Turn it around. Look at the whole system, assume that there isn't growth, and that individual businessmen are paying interest on money that was borrowed, and see if there is any contradiction. No, not so long as the productive equipment being purchased is used to replace existing productive equipment that is wearing out. Gross investment can therefore be profitable whether it is net new investment or replacement for depreciated equipment. The profit that goes to provide the owner of the productive equipment with more money than was used to acquire the equipment is just a division of the funds coming into the going concern.
Different participants have different entitlements to the earnings of the concern.
In a stable division of these entitlements, with a stable flow of earnings, there will be the same amount of money available to provide profit above the cost of the equipment this year, next year, next decade, etc. That simply introduces an additional entitlement to the earnings of the going concern, which reduces the amount available for the people getting the profit share. Some sectors will have to let equipment depreciate without being replaced, and others will have to invest in new equipment to do things in different ways from the ways we are doing things now. So if going concerns continue to need to have equipment up front for activities which will be funded by the sale of the product or service, then there will continue to be a need for borrowing. This is based on a natural rate of employment, homogenous capital equipment, and all sorts of other wonderfully heroic assumptions.