Are Foolish Oaths Binding?

[Reformed Catholic]

I am copying a message sent to a priest (with permission) while keeping confidentiality. I didn't know the answer to this and refused to give a definitive answer. I know that this person has been having an extremely difficult time with this addiction and that it may have been an oath done out of religious scrupulosity and/or desparation.

Spoiler: Spiritual Question

Hey Father (redacted), I have a spiritual question I was hoping you could help me with.

This will probably sound unreasonable, but I have been battling with some destructive habits with sexual sin and a while ago, I swore an oath to God that if I ever did something again I would donate a huge amount of money and personal possessions away. Unfortunately, recently I committed a horrible sin that would fall under that category. Even though I realize that the stipulations of my oath were very irrational and dictated by a moment of extreme devotion and emotion, I still feel bound to it, even though it would signifciantly hurt me financially (though it is still possible) Of course, a part of me thinks that God will forgive how irrational I was in the past and I also feel that if I give away this money I am letting this sin, which is more of a destructive addiction than anything else, harm me and destroy me even further, but I wonder if that's just a way to cope with breaking my oath. I was hoping you could share some wisdom, even if it's not the words I necessarily want to hear.

 

[jhcampbell]

In this scenario I think of Saul’s oath “if anyone eats today let him perish”, and Jonathan’s breaking of that. The Israelites cried out “let it not be done!” And they all moved on.

I’m not saying that authoritatively, that is just what comes to my mind.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Let's back up... are you saying that an unidentified "Person X" sent that message to a "priest" and then that "priest" sent that message to you?

 

[Theoretical]

Let's back up... are you saying that an unidentified "Person X" sent that message to a "priest" and then that "priest" sent that message to you?

I assume from the context it’s more likely Person X sent Reformed Catholic the same message he sent to his priest as kind of an asking advice from multiple people sort of thing.

 

[Slave-to-the-Light-777]

Even if breaking the oath were a sin, and he sincerely repented of it, that would not address the far more serious issue. If he remains under the teaching of the Roman Catholic Church and its false gospel of justification, then this is ultimately just polishing brass on a sinking ship.

 

[py3ak]

If you have made an oath to do something wicked, then the right procedure is to repent of the oath, rather than follow through with it. Oaths may be wicked on multiple grounds.

For other situations, Ecclesiastes 5:1-5 still applies.

In this specific case, however, although his focus may be on whether or not to keep the oath, the bigger concern for outside observers is that he needs to be pointed to Christ as the deliverer from sin, and mortify the deeds of the body through the Spirit rather than by weaponizing greed against lust.

 

[Reformed Catholic]

Even if breaking the oath were a sin, and he sincerely repented of it,

In this case, is it possible to "sincerely repent" without actually fulfilling the oath? Because, at any point if you repent, you are admitting that you should NOT break the oath, but this is an oath that can be fulfilled at any time. So in my mind, it seems that either it is not a binding oath (which, in that case, the only thing requiring repentance is making the oath in the first place), or it is a binding oath, and the money should be given away.

 

[Gforce9]

I will take a different angle. The pledging of this kind is so very natural and......humanistic. Fallen man (and remnants of that corruption in the redeemed) tend to think this way, naturally. As the Rome system doesn't believe man has a federally transmitted sin/corrupt nature from which actual sins proceed (see their pre-fall/post-fall anthropology/donum superadditim), neither do they rely on the perfect work of our Lord Jesus in salvation. They just need a restoration of the help (grace) they supposedly lost in some aborted fall. When one believe these things, they see themselves in a position to bargain and "make up" for their external shortcomings, because they are perfectly capable of doing so (in their mind)and make such crazy pledges and oaths. It is far better to be honest with one's self and with God about how internally corrupt you are, realize all you bring to the table is damnable motives and works and continually run to Christ. The whole of Reformed worship is designed with these (counter to Rome/natural man) affirmations in view. God's way is always better than man's way...

