Posted by John Reuther on March 16, 2010
I was asked this question recently by a very godly person in our church. The question was asked sincerely and respectfully. I took it seriously and sought to give the best Scriptural answer I could. Here is the essence 
of my response, made suitable for this presentation. This article is not intended to be exhaustive but suggestive. Naturally, there is much more that could be said.
Public Ministry Speaks Volumes
In a church where the elders are bound to the word of God, where pastors faithfully expound the Scripture and prove all things from the Bible, you will have a good foundation upon which to build your relationship to your elders. This will give members the trust and confidence they need and can have in their leaders. It will give believers a sense that their church is a true sheepfold where the voice of Christ our Prophet, Priest, and King is being heard. You will have the assurance that neither church politics nor powerful personalities are subtly directing the church. What you see and hear the elders doing in the pulpit week by week, message by message, in expounding the Scripture, is what really reveals who they are and how they function in their office. This, of course, is another reason why attendance upon the public ministries of the word is so crucial. We not only have dealings with our glorious God who comes to us in the preaching of His word, we also come to know the heart and devotion of our pastors to God and His word.
Be Prepared
Read and study your Bible with a view to learning how to have a good relationship with your elders. We do not want to repeat the sins of saints of old in this regard. There are plenty of “how-not-to-relate-to-your-pastors” situations in the NT. It must be stated that true pastors worthy of their office and work will be doing the same in being warned against abuses. Faithful pastors should be looking to themselves to be the kind of servant-leaders Christ calls them to be. Members want to see signs and evidences in the lives and teachings of their elders which show that they are humble men who want to do the will of God and be what God wants them to be. This way, they will not need to be afraid or suspicious nor have an uncomfortable, questioning posture toward their elders. This will help them to be prepared when their pastors do issue a call for repentance, denounce sin, or make a tough judgment call in a complex life situation. So meditate on the main passages that deal with pastor-people relationships (1 Thess. 5:12-15; 1 Peter 5:1-10) just as pastors should meditate on all the passages related to their calling as pastors. Understanding these passages (Acts 20:28, 1 Cor. 12:28, Titus 1:5, Heb. 13:7, 13:17, etc.), is much more helpful than trying to come up with wooden rules about when or whether to challenge elders. Concentrate on the relationship, understand their calling, understand your calling as a church member, and be much in prayer that the design of Christ will be fulfilled by all. This big perspective often settles some of the little questions that we have about procedure.
Communication Circumvents Challenge
Strive for open communication with your pastors in the interest of developing a healthy personal and working relationship with them. Communication is the second most important thing in maintaining a good relationship with elders and honoring their office and calling. Scripture calls on us to honor the truth by proving all things (1 Thess. 5:21), but also calls on us to honor our pastors (1 Thess. 5:12f). Often challenges come because communication does not. This is of course the safety factor that we must always keep in place. Be observant, look for hints, ask reasonable questions, show concern and yet respect, all within the boundaries of godly communication.
Exercise Expectations
So often we expect too much and are troubled when our own expectations are not met. I am saying that we should exercise our expectations, i.e., discipline them; make them lean, strong, and useful, not fat and unreasonable. We should not expect that we can understand every decision that is made by our spiritual leaders. There is a place for trusting God in matters that are not within a Christian’s personal realm of responsibility and stewardship. In other words, in some cases, the solving of problems is the responsibility of leaders and Christians may not be able to enter into the specifics of a given situation. It may be sin for them to make judgments about matters not within their realm of responsibility or knowledge (Prov. 26:17).
Remember the True Source of Trouble
Recognize that the Devil is always at work trying to drive a wedge between the people of God and their leaders. His malicious and malevolent design is always to bring strife, disunity, disaffection and discouragement and he will not hesitate to use pastors or people to do this. But there is a very important principle in this regard: “Strike the shepherd and the sheep will be scattered” (Zech. 13:7). This means that Satan will bring challenge, accusation, and doubt even within the church to strike the shepherd. Truly he is like a roaring lion seeking whom he may devour (1 Pet. 5:8), so let us all be sober.
Rest Assured in Providence
Always remember to pray for your pastors and entrust their lives and ministries to God, just as they pray for you and the people of God. Prayer for leaders cultivates rest and assurance regarding church matters among believers, knowing that God WILL take care of problems (perceived or real). When real problems exist, our Confession of Faith offers some helpful direction: “No church members, upon any offence taken by them, having performed their duty required of them towards the person they are offended at, ought to disturb any church-order, or absent themselves from the assemblies of the church, or administration of any ordinance, upon the account of such offence at any of their fellow members, but to wait upon Christ, in the further proceedings of the church (Mt. 18:15-17, Eph. 4:2-3, the Scripture references given in LBC, Chapter 26, par. 13.). This is certainly good advice with regard to one’s relationship with elders.
