 |
 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What Saith the Scripture?
http://www.WhatSaithTheScripture.com/
Being In Debt
by Charles Grandison Finney
President of Oberlin College
from "The
Oberlin Evangelist" Publication of Oberlin College
Lecture XIII
July 31, 1839
Public Domain Text
Reformatted by Katie Stewart
.
Text.--Rom. 13:8: "Owe no man any thing."
In discussing this subject I design to show:
I. The meaning of the text.
II. That to be in debt is sin.
III. The duty of those who are in debt.
I. I am to show the meaning of the text.
The meaning of this text, like most others, is to be learned from a careful examination
of the verses in its connection. The Apostle begins the chapter by enforcing the
duty of obedience to civil magistrates.
"Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers. For there is no power but
of God; the powers that be are ordained of God. Whosoever, therefore, resisteth the
power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive unto themselves
damnation. For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to the evil. Wilt thou
then not be afraid of the power? Do that which is good, and thou shalt have praise
of the same. For he is the minister of God unto thee for good. But if thou do that
which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain; for he is the minister
of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil. Wherefore ye must be
subject not only for wrath, but also for conscience sake. For, for this cause pay
ye tribute also, for they are God's ministers, attending continually upon this very
thing."
They are the servants of God, employed for your benefit. You are therefore to pay
them tribute; i.e. give them the support which their circumstances require.
In the light of this and various other passages of scripture, I have often wondered
how it was possible that any person could call in question the duty of obeying civil
magistrates. Or how they could call in question the right and duty of magistrates
to inflict civil penalties, and even capital punishment, where the nature of the
case demands it. Certainly this passage recognizes their right and their duty "to
execute wrath" upon transgressors, as the servants and executioners of God's
vengeance.
"Render therefore to all their dues; tribute to whom tribute is due; custom
to whom custom; fear to whom fear; honor to whom honor. Owe no man any thing, but
to love one another; for he that 1oveth another hath fulfilled the law. For this,
Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not bear false witness,
Thou shalt not covet, and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended
in this saying, viz: Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Love worketh no ill
to his neighbor, therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
From this connection, it is evident that the Apostle designed to teach, that whenever
we come to owe a man, we should immediately pay him. And not suffer any debt or obligation
to rest upon us undischarged.
"Owe no man any thing, but to love one another." Here the Apostle recognizes
the truth that love is of perpetual obligation. And that this obligation can never
be so canceled or discharged as to be no longer binding. He recognizes no other obligation
except love with its natural fruits as being, in its own nature, of perpetual obligation.
In respect to this obligation, all that we can do is to fulfill it every moment,
without the possibility of so fulfilling it, as to set aside the continued obligation
to love.
But we are to owe no man any thing else but love. We are to "render to all their
dues, tribute to whom tribute is due, honor to whom honor."
I understand the text, then, simply to mean, let no obligation but that of love with
its natural fruits, which is, from its very nature, a perpetual obligation, rest
upon you undischarged.
I am aware that some modern critics maintain that this passage should have been rendered
indicatively. But such men as Doddridge and Henry, Barnes and Prof. Stuart, are of
the opinion that its imperative rendering is correct. And all are agreed that the
doctrine of this text, as it stands, is plainly a doctrine of the Bible.
Here the question arises, what is it to owe a man in the sense of this text? I answer,
We do not properly owe an individual until we are under an obligation to pay him. Whenever he has a right to demand the pay, we have no right to withhold it.
There may be such a thing as contracting a prospective debt, giving your obligation to become due at a certain time. But then you do not properly owe, because you are under no obligation to pay till it becomes due. But whenever it becomes due you are bound immediately to pay it.
II. I am to show that it is a sin to be in debt.
OBJECTION.--It may be said, I cannot avoid being in debt. I answer to this,
That if you cannot pay, you could have avoided contracting the debt, and were bound
to do so.
Do you reply, I really needed the thing which I purchased?
I ask, were your necessities so great that you would have been justified, in your
estimation, in lying or stealing to supply them? If not, why have you resorted to
fraud? The same authority that prohibits lying or stealing, prohibits your owing
a man. Why, then, do you violate this commandment of God, any more than the other?
Is it not because a corrupt public sentiment, has rendered the violation of this
commandment less disgraceful than to violate these other commands of God? Why did
you not resort to begging instead of running in debt? Better far to beg than to run
in debt. Begging is not prohibited by any command of God, but being in debt is prohibited.
