The Vile, Evil, and Wicked Double-mindedness of Those Who Oppose 'Excessive' Interest, but Yet not Interest per se
There are many who oppose "excessive" interest, the term 'interest' itself being a deceptive one, but yet not "interest" per se. The term 'interest' started to be used when the exceptions against usury were pushed by usury proponents during the rise of capitalism in the west . It was used to distinguish between 'excessive' and 'non-excessive' interest. Such is the way of the world in its darkness, in seeking to suppress the truth by its own unrighteousness (Romans 1:18-19). Their lips are full of lies (Psalm 10:7; Psalm 12:2; Romans 3:13)
However, judgment starts at the house of the Lord: For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17). How can the Church preach the Gospel and teach the world to obey the commands of Christ, as He commanded in Matthew 28:16-20, when she herself is stubborn, and committing spiritual adultery against God? You may ask, how is she committing adultery against Christ, her Husband? She compromises with the world, seeking its approval, which is a vile, evil, disgusting, abominable thing. This includes her thinking on the issue of usury. Usury, unlike what most in the modern Church think, it is a spiritual and moral issue. It is not an earthly, worldly issue.
The Bible, Church history as well as the fearful reactions of many Christians in the west to condemnation of usury from their own moral conscience provides evidence of this. The Bible condemns it as an abomination (Ezekiel 18:13), meaning that it is against the Moral Law of God, rather than the Old Testament civil or ceremonial law as many in the modern Church, including conservative western orthodox evangelical theologians try to make it out to be. Both the early Church and medieval Church condemned usury as unacceptable and morally wrong. If one needs more evidence that usury is a moral and spiritual issue, one can just simply look at the reaction of many western Christians towards condemnation of usury. They become so stirred up and upset whenever they hear one condemn usury as a sin. This itself testifies to the reality that the usury concerns the heart, and thus, a moral and spiritual issue.
Tragically, the Church has rejected what the Word of God has to say about usury for the past four centuries, as she bowed to the pressure of the world, and was tempted by the lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes and pride of life, in thinking that usury is to be supported to 'raise living standards'. That something raises living standards does not mean it should be supported. Yet, the Church since the past four centuries compromised with the world on usury, a vile, abominable, wicked sin that was a sin, and still is, and will be forever more as Jesus said: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Luke 16:17).
John Calvin, the Calvin who so many in the modern Church treat with admiration and almost idolise was the one who claimed that usury is only sin when it was "inequitable". He argued, that only 'excessive interest' was immoral, and that all other interest was legitimate. He makes many different exceptions, or rather excuses for usury, so as to support usury:
The first is that no one should take interest (usury) from the poor, and no one, destitute by virtue or indigence or some affliction or calamity, should be forced into it. The second exception is that whoever lends should not be so preoccupied with gain as to neglect his necessary duties, nor, wishing to protect his money, disdain his poor brothers. The third exception is that no principle be followed that is not in accord with natural equity, for everything should be examined in the light of Christ’s precept: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This precept is applicable every time. The fourth exception is that whoever borrows should make at least as much, if not more, than the amount borrowed. In the fifth place, we ought not to determine what is lawful by basing it on the common practice or in accordance with the iniquity of the world, but should base it on a principle derived from the word of God. [Which means that one can never appeal merely to the “market rate of interest” as justification for charging a certain rate, but must determine what is just and appropriate for the needs of the debtor.] In the sixth place, we ought not to consider only the private advantage of those with whom we deal, but should keep in mind what is best for the common good. For it is quite obvious that the interest a merchant pays is a public fee. Thus we sould see that the contract will benefit all rather than hurt. In the seventh place, one ought not to exceed the rate that a country’s public laws allow.
This vile, abominable perversion of Scripture by Calvin is evidence of his words. It is a disgusting humanistic interpretation, one that resembles a 21st century humanistic law textbook, except with the guise of religion. You may argue, that "at least he still supported some restriction on usury", so as to defend Calvin, to claim that he was not as righteous at others. This compromise with usury, with at the same time, a desire to still look righteous by claiming to be opposed to it is manifested in his distinguishing between legitimate, and illegitimate usury itself. The making of this distinction is itself the manifestation of double-mindedness, which on one hand, sought to be against usury so, but yet tolerate it by hating only 'excessive interest'. This distinction is a false one, end of story.