A Helpful Analogy
A related question is: May children challenge or question the decisions and actions of their parents? Parents would all agree that the spirit of the child and the challenge is the crucial factor. Is it appropriate for children to challenge their parents? When children are very little, this is usually inappropriate or uncalled-for. So new Christians should keep in mind that being babes in the faith, they may need to trust more and question less. As children grow, and become more mature and trustworthy themselves, they may see things their parents do not see, and parents would welcome the “challenge” coming from a loving and understanding child in the right spirit. This is a very important analogy because we are called the “children” of God. Paul and the apostles viewed their converts and church members as their spiritual children (Gal. 4:19 – “My children, with whom I am again in labor until Christ is formed in you,” 3 John 1:4).
The Bottom Line
Sure, a believer may respectfully challenge or question the actions and decisions of their elders. Let me quickly add two qualifiers. First, perhaps challenge is not the right word to use here. Webster says that challenge means “an accusation, reproach, objection, invitation to engage in a contest or controversy, demand of a right, call to account.” This means that confronting elders with real sin in their lives should be challenged, and on biblical grounds (1 Tim. 5:19). But what about everything else? In the daily, weekly, and yearly course of life in the church of Christ, challenge is not particularly appropriate. What word would you suggest to replace challenge? Perhaps: May Christians question their elders? May Christians disagree with their elders? May Christians dialogue with their elders? I think we are getting closer! One thing is certain, church members must have good communication with their elders, communication which respects their position in the church, the elder’s stewardship of confidentiality, and their desire to preserve the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3). And pastors should respect the need for church members to have assurances and allow their questions to be asked. Elders must always have an open posture toward the people of God. And the people of God must also make Ephesians 4:3 the banner over their relationship to their pastors.
The second qualifier is that we must relate to our elders with all of the above-stated principles and practices in place. And remember to wait on the Lord before approaching your elders by prayerful recourse to these principles. Think of it this way: Do members not expect their pastors to prayerfully wait on the Lord before questioning them lest they unnecessarily offend or discourage them? Many church members are equally thoughtful in this area toward their pastors. So we must all wait on the Lord, trust Him to work, and seek wisdom as to when to speak or ask, or not to do it, in our respective roles of leading and following; shepherding and being shepherded.
Consider the interesting and instructive OT example of the Reubenites and Gadites in Numbers 32, wanting to settle on the East side of the Jordan rather than in the Promised Land. This originally angered Moses, and he saw evil in it (how can he be faulted for that!?). But the tribes “turned away wrath” with their gentle answer, were reasonable with Moses, and Moses himself proceeded reasonably with them. A beautiful resolution ensued, and continued under Joshua (see Joshua 1). Over the years I have observed over and over again that where believers live by these principles the relationship between pastor and people is as smooth and enjoyable as ever. And I have also seen the opposite.
John Reuther –Pastor, Covenant Baptist Church, Lumberton, NJ / Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on November 28, 2009
Many Reformed Christians who believe in the validity of infant baptism find it odd that certain Baptist congregations would employ the nomenclature “Reformed Baptist.” Indeed, some Reformed ministers and theologians today are accusing Reformed Baptists of something like “identity theft.” R. Scott Clark, for example, argues in his recently published book Recovering the Reformed Confession that a infant baptism is an essential element of covenant theology, that one cannot have one without the other. So despite the fact that most who call themselves “Reformed Baptist” today affirm a Confession of Faith whose language and theology was drawn largely from the Westminster Confession, we are, in the mind of Clark and others, unwarranted in our employment of the adjective “Reformed.” That ecclesiastical parameters of that adjective were set in ecclesiastical stone by the synods and councils of the 16th and 17th centuries.
Of course, we who call ourselves “Reformed Baptists” might point out the language changes over time–even ecclesiastical language. “Lutheran” was initially used more broadly to refer to all sorts of anti-Romanists. Later, it was narrowed to refer to those who affirm The Augsburg Confession and/or The Formula of Concord. Conversely, it might be argued that the term “Reformed” has changed over time. Just as synods and councils met in the 16th and 17th century, so met an assembly of messengers from various congregations at the end of the 20th century:
The ASSOCIATION OF REFORMED BAPTIST CHURCHES OF AMERICA was founded on March 11, 1997. On that day the first General Assembly met to establish a charter membership of 24 churches from 14 states.
