Breaking Vows or Promises

[Leslie]

First is there a distinction between the solemnity of vows and promises?

Secondly, when should or must a person break one or the other? Three
scenarios:

A. In the early 80's I was the only physician on duty in a free-standing emergency facility. A middle-aged man came in and insisted on paying cash. Strange. Then when I saw him he demanded to know if his words would be confidential. I told him (foolishly), "Yes, except for my mandate to report certain infectious diseases to public health authorities." He then proceeded to tell me that he was an airline pilot and had chest pain. His EKG showed minimal changes but I could not rule out significant pathology that could have resulted in his dropping dead at the controls. He refused hospital admission and signed out against medical advice. Should I have reported him?

B. A and B facilitated the exit of D, E, and F from a Bible-based cult. Cult C is aware of this having happened. In the process A and B asked D, E, and F to promise not to aggravate the leadership of C because of C's reputation for vengeance. The word was given. Thereafter, D, E, and F found out that cult C was far more morally destructive than originally supposed. Some of their former friends were entrapped. The civil authorities are not interested in pursuing prosecution. A and B won't release these three from their promises because of fear. Therefore D, E, and F are party to protecting cult C from exposure, and justice.

C. M is driving a jalopy on a long trip in an area with no road service. N tells M as he takes off that if he has car trouble along the way, he can call and N will come get him and help. M irresponsibly fails to buy gas so he runs out of gas. He calls N and demands that he come get him, "Because you promised!!".

The story of the Gibeonites indicates that a vow made under deceptive premises is still binding. However, I don't think that applies in these cases.

Have I opened a can of worms?

 

[CDM]

To be clear, you did not swear an oath in the biblical sense of the term. See WCF 22, Of Lawful Oaths and Vows

Promised made are in a different category - they are different than swearing an oath or taking a lawful vow.

 

[Galatians220]

Scenario A: if the pilot was using his employer-paid insurance for the free-standing emergency room visit, and he walked out AMA, could you have reported this irresponsible behavior of his to his insurance company, thereby effectively putting the employer on notice that this pilot was not in compliance with the terms of his insurance policy and, likely, the terms of his employment? I don't know if the rules in the '80s were the same as they are now, but that's the case now. It wouldn't have had an effect on events that day, but on future ones, yes. (I've run into this personally: you leave a treatment facility AMA and your insurance company refuses to pay for your visit/admission. Done it; regretted it.) Aren't pilots subject to comprehensive physical check-ups every few months anyway, though? He probably avoided going to a hospital ER for fear of being admitted on the spot - and that was wrong on his part. (I've pulled that trick, too, and have yet to away with it.)

Scenarios B and C: the situations both changed after the respective agreements were made. Were either sets of changes within the reasonable contemplation of those who agreed to "indemnify" or "hold (someone) from harm" when the initial promise was made? If not, they should not be held to their promises.

Just In my humble opinion. There are lawyers here and I'm not one of them. (But I play one at work... )

Margaret

 

[Leslie]

Scenario A: if the pilot was using his employer-paid insurance for the free-standing emergency room visit, and he walked out AMA, could you have reported this irresponsible behavior of his to his insurance company, thereby effectively putting the employer on notice that this pilot was not in compliance with the terms of his insurance policy and, likely, the terms of his employment? I don't know if the rules in the '80s were the same as they are now, but that's the case now. It wouldn't have had an effect on events that day, but on future ones, yes. (I've run into this personally: you leave a treatment facility AMA and your insurance company refuses to pay for your visit/admission. Done it; regretted it.) Aren't pilots subject to comprehensive physical check-ups every few months anyway, though? He probably avoided going to a hospital ER for fear of being admitted on the spot - and that was wrong on his part. (I've pulled that trick, too, and have yet to away with it.)

Scenarios B and C: the situations both changed after the respective agreements were made. Were either sets of changes within the reasonable contemplation of those who agreed to "indemnify" or "hold (someone) from harm" when the initial promise was made? If not, they should not be held to their promises.

