Are oaths always binding?

ThomasT

Puritan Board Freshman
Sorry if this comes across as an odd question. I was talking recently to a former Mason who’d become a Christian and left his Masonic order. He now runs a website devoted to exposing Masonry as an organization that embraces occult rituals and beliefs.

He’s revealed all of the “secrets” he was let into, most of which he’d been exposed to only after spending years in the organization and climbing the ranks. The secrets seemed relatively innocuous to me (mainly the particulars of rituals), and while I agreed with him that some of the rituals practiced by the Masons probably cross the line into Biblically prohibited flirtations with the occult, I suggested that it wasn’t proper for him, who’d sworn oaths not to reveal these details, to publish them for public consumption.

Naturally he disagreed. He said that when he’d made the oaths he’d been a servant of Satan and that the oaths were therefore no longer binding.

I’m of the view that unless questions of justice are involved (e.g., we probably have an obligation to break a secrecy oath, some exceptions allowed, to prevent an innocent man from being sentenced to death), we’re stuck with keeping our word.

Any thoughts?
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
One example of a a false oath, and also a true oath:

FIRST: A FALSE OATH: I was a 33rd degree Mason (they didn't invite me to join the Illluminati, though...I was bummed) and I took blood oaths. Such oaths are invalid.

A vow to commit a sin cannot ever be kept. Not every vow qualifies as a legit vow.


SECOND: A TRUE OATH: Upon leaving for the mission field I vowed to focus on the most remote and needy tribe I could find. And I did this. Second, upon entering my tribe I vowed to reach them or else die trying, or unless I had to absolutely be removed due to family illness. I almost died several times, and we do have believers and a church there now.

I feel I have fulfilled these 2 true vows even though I repudiated the one false vow above in the first example.

To the OP:
I would side with you friend and disagree with the author of the OP.
 

W.C. Dean

Puritan Board Freshman
Your friend made a vow to keep hidden grevious sins. That is not a lawful vow.

WCF 22.7 states that no man should vow to do anything forbidden in God's word. Also, read Acts 23:12-14. The Jewish men here vowed to commit murder. Obviously they should have broken this vow and repented. Your friend is not breaking a lawful vow when he exposes anti-Christian practices.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
His sin of flirting with the occult is against God primarily, and while he can publicly say "My time with the Masons involved occultic rituals," it is not his place to out all the other masons in detail, who must stand or fall to their own master. He must certainly repent toward God, and toward those whom he has personally sinned against, but vow or no vow, what business does he have setting up a website to condemn others?
I'd agree with WC dean that the vow would not be lawful if it was his business to expose anti-Christian practices, but first I'd have to be convinced that it would be a sin for him not to expose them. Otherwise he's giving the world cause to say that Christians care nothing for vows on things indifferent.
 

BuckeyeGirl

Puritan Board Freshman
His sin of flirting with the occult is against God primarily, and while he can publicly say "My time with the Masons involved occultic rituals," it is not his place to out all the other masons in detail, who must stand or fall to their own master. He must certainly repent toward God, and toward those whom he has personally sinned against, but vow or no vow, what business does he have setting up a website to condemn others?
I'd agree with WC dean that the vow would not be lawful if it was his business to expose anti-Christian practices, but first I'd have to be convinced that it would be a sin for him not to expose them. Otherwise he's giving the world cause to say that Christians care nothing for vows on things indifferent.
Is the Masonic vow truly a “thing indifferent?” From what I know about the Masons, joining them is a matter of sin. And if it is sinful, I think the OP’s friend has every right to expose the sinfulness of the organization to protect others.

A website exposing the occult nature of Masonic practices may be a means of delivering and protecting people from the Masons. Revealing the true nature of the Masonic organization is probably the best way to prevent people, who might be otherwise be deceived about the reality of the Masons, from joining. Similarly, such a resource might open the eyes of someone who is already ensnared in the organization. I think that in this case, shining a light on darkness is more important than respecting an invalid oath.
 

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Freshman
"Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them." - Ephesians 5:11

I agree your friend has no obligation to keep the vow of wickedness. Exposing darkness to the light is a noble thing and as has been said, can help keep others from getting ensnared.

Surely no one would here would have a problem with an ex-Mormon doing the same things - why not a former Mason?
 