And on that day they ratified an ecclesiastical constitution that identifies their doctrinal standard, which would define them theologically and ecclesiastically:
While we hold tenaciously to the inerrant, infallible and sufficient Word of God as found in the sixty-six books of the Bible (this being our final source of faith and practice), we embrace and adopt the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 as a faithful expression of the doctrine taught in the Scriptures.
So these churches used the 1689 as a means to define themselves as an association of “Reformed Baptist” churches just as Dr. Clark alleges the delegates at Dordtrecht and Westminster Abby did previously.
One of Clark’s responses to this kind of reasoning is to accuse us of what he calls “Reformed Narcissism,” which he illustrates with the following syllogism:
1. I am Reformed
2. I think x
3. Therefore x is Reformed.
“To state the syllogism,” says Clark, “is to expose the silliness of it.” Perhaps stating the syllogism in such an oversimplified way does give it a ring of “silliness.” But if one reflects carefully on Clark’s own reasoning, it doesn’t appear too far removed from the contours of this syllogism:
Dr. Clark’s argument
1. The 16th and 17th century PB Reformers and Puritans said in essence, “We are Reformed.”
2. They said, “We think x [i.e., The Three Forms of Unity/The Westminster Standards]
3. Therefore, x is “Reformed”
If Dr. Clark and company are entitled to that kind of procedure, why not Reformed Baptists?
A Reformed Baptist argument
1. The 20th century Credo-Baptist adherents of the 1689 Confession (granddaughter to the WCF and daughter to the Savoy Declaration) said in essence, “We are not simply Reformed; we are Reformed Baptist.”
2. They said, “We think x [i.e., The Second London Baptist Confession]
3. Therefore, x is “Reformed Baptist.”
Formally, what we did is precisely the same procedure that forms the basis of Clark’s claim to property rights on the singular adjective “Reformed.” We neither claimed “We are reformed” (major premise) nor “Therefore, x is Reformed” (minor premise). Instead, we carefully qualified our language. We are not simply “Reformed,” we are “Reformed Baptist.” In doing so, we made the point that “Reformed” is not enough. “Reformed” by itself may find support in the 3FU or the WS, but it is, in our estimation, sub-biblical. Hence, we chose to identify ourselves (without Dr. Clark’s permission) as something other than simply “Reformed”–we are “Reformed Baptist.”
Does Dr. Clark or his denomination have ecclesiastical authority to overturn what the ARBCA churches have done? Can he take them to court for stealing the adjective “Reformed”? Didn’t the PCUSA force Machen’s group to change it’s name? Why doesn’t Clark do the same if he feels like there’s been a copyright infringement?
Truth of the matter is, Dr. Clark doesn’t believe that the Baptist congregations that formed ARBCA are “true churches.” He expresses his perspective as follows:
We would discipline someone if they left OURC [Oceanside United Reformed Church] and began attending a baptistic congregation or a sect…. I don’t think that any congregation that denies the administration of baptism to covenant children can be a true church. I don’t see how any baptistic congregation is practicing the “pure administration” of the sacraments.
So not only does he insist we not call ourselves “Reformed,” he insists that we stop identifying ourselves as true visible churches of Christ. That leaves us in a very precarious state since, according to one of the Confessions to which Clark subscribes, there is “no ordinary possibility of salvation” outside the visible church (WCF 25.1).
So what do you think? May Baptists use the adjective “Reformed”? Does it really matter? And what do you think about Dr. Clark “de-churching” Baptist congregations? Before answering those questions, you may want to see how these questions are being discussed and debated on the various blog sites below:
R. Scott Clark and “Reformed” by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Follow up on R. Scott Clark and “Reformed” by Dr. James White of Alpha and Omega Ministries Apologetics Blog
Post-Thanksgiving Cartoons: Reply to James White by Dr. R. Scott Clark of The Heidelblog (be sure to read through the comments)
The esse of Reformed: A Current Question by Dr. Michael Haykin of The Andrew Fuller Center of Baptist Studies
Why I Call Myself a Reformed Baptist by Pastor Keith Throop of The Reformed Baptist Blog
James White Blog Concerning Statements of R. Scott Clark on the Puritan Board
Baptist Churches Not True Churches on the Puritan Board
What Does It Mean to Be Reformed on the Puritan Board
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
Posted by deangonzales on July 30, 2009
In the 17th century, certain sects of Christendom, such as the Quakers and Anabaptists, denied the legitimacy of taking oaths or making vows. The teaching of this chapter of the confession was designed to clarify the meaning and confirm the lawfulness of oaths and vows when properly used. The 1689 Baptist Confession retains the substance of the Westminster Confession, but it abbreviates the form.