Just In my humble opinion. There are lawyers here and I'm not one of them. (But I play one at work... )

Margaret

In scenario A the guy paid cash precisely because he anticipated what I would do and he didn't want a report to his insurance company. You are right that he had physical exams from time to time, but the minimal changes on his EKG in the absence of significant symptoms (which he had but he would have denied in a routine-physical setting) would not have grounded him.

In scenario B the true situation could reasonably have been anticipated as a possibility. Not so in scenario C.

My question was not legal but moral. In neither of the last two scenarios was there anything illegal, regardless of what was done. In the first scenario I was advised, long after the fact, that I should have reported him in the interest of public safety. This was a legal opinion but the moral question still remains.

 

[Mushroom]

Scenario A the guy was obviously trying to circumvent the legal requirements of his publicly regulated profession; to sneak by the Flight Surgeon. If the physician did not understand that at the time, I would say no responsibility should be borne. However, if the physician knew that all pilots must submit to annual examinations by a Flight Surgeon for certification, and that the type of illness he presented was one that would disqualify him for flight, it would be incumbent upon someone in that position to report it to the appropriate authorities.

Scenario B would seem to me to require that D, E, & F counsel with A & B to inform them of the vastly more dangerous character of the cult than all had understood, and to enlist them in the search for a solution that would provide appropriate relief from harm for those still ensnared while creating the least level of threat possible to all involved.

Scenario C, N should take M the gas, tell him to wake up, and next time qualify his promise with "except in cases of your own stupidity", and leave it at that. Of course, when ( not if) it happens again, christian N will take the gas to M, rib him about being kinda thick, and go home shaking his head and smiling about his beloved brother M's absent-mindedness. But that's just how we are.

 

[Leslie]

In scenario A, do you mean that the physician (this is a true, unaltered case--I was the physician) should break her promise? At the time, I had no idea that he was a pilot. His refusal to give insurance information or tell the nurse the nature of his problem was, in my experience a dead ringer for a guy whose mistress just told him she had gonorrhea. The other mandatory reporting--child abuse and psychiatric patients who are a threat to themselves or others--I didn't mention as they seemed not to apply. I would have felt justified in reporting him if I had mentioned the psych patient mandatory reporting. I was probably morally obliged to break the promise in order to protect the lives of his passengers, but I called it the other way. Nothing bad happened.

Scenario B is altered slightly from the original. D, E, and F have, indeed done what you suggested but A and B are adamant not to expose the cult and risk the consequences. The finale is still pending.

Scenario C is vastly altered as to details. I didn't take the gas (probably wrongly) but broke my relationship to the irresponsible bloke.

I'm still wondering about a scriptural basis, if any, of distinguishing vows and promises.

 

[Wannabee]

There is obviously a lesson here in rash vow taking; it's foolishness and consequences. One can't help but think of Jephthah, Judges 11. Should Jephthah have obeyed his vow or repented of it? Is one released from a vow if they repent? Is one stuck, because of one sin, in a situation where it seems they must choose between other sins? Is letting your yes be yes to be traded for the lives of passengers on an airliner? Interestingly, these are all consequences, not causes. Other than pleading with God that He would resolve the situation without incident, each scenario must be dealt with individually.

As for vows and promises, I would stick with the words of Jesus in regard to your yes being yes and no being no. There are special vows, such as marriage vows, which enter us into a formal covenant. However, in everyday life we are to guard our words in wisdom. A quick tongue often leads to a foot shaped mouth.

 

[Leslie]

There is obviously a lesson here in rash vow taking; it's foolishness and consequences. One can't help but think of Jephthah, Judges 11. Should Jephthah have obeyed his vow or repented of it? Is one released from a vow if they repent? Is one stuck, because of one sin, in a situation where it seems they must choose between other sins? Is letting your yes be yes to be traded for the lives of passengers on an airliner? Interestingly, these are all consequences, not causes. Other than pleading with God that He would resolve the situation without incident, each scenario must be dealt with individually.

As for vows and promises, I would stick with the words of Jesus in regard to your yes being yes and no being no. There are special vows, such as marriage vows, which enter us into a formal covenant. However, in everyday life we are to guard our words in wisdom. A quick tongue often leads to a foot shaped mouth.