True, it is disgraceful to beg. But a God-dishonoring public sentiment has rendered
it far less so to be in debt. And does not this account for your shameless violation
of this command of God?
Do you say again, I have been disappointed. I expected to have had the money; I made
the contract in good faith, and expected to meet it at the time. But others owe me
and do not pay me, therefore I am unable to pay my debts. To this I reply,
You should have contracted with that expressed condition. You should have made known
your circumstances, and the ground of your expectation in regard to being able to
pay at the time appointed. In that case, if your creditor was willing to run the
risk, of your being disappointed, the fault is not yours, as you have practiced no
injustice or deception. But if your contract was without condition, you have taken
upon yourself the risk of disappointment, and are not guiltless.
But here it may be said again, nearly the whole Church are in debt, and if subject
to discipline, who shall cast the first stone? I reply,
(1) If it be true that the Church is so extensively in debt, no wonder that the curse of God is upon her.
(2) Again, it may be true that a Church may be so generally involved in any given sin as to make that sin a difficult subject of discipline, because each man knows that he himself is guilty, and must in his turn submit to the same discipline. But when this is true of any Church, it is a shameless abomination for the members of that Church to attempt to hide themselves under the admitted fact that nearly all the Church are involved in the guilt of it.
Now rest assured that when any sin becomes so prevalent that it cannot, and is
not made, in that Church, a subject of discipline, God himself will sooner or later
take up the rod, and find means to discipline, and that effectually, such a Church.
III. I am to state the duty of those who are in debt.
Here it may be asked again, does the law of love permit my creditor to demand a sacrifice of me? If he loves me as he does himself, why should he require or even allow me to make a sacrifice of property to pay what I owe him? I reply:
Suppose you hold the place of C. A. refuses to make a sacrifice to pay B., and B to pay you. Shall you sin because they do, and involve your creditor in loss and sin? No. Whatever others may do, you are bound to pay your debts. And unless your creditor voluntarily consents to defer the time of payment, you are bound to pay him at any sacrifice.
I do not say that a man should not in any case borrow of one man to pay another. But this I say, that as a general thing, such practices are highly reprehensible. Still, if a debt becomes due, and you have not the money at hand, but are certain that at a given time you shall have it, I do not suppose it wrong for you to borrow and pay this debt, with the understanding that you pay this borrowed money at the time specified. But to borrow money with no other prospect of an ultimate payment than that you can borrow again, and thus keep up your credit from time to time, is wicked.
But here it should be particularly understood what is and what is not to be accounted as giving money away; e.g. it is not giving away your money to pay the current expenses of the congregation to which you are attached. Your proportion of the current expenses of the congregation or Church to which you belong is impliedly, if not expressly contracted by you. You cannot withhold it any more than the payment of any other debt.
The same may be said of the support of ministers and foreign missionaries, and all for whose support the faith of the Church is pledged. It seems to be a common, but erroneous understanding of professors of religion, that what are more generally called their secular debts or obligations are binding, and are to be discharged of course. But that their obligations, expressed or implied, to religious institutions are not so absolutely binding; and of course they can give nothing, as they express it, to these objects until their debts are paid. Now, beloved, you ought to know that to the support of the institutions of religion, you are pledged, both virtually and actually, by your profession, and that these are your most sacred debts, and are thus to be considered and discharged by you. I beseech of you not to consider the meeting and canceling of such demands as these in the light of a gift,--as if you were making God a present instead of discharging a solemn debt. I have been astonished to find that the pecuniary embarrassments of the few past years have so far crippled the movements of the great benevolent societies for want of funds; and that Missionaries, for whose support the faith and honor of the Church were pledged, should be so far cut short of their necessary supplies, under the pretense that the Church must pay her secular debts before she could discharge her high and sacred obligations to them, and the work in which they are engaged.
A creditor has no right to deprive you of necessary food and indispensable raiment, or of your liberty. To do so would put it out of your power ever to pay. But you have no right to indulge in any thing more than the necessaries of life, while your debts are unpaid. To do so is as unlawful as it would be to steal to purchase unnecessary articles.
REMARKS.
1. From what has been said, it is plain that the whole credit system, if not absolutely
sinful, is nevertheless so highly dangerous that no Christian should embark in it.
Since the preaching of this sermon, this remark has been censured as a rash one.
