# Lawful to Break Unlawful Vows?



## sevenzedek (Apr 25, 2013)

WCF 22:7, No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.

Is it lawful for a person making an unlawful vow to forsake keeping it? For instance, if a person makes a vow to live a life of celibacy or professed poverty, is it lawful to break these vows?

What makes a vow unlawful; that the word of God is not requiring such of us? Would a vow to never eat bread again be a lawful vow? Would a vow to never to never have sinful thoughts be lawful?

What if a person has already broken a vow? Should he try to keep the vow even though it has been broken already?


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 25, 2013)

You got to do what you got to do. If retreating from a sinful vow is necessary it is is the better option.


----------



## sevenzedek (Apr 25, 2013)

A5pointer said:


> You got to do what you got to do. If retreating from a sinful vow is necessary it is is the better option.



I agree. For instance, Jephthah would have chosen the better option if had avoided murdering his daughter; but what about the person who vows an unlawful vow to remain single when it is not necessarily sinful to remain single in the first place?


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Apr 25, 2013)

A sinful oath is not a binding one, you cannot be bound to sin. God does not expect you to sin in order to keep your vow.

However, you may vow to your own hurt "If you get ordained to the ministry, I will eat my hat" and ought to change not. (Ps 15:4) Vows if they can be kept (ie, if they are not sinful) should be kept. As it is a sin to be a minister of a false religion, the popish vows can be retreated from.

A vow is unlawful if it is against the Word of God.

Never to eat bread again would be unlawful, since it is one of the outward sensible signs which the Christian is to partake of to show forth the Lord's death till he come.

The breaking of a vow is to be repented of but the oath is still binding unless you are loosed from it.. Ie, if an adulterer is not put away by their partner, their vow to remain faithful and not to engage in adultery remains binding. As does, a Minister's vows to maintain the discipline and practice or worship of a Church, even if it is felt he broke this on one occasion - he is to bewail his sin repent of it and keep his oath.


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 25, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> A5pointer said:
> 
> 
> > You got to do what you got to do. If retreating from a sinful vow is necessary it is is the better option.
> ...



Another subject but I am not sure Jeptha(ot) made the wrong choice in keeping the vow.


----------



## sevenzedek (Apr 25, 2013)

ProtestantBankie said:


> However, you may vow to your own hurt "If you get ordained to the ministry, I will eat my hat" and ought to change not. (Ps 15:4) Vows if they can be kept (ie, if they are not sinful) should be kept. As it is a sin to be a minister of a false religion, the popish vows can be retreated from.



Are you saying that a person who vows to eat their hat is bound to eat their hat in such an instance?

What if a person makes a vow of celibacy and does so as a confused Protestant? Is this person bound to keep such an unlawful vow to his own his own hurt?


----------



## ProtestantBankie (Apr 25, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> ProtestantBankie said:
> 
> 
> > However, you may vow to your own hurt "If you get ordained to the ministry, I will eat my hat" and ought to change not. (Ps 15:4) Vows if they can be kept (ie, if they are not sinful) should be kept. As it is a sin to be a minister of a false religion, the popish vows can be retreated from.
> ...



I make the hat point to show the absurdity of making such a statement. I would say it sinful to make such a statement in a serious manner, as we are unable to eat hats.

However if I said "If you are ordained to the ministry, I will give you my whole theological library" I would be bound to do so and not to do so would be sinful.

___________

A vow of celibacy would be made by a "confused" Protestant, he had no reason for thinking such an oath a good thing. What would the scriptures say of such an oath? There is adequate evidence to suggest that the taking of such an oath (rather than making a choice of "DV I won't get married in order to do X.") would be a pre-judgment of providence and seems to suggest their is something sinful in marriage which is honourable in all and formed part of the creation ordinance. If I were in that situation, I would see my sin as making the oath - not keeping it.


----------



## A5pointer (Apr 25, 2013)

kind of wondering why you are wondering?


----------



## Rich Koster (Apr 25, 2013)

Wouldn't turning away from an "against God's word" vow be considered repentance?


----------



## Paul1976 (Apr 25, 2013)

I do not consider a vow of celibacy to be against God's word, just not required by it. Paul may never have made such a vow, but he clearly considered celibacy to be of value and encouraged other Christians to consider celibacy. While a vow to that effect would be extreme, it does not seem unbiblical or against God's word.