Are you saying that vows and promises are equivalent and both must be kept come what may? In that case, in the first two scenarios, the consequence could be loss of lives. If promises are less binding, then there would be freedom, in the first scenario, to report the guy. If it's equivalent to a vow, there would be no option but to keep mum and pray against the consequences. Airliners have two flight-capable pilots on board at all times anyway, so the likelihood of a major disaster, even if the guy did drop dead was not great.

 

[CDM]

Chapter XXII
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows

I. A lawful oath is part of religious worship,[1] wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears.[2]

II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence.[3] Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred.[4] Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament as well as under the old;[5] so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.[6]

III. Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth:[7] neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.[8] Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.[9]

IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[10] It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt.[11] Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[12]

V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.[13]

VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone:[14] and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties: or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.[15]

VII. No man may vow to do any thing 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 has no promise of ability from God.[16] 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.[17]


There is a difference between one's promises (9th commandment) to another and a vow to God which speaks directly to the 3rd commandment.

 

[Leslie]

Chapter XXII
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows

I. A lawful oath is part of religious worship,[1] wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears.[2]

II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence.[3] Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred.[4] Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament as well as under the old;[5] so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.[6]

III. Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth:[7] neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.[8] Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.[9]

IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[10] It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt.[11] Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[12]

V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.[13]

VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone:[14] and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties: or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.[15]

VII. No man may vow to do any thing 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 has no promise of ability from God.[16] 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.[17]


There is a difference between one's promises (9th commandment) to another and a vow to God which speaks directly to the 3rd commandment.

From what you write, I assume that you hold that one has a lesser obligation to keep a promise than to keep a vow. Evidently you interpret the words of Jesus as NOT putting promises and vows on the same level. Can you explain by referencing the scripture rather than the confessions?

I don't understand what promises have to do with the ninth commandment which forbids false witness. O.k. if one makes a promise with no intention of keeping it, then one can stretch it that far. However, if one makes a promise in good faith (as in scenario A) the fulfillment of which has the unexpected consequence of jepordizing life, the promise was not made falsely with the intent to deceive. Thus I think that the ninth commandment is irrelevant.

 

[Mushroom]

In scenario A, do you mean that the physician (this is a true, unaltered case--I was the physician) should break her promise? At the time, I had no idea that he was a pilot. His refusal to give insurance information or tell the nurse the nature of his problem was, in my experience a dead ringer for a guy whose mistress just told him she had gonorrhea. The other mandatory reporting--child abuse and psychiatric patients who are a threat to themselves or others--I didn't mention as they seemed not to apply. I would have felt justified in reporting him if I had mentioned the psych patient mandatory reporting. I was probably morally obliged to break the promise in order to protect the lives of his passengers, but I called it the other way. Nothing bad happened.

Scenario B is altered slightly from the original. D, E, and F have, indeed done what you suggested but A and B are adamant not to expose the cult and risk the consequences. The finale is still pending.

Scenario C is vastly altered as to details. I didn't take the gas (probably wrongly) but broke my relationship to the irresponsible bloke.

I'm still wondering about a scriptural basis, if any, of distinguishing vows and promises.

Leslie, I'm not at all qualified to counsel you on any of this, and was just giving my own take. I think that if you were unaware of the man's profession, and more importantly, unaware of the regulatory requirements pertaining to that profession, then your keeping the promise is fine, done in good conscience.

 

[Leslie]

Brad, I didn't know about the regulations at the time but it was only a matter of common sense that a pilot at risk of dropping dead should be grounded. At the time I wrestled with the matter quite a bit, lost a lot of sleep over it. I have a keen sense of the sacredness of professional confidence, having been on the other side of someone who took it lightly. The fact that the EKG changes were minimal and not highly predictive of sudden death was a major factor. Another factor was my awareness that there are always two flight-competent pilots on board any aircraft for precisely this reason. When, about 5 years after the fact, I told the story to some guy in the legal profession, he almost wet his pants. He told me in no uncertain terms what the consequences would have been to me if there had been an air disaster as a result of this. However, doing what is legal is not necessarily moral. As believers we are to do what's right over what's legal, not so?