RPEphesian

Puritan Board Junior
Never are we to call God to witness to our sincerity of resolution to commit a sin. It makes the sin all the worse.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
Is the Masonic vow truly a “thing indifferent?” From what I know about the Masons, joining them is a matter of sin. And if it is sinful, I think the OP’s friend has every right to expose the sinfulness of the organization to protect others.

A website exposing the occult nature of Masonic practices may be a means of delivering and protecting people from the Masons. Revealing the true nature of the Masonic organization is probably the best way to prevent people, who might be otherwise be deceived about the reality of the Masons, from joining. Similarly, such a resource might open the eyes of someone who is already ensnared in the organization. I think that in this case, shining a light on darkness is more important than respecting an invalid oath.
Well, it's indifferent in that it's not his duty to set up a website to expose others' sin. A person with any regard toward God ( a professing Christian), has no business dabbling with any secret society anyway. A person with no regard toward God probably won't be turned away by knowing that the Masons are occultists. And surely Eph. 5:11 (which was quoted above) does not require every person to set up a website exposing every evil they know--we are to reprove those things when confronted by them, and officially from the pulpit, but not necessarily to go chasing after them.
 

TheInquirer

Puritan Board Freshman
And surely Eph. 5:11 (which was quoted above) does not require every person to set up a website exposing every evil they know--we are to reprove those things when confronted by them, and officially from the pulpit, but not necessarily to go chasing after them.
Do you think it would be off limits for a Christian to investigate and expose the errors of Masonry or any other cult?

I don't think anyone is arguing that every Christian set up their own "discernment" ministry online, but this individual in particular has first hand knowledge and experience. If one is reporting facts accurately, I am having a hard time seeing where the sin is here.
 

ThomasT

Puritan Board Freshman
I was talking recently to a former Mason who’d become a Christian and left his Masonic order. He now runs a website devoted to exposing Masonry as an organization that embraces occult rituals and beliefs.

He’s revealed all of the “secrets” he was let into, most of which he’d been exposed to only after spending years in the organization and climbing the ranks. The secrets seemed relatively innocuous to me (mainly the particulars of rituals), and while I agreed with him that some of the rituals practiced by the Masons probably cross the line into Biblically prohibited flirtations with the occult, I suggested that it wasn’t proper for him, who’d sworn oaths not to reveal these details, to publish them for public consumption.

Naturally he disagreed. He said that when he’d made the oaths he’d been a servant of Satan and that the oaths were therefore no longer binding.
It looks like the posts are divided on the ex-Mason’s decision to regard his oaths as non-binding. While I can see some merit in the arguments of those who support the decision, I’d personally have trouble sleeping at night if I had that decision weighing on my conscience.

But beyond the issue of conscience, there’s a huge slippery-slope problem here. We’ve all allowed people to take us into their confidence (by agreeing to keep our mouths shut prior to hearing a confession), and some of the things we’ve heard haven’t exactly been Christ-like. Do we ignore the promises we made in all of these cases?

A friend of mine once confessed to having an adulterous affair. I’m happy to report that since then he’s repented and his marriage is now in great shape, but at the time he was a cheerful adulterer who had no interest in staying faithful to his wife. I knew his wife very well, and I felt a little sheepish every time I was over at his house for dinner, with the wife totally ignorant of the whole sordid business. Later, when she found out about the affair, including the part about me knowing everything while it was going on, she flew into a screaming fit and probably would have killed me if she’d had a gun handy. Hard to blame her -- she felt completely betrayed, not to mention humiliated.

But I don’t feel like I made the wrong decision. My conscience is clear on this point. I did what I could to change my friend’s behavior, but he wasn’t listening.

Point is that quite often what we agree to keep to ourselves is sinful behavior on the part of others. Maybe we shouldn’t have given our word in the first place, but once we’ve made a promise our promise has to mean something. If we conceal only good or indifferent behavior, our word is really just a fraud.

There have to be exceptions, of course, which makes the issue of oaths –- and even just simple promises -- difficult...
 

Andrew35

Puritan Board Freshman
It looks like the posts are divided on the ex-Mason’s decision to regard his oaths as non-binding. While I can see some merit in the arguments of those who support the decision, I’d personally have trouble sleeping at night if I had that decision weighing on my conscience.

