debt: narrowing the focus

For all who commented on the last post on debt - thank you!!! You stimulate me to love and good deeds. There are so many areas to address. But please don't go away. I would love feedback on a couple of more narrow issues.

We can talk about wisdom and about personal convictions but none of that matters if debt is sin. Let's say we are talking about drunkenness. We can say that one person has a conviction to never be drunk while another does not. We can say one person talks about the wisdom of drunkenness and how much we get drunk. But personal conviction and wisdom matter not if drunkenness is sin. And so lets narrow the focus to a couple of points:

1. How do you treat Romans 13:8? Is Paul prohibiting debt?

2. How do you deal with the convictions and arguments of respectable theologians such as Charles Spurgeon who call debt sin?

3. Regardless of your treatment of Romans 13:8, how do you deal with the idea of accumulating savings while remaining indebted to another?

debt

Over the last few years I have come to hate debt. I know nobody enjoys debt - that's not what I mean - I hate it more and more like I hate sin.

And so let the debate begin. Is debt sin or is it not? How can we function in our culture without a little debt? Does "wise" debt exist? Is mortgage debt OK because the asset has the ability to increase in value (not a guarantee like some have thought, is it?)?

It's funny to read various versions of Romans 13:8. While Paul is giving practical advice on paying taxes and other matters he writes:
"Owe nothing to anyone" - at least that's how the NASB gets it. The translators see debt as a prohibition. (NKJ and ESV are similar)
Check out the NIV: (Living Bible and others are similar)
"Let no debt remain outstanding". The translators seem to just prohibit lingering debt - debt is OK if you can get it paid off.

I'm not going to elaborate much further in one blog post but I will quickly say a few things:
1. I have come to fully admire people like Charles Spurgeon, Hudson Taylor, and George Mueller who called ALL debt sin. If someone chooses to live this way, there is no accusation against them. They choose to live nowhere near "the line". Whereas many people want to know how far they can go without sinning, these guys want to go in the opposite direction, running to the Savior, away from the line, for His glory.

2. Most arguments I hear to justify debt are not Biblical but rather practical. (Although Randy Alcorn offers Biblical arguments that need to be discussed.) Arguments such as: "I can't own a house without debt, and if I rent, I throw my money away and am a bad steward." But if Scripture DOES prohibit debt, then it does not matter if it seems impossible to buy a house without debt. It does not matter if debt can be used to make a long term profit. If it's prohibited, it's prohibited, and God is glorified in the keeping of His law and that's what should matter to us. And this is why we need to have a conviction on whether or not debt is wrong!

3. Debt free living (including housing) takes a radical lifestyle change. Radical lifestyle change (in all areas - not limited to just finances) is exactly what Jesus and the apostles constantly call for. If debt is wrong it should not surprise us. We are to live radically different than our culture.

4. Faith needs to be a part of the discussion. For example, debt sent me to seminary. In my mind, I couldn't have gone to seminary without financing it. Would God have provided for me had I chose not to take out a loan? We'll never know - I never gave Him the chance - but I bet He would have. But I hear you say, "God provided through the loan." Again, this is why we need to have a conviction on whether or not debt is wrong! That argument won't fly if debt is wrong.

5. Saving while owing needs to be part of the discussion. Is it OK to have a significant savings account while still in debt to another? Many people do. The thinking is (especially on a low interest loan, such as a auto loan) that it is better to simply make the payments over the life of the loan and keep the savings for security. The extra cost of paying the interest of the loan over its life is worth the security of keeping a savings account for an emergency. But this needs to be thought through regardless of whether you like NASB or NIV, because the text says, don't let the loan linger. So is it right to accumulate wealth while you owe another money?

6. I have debt. Not as much as I used to. None of it is "foolish debt." It's all "justified" by American Christian standards. I'm confident I can eliminate it all in 2 years (Lord willing). But if I stay on my current line of thought, that may be the last time I have debt. Lord willing.

I Love the phone company...