 

[Galatians220]

Scenario A: if the pilot was using his employer-paid insurance for the free-standing emergency room visit, and he walked out AMA, could you have reported this irresponsible behavior of his to his insurance company, thereby effectively putting the employer on notice that this pilot was not in compliance with the terms of his insurance policy and, likely, the terms of his employment? I don't know if the rules in the '80s were the same as they are now, but that's the case now. It wouldn't have had an effect on events that day, but on future ones, yes. (I've run into this personally: you leave a treatment facility AMA and your insurance company refuses to pay for your visit/admission. Done it; regretted it.) Aren't pilots subject to comprehensive physical check-ups every few months anyway, though? He probably avoided going to a hospital ER for fear of being admitted on the spot - and that was wrong on his part. (I've pulled that trick, too, and have yet to away with it.)

Scenarios B and C: the situations both changed after the respective agreements were made. Were either sets of changes within the reasonable contemplation of those who agreed to "indemnify" or "hold (someone) from harm" when the initial promise was made? If not, they should not be held to their promises.

Just In my humble opinion. There are lawyers here and I'm not one of them. (But I play one at work... )

Margaret

In scenario A the guy paid cash precisely because he anticipated what I would do and he didn't want a report to his insurance company. You are right that he had physical exams from time to time, but the minimal changes on his EKG in the absence of significant symptoms (which he had but he would have denied in a routine-physical setting) would not have grounded him.

In scenario B the true situation could reasonably have been anticipated as a possibility. Not so in scenario C.

My question was not legal but moral. In neither of the last two scenarios was there anything illegal, regardless of what was done. In the first scenario I was advised, long after the fact, that I should have reported him in the interest of public safety. This was a legal opinion but the moral question still remains.

Okay... And I understand your follow-up posts to others. Of course, one must consider morality before legality, for in this country and in others as well, what is legal is often morally wrong. And that situation gets worse by the day.

I am sorry if I misunderstood what you were seeking as a response; for myself, being in the legal field, I would first think about the morality of alternative courses of action, "counsel myself" as to possible liability issues and then act accordingly as to what was first moral and then in consideration of the legal ramifications. But then, of course, "she who represents herself has a fool for a client and a fool for a representative... (or lawyer, as the case may be)."

Goofed again; sorry...

Margaret

 

[Mushroom]

Brad, I didn't know about the regulations at the time but it was only a matter of common sense that a pilot at risk of dropping dead should be grounded. At the time I wrestled with the matter quite a bit, lost a lot of sleep over it. I have a keen sense of the sacredness of professional confidence, having been on the other side of someone who took it lightly. The fact that the EKG changes were minimal and not highly predictive of sudden death was a major factor. Another factor was my awareness that there are always two flight-competent pilots on board any aircraft for precisely this reason. When, about 5 years after the fact, I told the story to some guy in the legal profession, he almost wet his pants. He told me in no uncertain terms what the consequences would have been to me if there had been an air disaster as a result of this. However, doing what is legal is not necessarily moral. As believers we are to do what's right over what's legal, not so?

Quite so, sister.

Lawyers are commonly in that state, it's an occupational disease.

I know a couple of pilots and air traffic controllers who all must submit to the same physical requirements, even one who did have a cardiac condition that was related in some way to electrical signal malfunctions and had to undergo a pretty risky surgery to remain certified. By God's grace the procedure worked and he has been able to keep working.

Another I know is an 83 year-old recreational flyer who frets the exam every year, but has so far had no trouble. I hope he never does because he's my only chance to get up and see things from above on occasion; and if he were grounded, it would remove one of the few joys he has in this world, and that would increase his longing for the next, and I'm selfish about keeping my brothers around. How would us middle-aged dimbulbs survive without the counsel of the wisdom of the hoary-headed?

 

[Wannabee]

Are you saying that vows and promises are equivalent and both must be kept come what may? In that case, in the first two scenarios, the consequence could be loss of lives. If promises are less binding, then there would be freedom, in the first scenario, to report the guy. If it's equivalent to a vow, there would be no option but to keep mum and pray against the consequences. Airliners have two flight-capable pilots on board at all times anyway, so the likelihood of a major disaster, even if the guy did drop dead was not great.

