Here is a PDF copy: http://www.biblicalhorizons.com/pdf/cc_4.pdf

http://www.pastormattrichard.com/2011/04/weaker-brother-watch-thy-step-seriously.html

On the matter of the correct understanding of the exception in Deuteronomy 23:20, I find that further replies are necessary on three lines: 1) the etymology, meaning, and usage of nokri, 2) the history of Christian teaching, and 3) the history of Ancient economics.

I took this to mean that the question at hand was still how best to understand Deut. 23:20 and that to this end you wanted to consider the significance of the nokri in Deut. 23:20, the history of Christian interpretation of Deut. 23:20, and the economics relevant for understanding Deut. 23:20. This made sense to me because my interest had been primarily in understanding Deut. 23:20 and because in my view (1) you had not truly engaged with the etymology (verbal root), the meaning (foreigner, not enemy), and usage (never applied to the nations to be eradicated) of nokri, (2) you had not responded to my challenge of your claim to represent the traditional interpretation of Deut. 23:20, (3) and you had not engaged with the evidence and illustration I provided for the economic background of Deut. 23:20.

I am sorry about this misreading and realise now that your focus was different from mine. You were content to leave Deut. 23:20 behind, at least for the time being, when you saw me “move the discussion along to consideration of the history of Christian teaching” but my reference to Aquinas in post 85 and 86 is clearly still in the context of “the meaning and reference of nokri in Deut. 23:20.” I had no intention to move away from Deut. 23:20 which is why post 87 looked to me like a sudden shift, not initiated by me but motivated by your unwillingness to address the points I had made about the interpretation of Deut. 23:20.

Let me repeat what I wrote in post 85, “Errors in the history of Christian teaching on usury could have been avoided by closer attention to this part of Scripture.” It is your privilege to go about this in any way you want but I think it is a pity that you left “the Church’s view of the Deuteronomic permission” for “the next post” (citation from post 90).

Thank you for your exhortation. It is a constant struggle to maintain a proper tone and not degenerate into a testosterone contest. Your comments come as a breath of fresh air that provide a pause in which I can step back, as it were, and reorient my perspective. I am eager to resume the discussion in a renewed spirit of charity.

Thomas,

I find that the only way in which I can clear up the communication problem is to reiterate here what I have made abundantly clear in prior posts. In post 57, following dozens of wide-ranging and detailed posts, you enumerated 12 theses on usury. In post 67 you announce that you have posted a summary of all your material to a google page. In post 68 I declare my intent to reply to your extensive arguments in an organized way, following three major points: 1) the meaning of nokri, 2) the history of Christian teaching, and 3) economic history. I proceed then, in post 68 to launch directly into replies in the first of these three. This discussion ensues until in post 81 I suggest that we had come to an impasse, and propose to move on to the second vein in which I need to make replies – the history of Christian teaching. But, I do not declare this unilaterally. I quite clearly state: “I do not wish to leave this line of discussion with major issues left open ….I do not wish to omit comment on major aspects of your challenge to me …Is there any further comment needed on the matter of nokri, or shall we press on to the history of Christian teaching?” In post 82, you do not address this question directly, but launch into discussion of various points, which I take to be those that you feel need further comment. We discuss these matters briefly until, in posts 85 and 86, you yourself move the discussion along to consideration of the history of Christian teaching. In post 87 I defer comment on Aquinas because my first priority in discussing the history of Christian teaching is to settle the matter of the 1500 years. I did not promise comment on Aquinas on my “next post.” What I said was, “in due course.” Indeed, I think that listening could be improved on both sides.

I clearly have stated my agenda of providing replies within the framework of an outline: 1) nokri, 2) Christian history, 3) economic history. You are at liberty to comment on my replies, and I hope you will. This sort of interaction is a great service to me to hone my arguments and presentation. (Where were you twenty years ago? Then, I had only the likes of Gary North to contend with!) However, you are not at liberty to dictate to me the manner and method of my replies. You have laid out your theses on usury, and have made it clear how this challenges my views. I clearly have stated my design in making replies, and have demonstrated methodical consistency in pursuit of my design. I shall continue posting my replies according to this regimen, for my own purposes and for the benefit of those who may still be reading this thread. Whether you continue interacting or not is your own decision. Should you wish to continue, I suggest that communication problems may be avoided if you remain cognizant of my method and read more carefully.

Too much me vs. you because I know more than you….

Sigh, that’s why it is HIS blog, and not YOURS!

If you want to pontificate, you get a blog of your own. If you want to listen to what minds more intelligent that you have written, either read their blogs or don’t.

Some people are just too ‘touchy’ on these subjects. If I agree with someone, it merely proves that I have been correct in my reading and research. If I can see the fallacies of their arguments, or I just know that they are ‘wrong’, I take that into account. While one can err in tone and meaning (this being an imperfect medium) the reader has to understand that they COME to a blog to LEARN something, not to engage in either ‘ad hominem’ attacks’ or ‘you should be nicer to me, because you just trounced my opinions.’

That sort of attitude is frankly sophomoric (meaning, I get that whining in my college classrooms all the time), and not mature. In the first case, for instance: Mr. Mooney has written quite a bit, that shows he is intelligent. But, I don’t always agree with him, because our worldviews are diametrically opposed to one another. (I am Orthodox, he is not) Yet, I still glean what I can, and move on, and pray for those whom I clearly see God has given great gifts to….

In the second, well, that is why I (and many others) have MY/our own blog(s).

Sincerely,

What was uppermost in my mind was not, as you imply, the validity and value of Scott’s contributions but the potential value of future posts from myself. Scott does of course not need my permission to continue to share knowledge and ideas, nor does anyone else.

I only need to give an account to God for the use of the time and resources entrusted to me and I am mindful of the fact that my contributions have cost me a lot of time and energy.

Psalm 15 is both challenging and comforting in our context. I cannot but hear echoes of Psalm 1, reassuring me that it is indeed a good thing to delight in God’s Torah, taking time meditating over its very words, and not to sit with the scoffers but to take care about one’s words and to abstain from slander and scorn and from exploiting the vulnerability of a neighbour.

God’s people need protecting from those who would destroy the temple by building with the wrong material (1 Cor. 3.17) which is why ministers of Christ sometimes must engage in discussions such as this, not least to support the vulnerable whose weak conscience may be bound by those who confidently assert half-truths, thinking themselves in sole possession of God’s wisdom on this matter.

But as we engage in such discussions, we do indeed well not to put our trust in rhetorical skill but in God himself and the power of truth. As we remember the first martyr of the Christian church, I observe that God shamed the wise as “they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which [Stephen] was speaking” (Acts 6.10) but that God glorified himself even more, as “they cried out with a loud voice and stopped their ears and rushed together at [Stephen]” to kill him (Acts 7.57).

St Stephen’s Day