 

[Reformed Catholic]

I will take a different angle. The pledging of this kind is so very natural and......humanistic. Fallen man (and remnants of that corruption in the redeemed) tend to think this way, naturally. As the Rome system doesn't believe man has a federally transmitted sin/corrupt nature from which actual sins proceed (see their pre-fall/post-fall anthropology/donum superadditim), neither do they rely on the perfect work of our Lord Jesus in salvation. They just need a restoration of the help (grace) they supposedly lost in some aborted fall. When one believe these things, they see themselves in a position to bargain and "make up" for their external shortcomings, because they are perfectly capable of doing so (in their mind)and make such crazy pledges and oaths. It is far better to be honest with one's self and with God about how internally corrupt you are, realize all you bring to the table is damnable motives and works and continually run to Christ. The whole of Reformed worship is designed with these (counter to Rome/natural man) affirmations in view. God's way is always better than man's way...

So the Reformed are to never make oaths like that? Even if they have less extreme stipulations?

 

[Gforce9]

So the Reformed are to never make oaths like that? Even if they have less extreme stipulations?

I'm not sure how we got here from there.

My point is not that oaths are off the table, but that a right understanding of both God and one's self will regulate the kind of things and should restrain the eagerness to things which we may pledge. I do think, to your question, that the Reformed, based upon our belief about these things, would be far more thoughtful and careful before they enter into such pledges. Reformed people make pledges to marriage and to church membership to name a few things and agree that we should...........

 

[Venator Veritatis]

"Or if a person swears, speaking thoughtlessly with his lips to do evil or to do good, whatever it is that a man may pronounce by an oath, and he is unaware of it—when he realizes it, then he shall be guilty in any of these matters.
5 ‘And it shall be, when he is guilty in any of these matters, that he shall confess that he has sinned in that thing; " (Leviticus 5:4–5, NKJV)

I think there is a biblical case to be made that a person can make an oath that ought not to have been made in the first place. (Jephtha's vow to sacrifice what came out of his door and David's oath to wipe out the household of Nabal). The solution seems to be to repent of the sin of a rash oath or vow. To plead for God's forgivness and mercy.

Whether the case under question falls into this category, I'm not sure.

Financial ruin or hurt can be a powerful motivator. Charles Simeon did something similar in order to gain the will to get up early and study. He promised that he would give a certain amount of money to the housekeeping if he didn't get up and study. Well, he found himself rationalizing that maybe God was using him to supply a need his housekeeper had, and indeed his negligence was actually helpful! To rob himself of such excuse he then promised to throw the money into the river if he fight fulfill his duties. That did the trick, because he could ill afford the loss of that much money. (Forgive me if I didn't get the account quite perfect, I was paraphrasing it from memory)

 

[py3ak]

Financial ruin or hurt can be a powerful motivator. Charles Simeon did something similar in order to gain the will to get up early and study. He promised that he would give a certain amount of money to the housekeeping if he didn't get up and study. Well, he found himself rationalizing that maybe God was using him to supply a need his housekeeper had, and indeed his negligence was actually helpful! To rob himself of such excuse he then promised to throw the money into the river if he fight fulfill his duties. That did the trick, because he could ill afford the loss of that much money. (Forgive me if I didn't get the account quite perfect, I was paraphrasing it from memory)

Samuel Pepys had a series of oaths where the penalty was throwing money into the river, because of the same rationalization problem. It seems to have helped him break a theater habit; but the rest of the journal makes clear a pervasive lack of mortification by his own account of himself.

 

[Jack K]

mortify the deeds of the body through the Spirit rather than by weaponizing greed against lust.

Well said. I read the OP and was trying to get to the pastoral heart of the issue, but couldn't. I think you found it.

 

[Ploutos]

Samuel Pepys had a series of oaths where the penalty was throwing money into the river, because of the same rationalization problem. It seems to have helped him break a theater habit; but the rest of the journal makes clear a pervasive lack of mortification by his own account of himself.

I haven't read his diary myself but from what I've heard, the only mortification going on in his life would have been found in the reactions of those close to him.