This one goes out to my great friend Don - he works for the phone company. After you watch this you should go check out his blog: I'm just a phone guy

Brian Regan on UPS

Martin Luther on the canon

As I have mentioned before, I enjoy reading Martin Luther's straightforward language - no beating around the bush. If you didn't enjoy music, you were a "clodhopper." Luther did not believe Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation were of the same "high quality" as other books of the NT.

In his preface to James in his 1522 NT, Luther calls it "an epistle of straw."

On Revelation, Luther wrote: "it lacks everything I hold as apostolic or prophetic."

Luther mistrusted Revelation because of its obscurity. He writes (which is one of my all time favorite Luther quotes): "A revelation should be revealing."

On study Bibles...

I was re-reading an old favorite book of mine called The Millenium by (Mr.) Loraine Boettner, published in 1958. He closes the book by making some arguments against the popular Schofield Reference Bible - actually, his argument is against study Bibles in general. He writes this long before everyone had the study Bible for the doctrine of their choice in their hands. Boettner's point is that the popularity of dispensationalism could be due to the fact that the controversial views were published on the same pages, alongside the actual Scriptures, thereby causing the doctrine to have more authority than it actually should. His perspective deserves to be heard:

Scofield assured himself of a very large reading audience and a very
favorable reception to his views, not by presenting his Explanatory Notes in a
separate commentary, in which case they probably would have had no more
influence than many another book, but by putting them in the Bible in such a way
that they would be read as the Bible is read. Imagine the confusion that would
result if other schools of thought put out Bibles with notes setting forth
postmillennial, amillennial, Calvinistic, and Arminian systems, not to mention
the endless interpretations that would result if the various denominations so
presented their views.

Boettner goes on to write:

We are convinced that much of what passes for Bible study in the dispensational
system ultimately rests on nothing more substantial than a footnote somewhere in
the Schofield Bible.

Great points. Most people will believe what their study notes say. How much of your eschatological assumptions are based upon objective, presuppositionless Bible study and how much is based upon something you read?

Loraine Boettner believed in Bibles printed by the British and Foreign Bible Society who stamped their logo on the Bible: "Without Note or Comment."

I hate to break the future to you Dr. Boettner, but the confusion you predicted by every doctrinal persuasion printing their own study Bible is in full force.

Which study Bible do you prefer?

Larry Burkett's final warnings

I recently read Larry Burkett's The Coming Economic Earthquake, published in 1991. I wanted see what his forecast was for the US economy and compare to how it has actually played out. Burkett was spot on in most areas and he gave many accurate indicators for "the earthquake" (the earthquake being a collapse of the economy bringing about hyperinflation, high unemployment and government bankruptcy).

However my greatest interest came from his "final warnings." In his view these are the final signs before the collapse:

1. A banking crisis
" Once the number of bad loans exceeds the statistical number necessary to repay the depositors' interest, the bank will fail..."
He goes on to explain that in an economy with unemployment exceeding 10%, many normally sound loans will default, and will swallow up hundreds of banks causing additional government subsidies. There are only 3 locations for the govt to subsidize public companies: new taxes, more loans, or printed money - pick your poison.

2. Business failures
"When the additional factors of mandatory health insurance, workmen's compensation, liability insurance, property taxes, inventory taxes, and eventually value-added taxes are dumped on small and medium sized businesses, we will see massive failures."

3. The denial syndrome
"The more vehement the denials, the bigger the potential crisis."
"Even if evidence indicates bank failures, business failures, and desperate efforts on the part of federal and state governments to raise funds, you can be sure the information coming out of Washington will be upbeat and positive."

And as Burkett frequently writes, our economy rises and falls on ultimately one factor: public confidence. Panic collapses, confidence builds; so it is so funny to here the positivity come from Washington when government, business, and private debt will bring us all down. Not a matter of if, but when.

John Piper is using Twitter

Wondered if I'd ever see the day, but John Piper is now using twitter. He defended himself from the "Twitter is narcisistic" argument (an argument I have used) at the DG blog. Here is part of his argument:

So I am not inclined to tweet that at 10AM the cat pulled the curtains down. But
it might remind me that the Lion of Judah will roll up the heavens like a
garment, and blow out the sun like a candle, because he just turned the light
on. That tweet might distract someone from pornography and make them look up.

Read the whole thing.