But beyond the issue of conscience, there’s a huge slippery-slope problem here. We’ve all allowed people to take us into their confidence (by agreeing to keep our mouths shut prior to hearing a confession), and some of the things we’ve heard haven’t exactly been Christ-like. Do we ignore the promises we made in all of these cases?

A friend of mine once confessed to having an adulterous affair. I’m happy to report that since then he’s repented and his marriage is now in great shape, but at the time he was a cheerful adulterer who had no interest in staying faithful to his wife. I knew his wife very well, and I felt a little sheepish every time I was over at his house for dinner, with the wife totally ignorant of the whole sordid business. Later, when she found out about the affair, including the part about me knowing everything while it was going on, she flew into a screaming fit and probably would have killed me if she’d had a gun handy. Hard to blame her -- she felt completely betrayed, not to mention humiliated.

But I don’t feel like I made the wrong decision. My conscience is clear on this point. I did what I could to change my friend’s behavior, but he wasn’t listening.

Point is that quite often what we agree to keep to ourselves is sinful behavior on the part of others. Maybe we shouldn’t have given our word in the first place, but once we’ve made a promise our promise has to mean something. If we conceal only good or indifferent behavior, our word is really just a fraud.

There have to be exceptions, of course, which makes the issue of oaths –- and even just simple promises -- difficult...
So do you feel it would have been sinful to tell the wife?

Personally, I think, after some counsel, I would have felt obligated to tell the wife, confidence aside; if nothing else, the husband might potentially have been bringing dangerous diseases into their marriage, it seems to me she has a right to know, if only for her own health. Am I alone here on this?

Granted, I have no knowledge in marital counseling, beyond it being just about the most unpleasant duties of the ministry; or so says my dad. (He says most of the time, they both just end up mad at you.)
 
Last edited:

Goodcheer68

Puritan Board Sophomore
It looks like the posts are divided on the ex-Mason’s decision to regard his oaths as non-binding.
The posts havent actually been divided. Only one person has responded that the vow should be kept, everyone else has said otherwise. Just pointing that out.
 

ThomasT

Puritan Board Freshman
The posts havent actually been divided. Only one person has responded that the vow should be kept, everyone else has said otherwise. Just pointing that out.
When I made the statement that the posts are divided, only seven persons had contributed to the thread. Five of the seven were a yes (the ex-Mason made the right decision) and two were a no (wrong decision). One of the two no-s was mine, so if we want we can take that one out. Which means we’re left with a result of 5-1 and a sample set of six. A six-person sample set is so small that even one no-vote remains significant. If our sample were 60, a single no-vote could be disregarded. But with just six, a single no still makes for a divided thread.
 

ThomasT

Puritan Board Freshman
So do you feel it would have been sinful to tell the wife?

Personally, I think, after some counsel, I would have felt obligated to tell the wife, confidence aside; if nothing else, the husband might potentially have been bringing dangerous diseases into their marriage, it seems to me she has a right to know, if only for her own health. Am I alone here on this?

Granted, I have no knowledge in marital counseling, beyond it being just about the most unpleasant duties of the ministry; or so says my dad. (He says most of the time, they both just end up mad at you.)
Andrew,

I’m grateful for people like your dad. Marriage counseling, from those I’ve known who’ve done it, is a tough and thankless undertaking.

To answer your question, I do think that I'd have been guilty of a sin, and not a trivial one, if I’d told the wife what the husband was up to. I understand the issue with STDs, but this argument strikes me as a dangerous rationalization.

In the absence of any real knowledge that the woman my friend was messing around with represented a serious threat (syringe user, HIV sufferer, etc), I couldn’t have just assumed that the only thing keeping my friend’s wife from a case of gonorrhea –- or worse -- was a decision to break my word.

If we start looking at all the possible ramifications, no matter how tenuous, of the obligation of silence we’ve signed on to, we’ll always find a ready excuse to ignore our responsibilities. The last thing we Christians want is the reputation of being oath breakers. No one, anywhere, regardless of religion or culture, respects an oath breaker.
 

Ben Zartman

Puritan Board Sophomore
Do you think it would be off limits for a Christian to investigate and expose the errors of Masonry or any other cult?

