14498Re: Usury or the Charging of Interest on Money Lent
- Apr 12, 2006Thank 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)."
Your brother in Christ,
Julian R. Gress
--- In email@example.com, "forisraelssake"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "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
> > in effect an open question/adiaphora among members), it has alwaysto
> > 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
> have their own beliefs, due to the nature of in these historiccases,
> it is at this point all purely theoretical. However when a timecomes
> that it can be demonstrated before a church court that one sidein
> 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
> these matters.to
> That is why I completely mispoke in talking about usury. Julian's
> position (if he advocated it with certainty) could never be allowed
> simultaneously exist in a Church that has people advocating North'sbelieve
> 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
> 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.
> Edmonton, AB
- << Previous post in topic Next post in topic >>