This response is a bit long-winded. I'm hoping to be clear and careful, so forgive the wordiness if it becomes tedious.
Mostly I was thinking out loud and pondering the difficulties we can get ouselves into. For instance, often someone looking for counsel from a pastor will ask, "this will remain confidential, right?" The pressure is present to agree. However, there are many factors that can make keeping one's integrity impossible if one takes such a vow (or promises), especially before hearing what is said. The man may be having an affair. He may be involved in child p0rnography, or worse. If you've agreed to keep silent then you're protecting him and, in essence, helping him cover his sin with someone else involved as a victim or accomplice. Church discipline is in order, but impossible if promises are kept. The prudent response is along the lines of, "If it doesn't violate God's commands or Scriptural mandates or principles I will keep this between us." The person seeking help then has a choice to make and the pastor has maintained his integrity.
The situation you found yourself in, as you admitted, was a result of a poor decision to agree to keep silent. Thus, because of a rash vow, you could have found yourself in a situation where sin was the only option. If it is mandated that you reveal the condition of pilots then you either have to lie and protect the passengers, or break the mandate in order to keep from the lie. As I mentioned above, this is a result of a lack of wisdom that resulted in a presumptuous vow. That's why I brought up Jephthah's situation. His vow was rash and sinful. Many pastors find themselves in this exact situation because they agree to something like what you did and find they are in a bind.
Our word is our bond, therefore we must give it thoughtfully and with wisdom. If we are prudent in the first place then we will not find ourselves in a situation where sin is the only option. We all make these mistakes from time to time. Usually God is merciful and allows the situation to be resolved without incident (a way of escape?). In your situation I think it would have been prudent for you to repent of your vow to remain silent and spill the beans (your way of escape). You would have sinned by breaking a promise, but repented of making a foolish vow in the first place. This would obviously confront your pride and help you grow in wisdom and humility. To let it ride is to presume upon God's grace and usually fails to confront the sin, resulting in a hardened heart. I'm not saying that this is what DID happen. I am saying that this is the danger of letting it go rather than confronting it head on. Praise God for His mercy and grace in your particular situation.
I hope that clarifies. If we are prudent in the first place then there is no tension in the definition of a promise and a vow. Jesus' words are clear, let your yes be yes and your no, no. Anything else is sin. And, yes, I know I see things as more black and white than many here will. But that is what my counsel, based on what I've seen here, would be.

Blessings,

 

[ahavah7]

The lawfulness of the oath, vow, or promise is key

Leslie, the WLC Answer # 145 delineates what the Westminster Divines believed were prohibited by the ninth commandment. It is a long list; I encourage you to read it when you get the chance. One of the prohibitions is "breach of lawful promises". So, although the Divines don't include promises in the chapter on oaths and vows, they did view promise-keeping as a moral necessity. But here I think is the most important consideration in this matter: lawful promises. They made this distinction with oaths and vows as well. You are never required to keep an oath, vow, or promise to something that is morally wrong.

So how does this apply to scenario A. We know that all the civil magistrate's laws ,which are not contrary to the law of God, are morally binding. First question to ask yourself: is the law contrary to God's law. The answer is clearly no. The law is actually in conformity to God's law particularly the 6th commandment. Therefore you have a moral duty to comply with the law, and no oath, vow, or promise can bind you to a breach of that moral duty. From your previous posts it is not clear to me whether you knew he was a pilot when he first came in, knew it soon after, or knew it much later. If you did not know at the time, then obviously you could not have employed this reasoning.

Scenario B is much stickier. I think reasonable people could disagree. However, I would like to add this consideration to the discussion: the Westminster Divines also considered "comforting and succoring the distressed" as a duty under the 6th commandment and "the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life" as a prohibition of the 6th commandment. From you description, it seems that all five individuals have a duty to offer succor to those still distressed by the cult and not neglect the lawful and necessary means of preserving the remaining cult member's lives.

What makes this scenario sticky is that D, E, and F also have an obligation to protect the lives of A and B under the 6th commandment. If A and B feel their lives are threatened, then where does D, E, and F's responsibility to the one stop and their responsibility to the other begin?

My take: D, E, and F should try to convince A and B that they have a moral duty to help the remaining cult members.