I don't think anyone is arguing that every Christian set up their own "discernment" ministry online, but this individual in particular has first hand knowledge and experience. If one is reporting facts accurately, I am having a hard time seeing where the sin is here.
I think it is unwise for a Christian to inquire too deeply into occultic things: a recently excommunicated heretic in our congregation began down the path to heresy by "studying out" the errors of the JWs "in order to refute them better." There is danger in even looking toward those things with a view to exposing them. "Can a man take fire into his bosom and his clothes not be burned?" God nowhere enjoins his people or ministers to look deeply into sinful things even to be warned. We see enough danger for afar to know it is dangerous--why put our souls at risk getting into the nuts and bolts of it?
As for the specific case in hand: a vow to not speak will bind unless it is superceded by a higher authority. If duty to God required speaking, the vow would be for nothing--it is God who hears all vows, and to Him they are paid. But this guy would have to show that God required the setting up of a tale-bearing website for me to respect the breaking of his vow, even one made to pagan idolaters. If we begin to say that any vow made to sinners is non-binding, we're getting into dangerous territory with the 9th commandment.
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Junior
It looks like the posts are divided on the ex-Mason’s decision to regard his oaths as non-binding. While I can see some merit in the arguments of those who support the decision, I’d personally have trouble sleeping at night if I had that decision weighing on my conscience.

But beyond the issue of conscience, there’s a huge slippery-slope problem here. We’ve all allowed people to take us into their confidence (by agreeing to keep our mouths shut prior to hearing a confession), and some of the things we’ve heard haven’t exactly been Christ-like. Do we ignore the promises we made in all of these cases?

A friend of mine once confessed to having an adulterous affair. I’m happy to report that since then he’s repented and his marriage is now in great shape, but at the time he was a cheerful adulterer who had no interest in staying faithful to his wife. I knew his wife very well, and I felt a little sheepish every time I was over at his house for dinner, with the wife totally ignorant of the whole sordid business. Later, when she found out about the affair, including the part about me knowing everything while it was going on, she flew into a screaming fit and probably would have killed me if she’d had a gun handy. Hard to blame her -- she felt completely betrayed, not to mention humiliated.

But I don’t feel like I made the wrong decision. My conscience is clear on this point. I did what I could to change my friend’s behavior, but he wasn’t listening.

Point is that quite often what we agree to keep to ourselves is sinful behavior on the part of others. Maybe we shouldn’t have given our word in the first place, but once we’ve made a promise our promise has to mean something. If we conceal only good or indifferent behavior, our word is really just a fraud.

There have to be exceptions, of course, which makes the issue of oaths –- and even just simple promises -- difficult...
Hi Thomas,

PREFACE: Oaths and vows ought to be entered into seriously and rarely and only when necessary. They involve the 3rd & 9th commands directly, although other commandments often are involved as well. Here are a few Q&A from Fisher's Catechism:

Q. 16. What are the ordinances in which the name of God is more immediately interposed?
A. The name of God is more immediately interposed in oaths, vows, and lots.

Q. 17. What is an OATH?
A. It is an act of religious worship, in which God is solemnly invoked, or called upon, as a witness for the Confirmation of some matter in doubt.

Q. 18. Why is it said to be an act of religious worship?
A. Because there is, or ought to be in every formal oath, a solemn invocation of the name of God, Deut. 6:13 — "Thou shalt fear the Lord thy God — and shalt swear by his name."

Q. 19. What is imported in calling upon God as a witness in an oath?
A. It imports, that we acknowledge him to be the infallible searcher of our hearts; the powerful avenger of all perjury and falsehood; and at the same time to be infinitely superior to us; "for men verily Swear by the greater," Heb. 6:16.

Q. 20. In what cases should an oath be required?
A. Only in cases that are doubtful, when the truth of things cannot be known with certainty any other way.
=======

I don't think it is wise to swear to do anything until you know if that keeping the oath is not sinful. Adultery is NEVER a private matter. There are always at least three parties involved--the two adulters and the innocent marriage partner. It is NEVER right for an adulterer to confess his sin privetly to God and not also the innocent party. Adultery, even with a prostitute, creates a one-flesh bond that, if unconfessed, will necessarily include the innocent party. (1 Corinthians 6:16)

In the case under discussion, the wife has an unalienable right to the truth BEFORE they engage sex again. This included the right to divorce if they can not reconcile.