The distinction between 'excessive interest' and 'non-excessive' interest is a lie from the pit of Hell itself. It is a perversion of what God said of usury, that it is a vile, disgusting, evil, wicked abomination (Ezekiel 18:13). To even think that God permits usury under the Moral Law itself is vile, abominable, wicked, evil, disgusting blasphemy.
Do you know why people, including Christians make this false distinction between excessive and non-excessive 'interest'? Because are utterly self-centred in wanting to have an excuse to charge usury against others, but yet at the same time, not wanting others to charge usury against oneself. This is the manifestation of the spirit of mammon in such people, who can tempt and blind both the unsaved and saved, in their covetousness and envy.
They are full of covetous in thinking that what they have is "theirs" when it is God's, manifesting in the belief itself that there is nothing wrong with usury, so as to justify their desire to charge usury against others. They are full of envy in hating others charging usury against them, yet while thinking usury is legitimate, which is itself to approve of the vile, abominable sin of usury . This manifests in not only the belief that only excessive usury is wrong, but also that this compromise with righteous. No! This compromise with usury is all the more viler, more abominable, evil and disgusting that to support usury outright, and disregarding all restraints.
If one wants to claim that some usury is justifiable, one would at least have some integrity to support it outright. This is not merely because of the lack of hypocrisy. It is because, despite being evil, it is not double-minded, in seeking to to indulge in evil, yet seeking to avoid by destroyed by one's own evil. To support usury outright without believing that only excessive usury is wrong, but rather that all usury is legitimate, is to indulge in evil and accept it when one is destroyed by one's love of evil. To only oppose usury when it is 'excessive usury', but not oppose it when not excessive is to indulge in evil, and complain and condemn the destruction that one's love of evil brings upon oneself.
James 1:8 says "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways". He thinks that he can ask of the Lord, but yet at the same time, not ask of the Lord. This is not because of weak faith. Rather, it is because he is self-indulgent and full of hypocrisy, acknowledging truth while at the same time, denying it. The heart of this double-mindedness is not the desire to seek blessings. It is the desire to seek blessings, but at the same time disbelieving it. In the same way, the Christians who oppose only excessive usury, seek to be righteous in opposing usury, but yet not opposing usury, by supporting 'non-excessive' usury are not only being double-minded, but are double-minded.
However, judgment starts at the house of the Lord: For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God? (1 Peter 4:17). How can the Church preach the Gospel and teach the world to obey the commands of Christ, as He commanded in Matthew 28:16-20, when she herself is stubborn, and committing spiritual adultery against God? You may ask, how is she committing adultery against Christ, her Husband? She compromises with the world, seeking its approval, which is a vile, evil, disgusting, abominable thing. This includes her thinking on the issue of usury. Usury, unlike what most in the modern Church think, it is a spiritual and moral issue. It is not an earthly, worldly issue.
The Bible, Church history as well as the fearful reactions of many Christians in the west to condemnation of usury from their own moral conscience provides evidence of this. The Bible condemns it as an abomination (Ezekiel 18:13), meaning that it is against the Moral Law of God, rather than the Old Testament civil or ceremonial law as many in the modern Church, including conservative western orthodox evangelical theologians try to make it out to be. Both the early Church and medieval Church condemned usury as unacceptable and morally wrong. If one needs more evidence that usury is a moral and spiritual issue, one can just simply look at the reaction of many western Christians towards condemnation of usury. They become so stirred up and upset whenever they hear one condemn usury as a sin. This itself testifies to the reality that the usury concerns the heart, and thus, a moral and spiritual issue.
Tragically, the Church has rejected what the Word of God has to say about usury for the past four centuries, as she bowed to the pressure of the world, and was tempted by the lusts of the flesh, lusts of the eyes and pride of life, in thinking that usury is to be supported to 'raise living standards'. That something raises living standards does not mean it should be supported. Yet, the Church since the past four centuries compromised with the world on usury, a vile, abominable, wicked sin that was a sin, and still is, and will be forever more as Jesus said: "And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail" (Luke 16:17).