Scenario C: We have a moral obligation to help our brother's in their time of need even if we hadn't promised to.

 

[Leslie]

Wannabee and Ahavah7: Thanks for the extensive answers. It's clear now that I should have snitched on the pilot. As a matter of fact, I did learn my lesson and learn it well from this incident--to always include the exception to confidentiality that the patient is not a danger to himself or others. That about covers everything: child abuse and gonorrhea as well as a pilot with chest pains.

Scenario B is current and it's an unanswered question, probably also unanswerable, whether A and B are in greater danger or if those within the cult are in greater danger, or even how many of them there are. A and B's danger is obviously physical. The danger to those still in the cult and those who will be recruited in the future is mostly spiritual. A and B believe, with some reason, that any rescue attempts are futile. Those in the cult are not being physically restrained--they choose to stay rather than walk out.

As regards scenario C, I don't think one is obligated, in the absence of a promise, to protect one's brother from the consequences of irresponsibility. However, given the scriptural example of the Gibeonites, the presence of the promise probably changes the picture here.

 

[Wannabee]

I did learn my lesson and learn it well from this incident.

Praise God!

 

[CDM]

Chapter XXII
Of Lawful Oaths and Vows

I. A lawful oath is part of religious worship,[1] wherein, upon just occasion, the person swearing solemnly calls God to witness what he asserts, or promises, and to judge him according to the truth or falsehood of what he swears.[2]

II. The name of God only is that by which men ought to swear, and therein it is to be used with all holy fear and reverence.[3] Therefore, to swear vainly, or rashly, by that glorious and dreadful Name; or, to swear at all by any other thing, is sinful, and to be abhorred.[4] Yet, as in matters of weight and moment, an oath is warranted by the Word of God, under the New Testament as well as under the old;[5] so a lawful oath, being imposed by lawful authority, in such matters, ought to be taken.[6]

III. Whosoever takes an oath ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he is fully persuaded is the truth:[7] neither may any man bind himself by oath to any thing but what is good and just, and what he believes so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform.[8] Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching any thing that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority.[9]

IV. An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation, or mental reservation.[10] It cannot oblige to sin; but in any thing not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man's own hurt.[11] Not is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.[12]

V. A vow is of the like nature with a promissory oath, and ought to be made with the like religious care, and to be performed with the like faithfulness.[13]

VI. It is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone:[14] and that it may be accepted, it is to be made voluntarily, out of faith, and conscience of duty, in way of thankfulness for mercy received, or for the obtaining of what we want, whereby we more strictly bind ourselves to necessary duties: or, to other things, so far and so long as they may fitly conduce thereunto.[15]

VII. No man may vow to do any thing 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 has no promise of ability from God.[16] 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.[17]


There is a difference between one's promises (9th commandment) to another and a vow to God which speaks directly to the 3rd commandment.

From what you write, I assume that you hold that one has a lesser obligation to keep a promise than to keep a vow. Evidently you interpret the words of Jesus as NOT putting promises and vows on the same level. Can you explain by referencing the scripture rather than the confessions?

I don't understand what promises have to do with the ninth commandment which forbids false witness. O.k. if one makes a promise with no intention of keeping it, then one can stretch it that far. However, if one makes a promise in good faith (as in scenario A) the fulfillment of which has the unexpected consequence of jepordizing life, the promise was not made falsely with the intent to deceive. Thus I think that the ninth commandment is irrelevant.

My post was intended for you to READ what the confession and related larger catechism says about your OP so I wouldn't have to rehash it for you.

From what you write, I assume that you hold that one has a lesser obligation to keep a promise than to keep a vow.

I do not see how you can assume this. Look at my very first sentence: There is a difference between one's promises (9th commandment) to another and a vow to God which speaks directly to the 3rd commandment. All I did, for your assistance I might add, was to distinguish between lawful oaths and vows and promises.

Can you explain by referencing the scripture rather than the confessions?

What don't you understand about the 3rd commandment being different from the 9th commandment?

I don't understand what promises have to do with the ninth commandment which forbids false witness. O.k. if one makes a promise with no intention of keeping it, then one can stretch it that far.

So what commandment does breaking a promise to a neighbor fall under?