A rash remark! Let the present history and experience of the Church say whether the
credit system is not so highly dangerous that the man who will venture to embark
in it is guilty of rashness and presumption. When has religion for centuries been
so generally disgraced, as by the bankruptcy of its professors within the last few
years? And how many millions of money are now due from Church members to ungodly
men that will never be paid? Rash! Why this is the very plea of the Church, that
they can do nothing for the support of the gospel, because they are so much in debt.
Is there no danger of any man's getting in debt who attempts to trade upon a borrowed
capital? Indeed it is highly dangerous, as universal experience shows.
And what is the necessity, I pray, for Christians to embark in so dangerous an enterprise,
and one that so highly jeopardizes the honor or religion? Is it because the necessities
of life can be procured in no other way? Is it because the institutions of religion
demand it? Religion sustains a greater loss through the debts and bankruptcies of
Christians, than it ever gains by their prosperity.
But the credit system, as it now prevails and has prevailed, is useless, and worse
than useless; e.g. suppose the consumers of merchandise, instead of anticipating
their yearly crops and yearly income and running in debt with the expectation of
paying from these, were to take a little pains to reverse this order of things and
be a year beforehand, paying down for what they purchase, and having the income of
each year beforehand, so as to contract no debts. In this case the country merchants,
giving no credit, but receiving ready pay, would be able to pay down on the purchase
of their goods from the wholesale dealer--the wholesale dealer would pay down to
the importer--the importer to the manufacturer--and the manufacturer to the producer.
Now any man can see that many millions a year would be saved to this country in this
way. The manufacturer could afford an article cheaper for ready pay--and so could
the importer--and the wholesale dealer--and each one in his turn, down to the consumer.
Every one could sell cheaper for ready pay, as no risk would be run, and business
could be done with much greater convenience and safety. Thus an entire rejection
of the credit system, in its present form, and an adoption of the system of ready
pay would afford to the consumer every article so much cheaper as to save millions
of dollars every year. And I do not apprehend that there is in reality any serious
difficulty in so reversing the whole order of business.
At another time I may more particularly examine the credit system in its foundation
and various ramifications, and the nature and tendencies of the prevailing system
of doing business on borrowed capital. But at present I can only say, as I have said,
that, waiving the question whether it is absolutely sinful in itself, it is too highly
dangerous to be embarked in by those who feel a tender solicitude for the honor and
cause of Christ.
2. That if in any case the present payment of debts is impossible, your duty is to
regard your indebtedness as a sin against God and your neighbor--to repent, and set
yourself with all practicable self-denial, to pay as fast as you can. And unless
you are laying yourself out to pay your debts, do not imagine that you repent either
of your indebtedness or any other sin. For you are impenitent, and a shameless hypocrite
rather than a Christian, if you suffer yourself to be in debt, and are not making
all practicable efforts to do justice to your creditors.
3. If payment is possible, by any sacrifice of property on your part, sin is upon
you, till you do pay. There is a wicked custom among men, and to a considerable amount
in the Church, of putting property out of their hands, to avoid a sacrifice in the
payment of their debts.
As an instance take the eIder whom I mentioned in a former lecture, who confessed
to me that "he was avoiding the sacrifice of his property, in the payment of
his debts, by finesse of law."
4. The lax notions and practices of the world, and of the Church upon this subject,
are truly abominable. It has come to pass, that a man may not only be considered
a respectable citizen, but a respectable member of the Church, who suffers himself
to be in debt--who has judgments and executions against him, and who resorts not
only "to finesse of law to avoid the payment of his debts," but who practices
the most palpable frauds against both God and man, by putting his property out of
his hands to avoid meeting his just responsibilities.
O shame, on the Church, and on these professors of religion. Some of them will even
go to an unconverted lawyer for advice in this iniquitous business, and lay open
before his unconverted heart, their shameless iniquity. Alas, how many lawyers are
thus led to call in question the whole truth of the Christian religion; and over
these dishonest professors, they stumble into hell. And until the Church will rise
up and wash her hands, and cleanse her garments from this iniquity, by banishing
such persons from her communion, the cause of Christ will not cease to bleed at every
pore.
5. Some persons take the ground, that not to meet their contracts and pay their debts
when they become due, is not sinful, on account of the general understanding of businessmen
upon such subjects. To this I answer,
(1) There is no understanding among businessmen that debts are not to be paid when they become due. Among that class of men the nonpayment of a debt, always involves a disgrace, and a wrong, even in their own estimation.
(2) Let the public sentiment be what it might among businessmen, still the law of God cannot be altered, and by this unchanging law it is a sin to be in debt. And as "sin is a disgrace to any people," it is both a sin and a shame to be in debt.