John Calvin, the Calvin who so many in the modern Church treat with admiration and almost idolise was the one who claimed that usury is only sin when it was "inequitable". He argued, that only 'excessive interest' was immoral, and that all other interest was legitimate. He makes many different exceptions, or rather excuses for usury, so as to support usury:
The first is that no one should take interest (usury) from the poor, and no one, destitute by virtue or indigence or some affliction or calamity, should be forced into it. The second exception is that whoever lends should not be so preoccupied with gain as to neglect his necessary duties, nor, wishing to protect his money, disdain his poor brothers. The third exception is that no principle be followed that is not in accord with natural equity, for everything should be examined in the light of Christ’s precept: Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This precept is applicable every time. The fourth exception is that whoever borrows should make at least as much, if not more, than the amount borrowed. In the fifth place, we ought not to determine what is lawful by basing it on the common practice or in accordance with the iniquity of the world, but should base it on a principle derived from the word of God. [Which means that one can never appeal merely to the “market rate of interest” as justification for charging a certain rate, but must determine what is just and appropriate for the needs of the debtor.] In the sixth place, we ought not to consider only the private advantage of those with whom we deal, but should keep in mind what is best for the common good. For it is quite obvious that the interest a merchant pays is a public fee. Thus we sould see that the contract will benefit all rather than hurt. In the seventh place, one ought not to exceed the rate that a country’s public laws allow.
This vile, abominable perversion of Scripture by Calvin is evidence of his words. It is a disgusting humanistic interpretation, one that resembles a 21st century humanistic law textbook, except with the guise of religion. You may argue, that "at least he still supported some restriction on usury", so as to defend Calvin, to claim that he was not as righteous at others. This compromise with usury, with at the same time, a desire to still look righteous by claiming to be opposed to it is manifested in his distinguishing between legitimate, and illegitimate usury itself. The making of this distinction is itself the manifestation of double-mindedness, which on one hand, sought to be against usury so, but yet tolerate it by hating only 'excessive interest'. This distinction is a false one, end of story.
The distinction between 'excessive interest' and 'non-excessive' interest is a lie from the pit of Hell itself. It is a perversion of what God said of usury, that it is a vile, disgusting, evil, wicked abomination (Ezekiel 18:13). To even think that God permits usury under the Moral Law itself is vile, abominable, wicked, evil, disgusting blasphemy.
Do you know why people, including Christians make this false distinction between excessive and non-excessive 'interest'? Because are utterly self-centred in wanting to have an excuse to charge usury against others, but yet at the same time, not wanting others to charge usury against oneself. This is the manifestation of the spirit of mammon in such people, who can tempt and blind both the unsaved and saved, in their covetousness and envy.
They are full of covetous in thinking that what they have is "theirs" when it is God's, manifesting in the belief itself that there is nothing wrong with usury, so as to justify their desire to charge usury against others. They are full of envy in hating others charging usury against them, yet while thinking usury is legitimate, which is itself to approve of the vile, abominable sin of usury . This manifests in not only the belief that only excessive usury is wrong, but also that this compromise with righteous. No! This compromise with usury is all the more viler, more abominable, evil and disgusting that to support usury outright, and disregarding all restraints.
If one wants to claim that some usury is justifiable, one would at least have some integrity to support it outright. This is not merely because of the lack of hypocrisy. It is because, despite being evil, it is not double-minded, in seeking to to indulge in evil, yet seeking to avoid by destroyed by one's own evil. To support usury outright without believing that only excessive usury is wrong, but rather that all usury is legitimate, is to indulge in evil and accept it when one is destroyed by one's love of evil. To only oppose usury when it is 'excessive usury', but not oppose it when not excessive is to indulge in evil, and complain and condemn the destruction that one's love of evil brings upon oneself.
James 1:8 says "a double minded man is unstable in all his ways". He thinks that he can ask of the Lord, but yet at the same time, not ask of the Lord. This is not because of weak faith. Rather, it is because he is self-indulgent and full of hypocrisy, acknowledging truth while at the same time, denying it. The heart of this double-mindedness is not the desire to seek blessings. It is the desire to seek blessings, but at the same time disbelieving it. In the same way, the Christians who oppose only excessive usury, seek to be righteous in opposing usury, but yet not opposing usury, by supporting 'non-excessive' usury are not only being double-minded, but are double-minded.
Comments
Post a Comment