so
      far as I know)."

      Thanks,

      Your brother in Christ,
      Julian R. Gress

      --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
      <c_tylor@...> wrote:
      >
      > --- In covenantedreformationclub@yahoogroups.com, "forisraelssake"
      > <c_tylor@> wrote:
      > >
      > > Dear Julian
      > >
      > > I am in the RPNA, and while I don't think more than a few of the
      > > aspects related to interest-bearing loans are even covered in the
      > > faithful judicial rulings of the Church of Scotland (so leaving
      this
      > > in effect an open question/adiaphora among members), it has always
      > > been my conviction that....
      > >
      >
      > Actually I will have to modify what I said. Since this is a moral
      > issue, binding and loosing consciences, this is not adiaphoron. This
      > is not analogous to supra-/infra-lapsarianism,
      > creationism/traducianism or any of the other perennial historic
      > Protestant controversies where both sides are permitted the liberty
      to
      > have their own beliefs, due to the nature of in these historic
      cases,
      > it is at this point all purely theoretical. However when a time
      comes
      > that it can be demonstrated before a church court that one side
      > advocates a position leading to heresy and wickedness (which has not
      > yet happened in the two classic examples of permitted disagreement),
      > then no longer will faithful church courts allow a range of opinion
      in
      > these matters.
      >
      > That is why I completely mispoke in talking about usury. Julian's
      > position (if he advocated it with certainty) could never be allowed
      to
      > simultaneously exist in a Church that has people advocating North's
      > position with certainty, because this is a doctrinal question that
      > will directly and obviously lead to factions that insist on
      > incompatible moral positions and bind and loose consciences
      > differently, which is contrary to God's will for his people. And
      > reviewing the full-position that is found in Julian's post, I
      believe
      > it is contrary to the known historical testimony of faithful church
      > courts, which never abolished commercial interest-bearing loans (so
      > far as I know) and has only condemned usury/interest in certain
      > relatively specific circumstances, not all generalized circumstances
      > for all loans whatsoever.
      >
      > Thanks for letting me take the opportunity to correct myself.
      >
      > Chris
      > Edmonton, AB
      > RPNA
      >
    • Show all 11 messages in this topic