6. The rule laid down in this text is applicable, not only to individuals, but
to corporations, and nations, and all bodies of men assuming pecuniary responsibilities.
7. It is dishonest and dishonorable, to hire or purchase an article and say nothing
about payment till afterwards.
8. The violation of this law, is working immense mischief in the Church, and in the
world. It is truly shocking to see to what an extent the Church is involved in debt,
and Church members are engaged in collecting debts of each other, by force of law.
The heart burnings, and bitterness that exist among Church members on account of
the nonpayment of their debts to each other, are awfully great and alarming.
Besides all this, in what light does the Church appear before the world--as a mass
of moneymakers, and speculators, and bankrupts--shuffling and managing through finesse
of law, to avoid the payment of their debts?
I could relate facts within my own knowledge, and many of them too, that would cause
the cheek of piety to blush. Alas, for the rage, and madness of a speculating, moneymaking,
fraudulent Church!
9. There is great reason to believe that many young men, in the course of their education,
involve themselves in debts, that so far eat up their piety as to render them nearly
useless all their days. I would sooner be twenty-five years in getting an education,
and paying my way, than involve myself in debt to the Education Society or in any
other way.
How many young men there are, who are in debt to the Education Society, and who are
dealing very loosely with their consciences, on the subject of payment. Because the
Education Society do not press them right up, they let the matter lie along from
time to time--increase their expenditures, as their income may increase, instead
of practicing self-denial, and honestly discharging their obligations to the Society.
10. I cannot have confidence in the piety of any man, who is not conscientious in
the payment of his debts. I know some men who are in debt, and who spend their time
and their property, in a manner wholly inconsistent with their circumstances; and
still make great pretensions to piety. They are active in prayer meetings--take a
conspicuous place at the communion table--and even hold a responsible office in the
Church of Christ, and yet they seem to have no conscience about paying their debts.
I believe it is right, and the duty of all churches and ministers to exclude such
persons from the communion of the Church. And were it generally done, it would go
far to wipe away the stains that have been brought by such persons upon the religion
of Jesus Christ. I do not see why they should be suffered to come to the communion
table, any more than whoremongers, or murderers, or drunkards, or Sabbath breakers,
or slave-holders.
11. There must be a great reformation in the Church upon this subject, before the
business class of ungodly men will have much confidence in Religion. This reformation
should begin immediately, and begin where it ought to begin, among the leading members
of the Church of Christ. Ministers and Church Judicatories should speak out upon
the subject--should "cry aloud and spare not, but lift up their voice like a
trumpet and show Israel his transgressions and the house of Jacob their sins."
And now beloved, are any of you in debt? Then sin is upon you. Rise up, and show
yourselves clean in this matter, I beseech you. Make every effort to meet and discharge
your responsibilities. And beware that in attempting to pay your debts, you do not
resort to means that are as highly reprehensible as to be in debt.
12. Let no one complain, and say that instead of preaching the gospel I am discussing
mere business transactions. The truth is, that the gospel is to regulate the business
transactions of the world. Religion is a practical thing. It does not consist in
austerities, prayers, and masses, and monkish superstitions, as Papists vainly dream.
If religion does not take hold of a man's business operations--if it does not reform
his daily life and habits, of what avail is it? Until in these respects your practice
is right, you cannot expect to enjoy the influences of the Holy Spirit. You cannot
grow in holiness any further than you reform your practice.
The perceptive part of the gospel therefore, is to be spread out in all its detail
before you. And when you find it "convinces you of sin," I beg of you not
to turn around, and say that this is preaching about business, and not about religion.
What is business but a part of religion? A man that does not consider it so in practice,
has no religion at all.
And now, dearly beloved, instead of suffering your heart to rise up and resist what
I have said, will you not as I have often requested, go down upon your knees, and
spread this whole subject before the Lord? Will you not inquire wherein you have
erred, and sinned, and make haste to repent, and reform your lives?
GLOSSARY
of easily misunderstood terms as defined by Mr. Finney himself.
Compiled by Katie Stewart
.
Homepage 
Holy Bible
.Jehovah Jesus
Timeline .Prophecy Philadelphia Fellowship Promises Stories Poetry Links
Purpose ||.What's New
|| Tribulation Topics || Download Page || Today's Entry
Topical Links:
Salvation || Catholicism || Sound Doctrine || Prayer
Privacy Policy
.