I think the wife was right to be angry with you for keeping your friends secret and making the promise. And you were wrong to swear an oath to keep a secret without knowing the details. I make it my practice to refuse to take an oath of secrecy as a condition of hearing the secret. I have agreed to take such an oath after making clear that the oath is limited to lawful matters only. Don't tell me you murdered someone and expect me to keep your secret.

In your case, if I had made an unwise promise, I think I would have said something like this, "I will keep your secret only if you promise to confess your sin to your wife and promise not to have sex with her until you do so. It is her right to know."

I think the wife had as much right to the truth as if her husband revealed to you that he is slowly poisoning her to death.
I could go on but I will stop for now.

Ed Walsh
 
Last edited:

G

Puritan Board Senior
When I made the statement that the posts are divided, only seven persons had contributed to the thread. Five of the seven were a yes (the ex-Mason made the right decision) and two were a no (wrong decision). One of the two no-s was mine, so if we want we can take that one out. Which means we’re left with a result of 5-1 and a sample set of six. A six-person sample set is so small that even one no-vote remains significant. If our sample were 60, a single no-vote could be disregarded. But with just six, a single no still makes for a divided thread.
:duh::scratch:

By my calculation a split of seven (or better yet 6) would at least need to be 3 -3. If you really want to see a bigger vote you could always add a Poll to the thread. My vote is that your friend (the ex-mason) is doing the right thing. Also, I would vote that you should have told the wife if your friend (the husband) was unwilling to. Yes you should not have promised to conceal, but that, in my opinion, does not keep you from exposing the sin, especially given that your friend was not telling you in repentance, but rather still digging his pit at the time. He simply roped you in to his decay. I do not think we are bound to keep a sinful oath. In either case I would rather be seen as dishonest in bringing light to a sinful plot, then playing a part in concealing an unrepentant adulterer.

BTW, I am glad your friend finally did repent as you report.:detective:
 
Last edited:

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
I don't know? Why start a website? Pagan ex-masons have been ratting on eachother for years. But if it weighs on his conscience, fair enough. I always thought "lawful" oaths were legal oaths, meaning legal penalties for breaking it. But the moral question is breaking a promise, that's always conditional, like the adultery example. Just my opinion.
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Junior
It is an oath with darkness. Repent, and it's done. Anyway, God has talked about "breaking a covenant with death."
Here are some more questions from Fisher's Catechism that are likely to startle some. I have some questions myself.

Q. 51. Is an oath about a thing lawful and possible obligatory, even though it be extorted by force or fear?​
A. Undoubtedly it is: because of the reverence due to God, by whom the oath is made a witness and judge, Lev. 19:12 — “Ye shall not swear by my name falsely; neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.” Matt. 5:33 — “Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”​
Q. 52:Is a person bound to pay such a sum to a robber as he has promised by his oath, for the ransom of his life?​
A. He is certainly bound to pay it; because, of TWO PENAL evils, he voluntarily made choice of the least; to part with his money, rather than his life; accordingly, the righteous man, “sweareth to his OWN HURT, and changeth not,” Psalm 15:4.​
Q. 53. Is an oath, which is lawful as to the matter of it, though sinful as to the manner, and even obtained by, deceit, or rashly made binding and obligatory upon the person who has sworn it?​
A. Yes; as is evident from the instance of the Gibeonites, who deceived Israel into a league with them by oath, and yet their oath was binding, Josh. 9:14-20.​
Q. 54. Are oaths and contracts to be kept with Heathens and heretics?​
A. No doubt they should, as well as with others. Zedekiah, king of Judah, was severely punished for his breach of oath to the king of Babylon, 2 Chron. 36:13; Ezek. 17:16. Besides, if infidelity and heresy do not nullify the marriage oath, neither ought they to make void any other lawful contract.​
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
Here are some more questions from Fisher's Catechism that are likely to startle some. I have some questions myself.