However, it might not be an uncommon occurrence for an individual to make a non-sinful but stupid vow (i.e. celibacy) prior to becoming born again. I do believe a case could then be made that an individual's death/resurrection with Christ on conversion would render that individual's old vows obsolete. Paul makes essentially this case with respect to being bound to the law prior to conversion and freed from the law afterwards. This would certainly be the case for an individual that had made vows within a cult. In that instance, I believe an individual who had made a vow of celibacy would be free to marry. Presumably Martin Luther followed the above logic, as he would have vowed celibacy as a monk but chose to marry later in life. 

It may well be a matter of discernment over whether to keep such a vow - would it help or hurt your testimony as a believer to abandon such a vow. If breaking the vow would alienate you from friends you hope to win to Christ, perhaps it might be better to keep it. On the other hand, abandoning the vow might help you to move out of a non-Christian way of living and move you closer to Christ. Thanks be to God we do not live under law, but under the Spirit!


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 25, 2013)

If a man (or woman) has not been given the gift of continence, then a vow of celibacy is rash at best, and probably sinful.

Especially if it is a *religious oath*, is such a vow to be repented of, rather than kept simply to maintain appearance of piety.



[and unrelated to the main subject, but mentioned above: many sound exegetes question the _extreme_ interpretation and follow-through of Jephtha's vow; you can find some discussion of the matter in the P-B archives.]


----------



## Miss Marple (Apr 25, 2013)

A5pointer said:


> sevenzedek said:
> 
> 
> > A5pointer said:
> ...



Wow, I would think a vow to murder your daughter would be a good example of what kind of vow should be broken.

Talk about a promise to sin! Your daughter's life is not yours to take.


----------



## sevenzedek (Apr 26, 2013)

Contra_Mundum said:


> If a man (or woman) has not been given the gift of continence, then a vow of celibacy is rash at best, and probably sinful.
> 
> Especially if it is a *religious oath*, is such a vow to be repented of, rather than kept simply to maintain appearance of piety.




Herein lies one of my quandaries about WCF 22. If it is lawful to be celibate in the first place, then why is it seen to be unlawful to make a vow to be it? The way I see it, if it is lawful to give one's theological library away and to make a vow to do so according to an scenario mentioned above, then it would seem lawful to make a vow to be celibate. It would seem lawful because one is making a vow to do something not considered to be sinful. I understand that one of the problems the Roman Catholic Church gets into is that celibacy becomes a requirement.

Also, what it sounds like you are saying, Pastor Bruce, is that a vow should be repented of and not kept if it was made rashly and/or unlawfully. This being so, how is one to swear to their own hurt?


----------



## Alan D. Strange (Apr 26, 2013)

Jon:

Any lawful vow, i.e., one not made rashly or against God's law, will have difficult aspects to the keeping of it ("to one's own hurt"). Think of the baptismal vow, the vow of communicant membership, and the marriage vow. 

Take the baptismal or communicant vows: it is required by those that I die daily. Is that not a swearing to my own hurt? I am required by my marriage vow to love my wife even if she fails to respect or trust me in a particular situation. There are countless occasions that one keeps a vow even when it hurts (which is what "swear to one's own hurt" means) that are inarguably legitimate vows.

In fact, for us here on this board, the problem is not, ordinarily, one assumes, the taking of rash or unlawful vows. The problem is the keeping of our lawful ones. Unlawful oaths and vows would be, among us, a comparatively minor and rare issue. 

Peace,
Alan


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 26, 2013)

The Romanist vow of celibacy is a claim to know (revelation) "God doesn't want me to marry." First, it isn't a general revelation from the Word. Second, it isn't a private revelation either (God told me).

A person who is content in singleness doesn't need a vow to continue in his state. If he feels that way at 20, and so "vows," what if at 30 he has a serious passion for a woman--something he couldn't imagine having at 20? Since he had NO authority from God to vow at 20, he made a rash, hasty, and foolish predetermination to defy his natural urges life-long, which he finds grievous at thirty to himself--and possibly heartbreaking to an innocent girl. His stupid vow is hurting people in every direction--not just himself.

When religion and "holiness" is then added to such a vow, conscience is being pressured further to serve a perverse end, already twisted by the conflict between new (and perfectly legitimate) desire and an ordinary impulse to honor one's old commitment.

I say Paul is clear, and such a vow is simply unlawful (and hence unenforceable even on oneself). Not that voluntary, life-long singleness is sinful or distinctly "unnatural," but it is not the ordinary way of nature in this life. The urge to "merge" is NORMAL, and Paul bluntly states that "burning" is undesirable when marriage is available. A man's initial "vow" to God for celibacy was to personally enforce a "gift" from himself to God which was not given to him by God in the first place.

Finally, the vow to life-long singleness is BLASPHEMOUS. All unfounded claims to know the future (and such is the claim to know that one will NEVER need marriage) are an invasion of God's turf.

And, of course I think Rev. Strange's observations are every bit true. Of course people often look for ways to get out of legitimate promises. One needs godly counsel oftentimes, if they cannot settle on what is clearly the right choice. Was theirs a sinful vow, or not? Fact is, we fail more often at the lawful vows we profess to want to keep. We must keep our legitimate promises, even if they cost us.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Apr 26, 2013)

Jessica,
There's nothing in "nature" that can only be properly fulfilled by alcohol. So a commitment to abstain from alcohol isn't in exactly the same class of commitments as celibacy.

It still is unwise to make such a vow. What if someone comes to think that fermented wine (the cup of the original Lord's Supper) is the only proper drink of the memorial Supper? How to keep that vow, and keep the Supper? A rash vow indeed. He must admit his former folly in vowing a promise that is improper to fulfill, assuming his conscience is now better informed. What about an occasional L.S. event (if it isn't regular)--must the vowing teetotaler abstain from the cup if he finds out this church uses wine instead of Welches? Might that be sin, to refuse a part of communion because he's "wiser than God," or at least this whole church?

In the case of the church's reversal, I think they only rescinded the demand that officebearers take the teetotaling vow (as it bound the conscience unlawfully). If a man still felt that he could keep that vow more honoring to God, than letting it go by, then it was probably to the benefit of his conscience to maintain the vow. But in any case, it is a lesson in the wisdom of not vowing too often. "Let your yes be yes, and your no be no," and make honest statements, and honest changes to those statements. It's just as bad to avoid a vow, but cross-the-fingers about one's intention (letting themselves off the hook, if they were less "solemn" in their statement).

A person has no promise from God to help him keep vows that were sinful to make in the first place. Life-long celibacy is certainly one of those things, for reasons I stated above, including that it is partly blasphemous. On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with telling oneself "I'm going to stay single for now, and perhaps forever, until God changes my heart, or until I'm done the things I think I should stay single to complete." That is much more carefully stated, and doesn't bind the conscience. It might last one's whole life.

Vows are made (usually publicly) in order to proclaim the seriousness of the promise, and to appeal to the Lord for aid, or threaten his own conscience. Who is man, that he should make such a demand for divine aid? A vow of permanent celibacy is arrogant. A vow is a solemn promise _to God_ or _before God_ that he is a witness to my intent, and he should strictly judge my effort (or lack thereof) to comply. Which sin should he judge more severely--the making of an (truly) improper vow, or the keeping of it?


----------



## py3ak (Apr 29, 2013)

sevenzedek said:


> WCF 22:7, No man may vow to do anything forbidden in the Word of God, or what would hinder any duty therein commanded, or which is not in his own power, and for the performance whereof he hath no promise of ability from God. In which respects, popish monastical vows of perpetual single life, professed poverty, and regular obedience, are so far from being degrees of higher perfection, that they are superstitious and sinful snares, in which no Christian may entangle himself.
> 
> Is it lawful for a person making an unlawful vow to forsake keeping it? For instance, if a person makes a vow to live a life of celibacy or professed poverty, is it lawful to break these vows?
> 
> ...



_It is great sin to swear unto a sin,
But greater sin to keep a sinful oath.
Who can be bound by any solemn vow
To do a murd'rous deed, to rob a man,
To force a spotless virgin's chastity,
To reave the orphan of his patrimony,
To wring the widow from her customed right,
And have no other reason for this wrong
But that he was bound by a solemn oath?_
-The Earl of Salisbury


----------