Q. 51. Is an oath about a thing lawful and possible obligatory, even though it be extorted by force or fear?​
A. Undoubtedly it is: because of the reverence due to God, by whom the oath is made a witness and judge, Lev. 19:12 — “Ye shall not swear by my name falsely; neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.” Matt. 5:33 — “Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”​
Q. 52:Is a person bound to pay such a sum to a robber as he has promised by his oath, for the ransom of his life?​
A. He is certainly bound to pay it; because, of TWO PENAL evils, he voluntarily made choice of the least; to part with his money, rather than his life; accordingly, the righteous man, “sweareth to his OWN HURT, and changeth not,” Psalm 15:4.​
Q. 53. Is an oath, which is lawful as to the matter of it, though sinful as to the manner, and even obtained by, deceit, or rashly made binding and obligatory upon the person who has sworn it?​
A. Yes; as is evident from the instance of the Gibeonites, who deceived Israel into a league with them by oath, and yet their oath was binding, Josh. 9:14-20.​
Q. 54. Are oaths and contracts to be kept with Heathens and heretics?​
A. No doubt they should, as well as with others. Zedekiah, king of Judah, was severely punished for his breach of oath to the king of Babylon, 2 Chron. 36:13; Ezek. 17:16. Besides, if infidelity and heresy do not nullify the marriage oath, neither ought they to make void any other lawful contract.​
the only article there which touches on the issue is 53. In that case I would say both the matter and manner is sinful. The very essence of a Masonic/Luciferian oath is sinful.

54) is just the standard response to Romanism on this point.
 

jwright82

Puritan Board Graduate
Here are some more questions from Fisher's Catechism that are likely to startle some. I have some questions myself.

Q. 51. Is an oath about a thing lawful and possible obligatory, even though it be extorted by force or fear?​
A. Undoubtedly it is: because of the reverence due to God, by whom the oath is made a witness and judge, Lev. 19:12 — “Ye shall not swear by my name falsely; neither shalt thou profane the name of thy God: I am the Lord.” Matt. 5:33 — “Thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thine oaths.”​
Q. 52:Is a person bound to pay such a sum to a robber as he has promised by his oath, for the ransom of his life?​
A. He is certainly bound to pay it; because, of TWO PENAL evils, he voluntarily made choice of the least; to part with his money, rather than his life; accordingly, the righteous man, “sweareth to his OWN HURT, and changeth not,” Psalm 15:4.​
Q. 53. Is an oath, which is lawful as to the matter of it, though sinful as to the manner, and even obtained by, deceit, or rashly made binding and obligatory upon the person who has sworn it?​
A. Yes; as is evident from the instance of the Gibeonites, who deceived Israel into a league with them by oath, and yet their oath was binding, Josh. 9:14-20.​
Q. 54. Are oaths and contracts to be kept with Heathens and heretics?​
A. No doubt they should, as well as with others. Zedekiah, king of Judah, was severely punished for his breach of oath to the king of Babylon, 2 Chron. 36:13; Ezek. 17:16. Besides, if infidelity and heresy do not nullify the marriage oath, neither ought they to make void any other lawful contract.​
Aren't all those examples legal oaths?
 

Jeri Tanner

Moderator
Staff member
Aren't all those examples legal oaths?
Yes, what difference would the Scriptures make between different sorts of oaths, promises, and pledges? We once committed on paper to a certain dollar amount contribution to the church we were part of, and then were unable or perhaps even unwilling to follow through on it. It still bothers me.
 

Ed Walsh

Puritan Board Junior
Aren't all those examples legal oaths?
Not 100% sure what you mean? Do you mean like swearing in court? Q.52 sure isn't like that. Anyway, if you are implying that a "legal" oath is more binding than a handshake, I do not agree.

Sorry I missed your meaning. Give it another try if you so desire.

Thanks,

Ed
 

BayouHuguenot

Puritanboard Amanuensis
The reformed say you are still bound to the legal and financial consequences of oath. That's not the issue here. The consequences of a Masonic oath are demonic in nature, and we renounce those.
 

CathH

Puritan Board Freshman
I always thought "lawful" oaths were legal oaths, meaning legal penalties for breaking it.
If it's "lawful oaths" in the sense of the WCF chapter "Of Lawful Oaths and Vows", it means "in accordance with the law of God," irrespective of civil law.
 

ZackF

Puritan Board Graduate
I certainly hope they are not all binding regardless. Do I have to go back to the RCC? :(
 
Top