I. Concerning Lawful Oaths (para. 1 thru 4)
A. The nature of a lawful oath (para. 1)
A lawful oath is a part of religious worship, wherein the person swearing in truth, righteousness, and judgement, solemnly calleth God to witness what he sweareth, and to judge him according to the truth or falseness thereof.
The first paragraph describes the nature of an oath. An oath is a solemn promise made to another party in which God is called upon to act as a witness and judge. There are two kinds of oaths. An assertory oath is used to confirm the truthfulness and reliability of one’s testimony. This type of oath is often used in the courtroom setting. A promissory oath is used to confirm one’s intent to fulfill an obligation or promise. This type of oath is often used by those assuming some public office or a contractual obligation, like marriage. Traditionally, oaths have been viewed as religious in nature since God is evoked as a witness. In modern times, however, oaths have begun to lose their religious character with the increase of secularism.
The Bible contains numerous examples of oaths. Sometimes civil or religious authorities would require an individual or community to confirm a plea of innocence with an oath when suspected or accused of a crime (Exo. 22:10, 11; Lev. 5:1; 6:3; Num. 5:11-28; Matt. 26:63, 64). Oaths were also employed to confirm one’s fidelity to his covenantal commitments and responsibilities (1 Kgs. 2:43; Eccl. 8:2; Heb. 6:16, 17). Oaths often included such verbal formulas as “I swear by God” (1 Sam. 30:15; Neh. 13:25), “God is witness between you and me” (Gen. 31:50; 1Sam. 12:5; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8), “As the Lord lives” (1 Sam. 14:39; 19:6; 20:3; 2 Sam. 15:21), or “May the Lord do so to me if I do not …” (Ruth 1:17; 1 Sam. 3:17; 14:44; 2 Sam. 3:35; 1 Kgs. 2:23). Oaths were also often accompanied by physical gestures, such as raising one’s right hand heavenward (Deut. 32:40; Ps. 106:26; Isa. 62:8; Dan. 12:7; Rev. 10:5, 6) or, less commonly, placing one’s hand under another’s thigh (Gen. 24:2; 47:29). In modern times, the adjured raises his right hand or places it upon a Bible and swears to “tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help [him] God.”
B. The propriety of a lawful oath (para. 2)
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; 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; yet as in matter of weight and moment, for confirmation of truth, and ending all strife, an oath is warranted by the word of God; so a lawful oath being imposed by lawful authority in such matters, ought to be taken.
Having briefly described the nature of an oath, the Confession defends the propriety of lawful oaths in the second paragraph. First, “sinful” oaths are identified and condemned. Idolatrous oaths are those in which invoke any one or thing except the one true God as witness (Jos. 23:7; Jer. 5:7; Zeph. 1:5). Vain oaths are those taken flippantly for trivial matters or with the intent to deceive (Exo. 20:7; Matt. 23:16-22). Rash oaths are those taken in haste without proper forethought or solemnity (Num. 30:6; Eccl. 5:2-5). All such oaths are forbidden and condemned by Scripture (Exo. 20:7; Deut. 6:13; Jer. 5:7; Matt. 5:33-37). Especially strong is Christ’s censure in the Sermon on the Mount:
Again you have heard that it was said to those of old, “You shall not swear falsely, but shall perform your oaths to the Lord.” But I say to you, do not swear at all: neither by heaven, for it is God’s throne; nor by the earth, for it is His footstool; nor by Jerusalem, for it is the city of the great King. Nor shall you swear by your head, because you cannot make one hair white or black. But let your “Yes” be “Yes,” and your “No,” “No.” For whatever is more than these is from the evil one (Matt. 5:33-37).
Because Quakers and some Anabaptists frequently cited this censure, which is repeated by the Apostle James (5:12), the Puritans felt constrained to defend the propriety of lawful oaths in the second half of this paragraph. They affirmed that, in certain circumstances, “an oath is warranted by the word of God.” In fact, the Puritans not only viewed lawful oaths as appropriate but also as mandatory when imposed by a lawful authority. The Scripture offers the following support for lawful oaths:
1. The commands to swear in Jehovah’s name and the prohibitions against swearing falsely assume the propriety of lawful oaths (Exo. 20:7; Lev. 19:12; Deut. 6:13; 10:20).
2. The Mosaic law sometimes required the swearing of an oath (Exo. 22:10, 11; Lev. 5:1; 6:3; Num. 5:19-22; 1 Kgs. 8:31).
3. The example of many OT saints vindicates the use of lawful oaths: Abraham (Gen. 24:2); Jacob (Gen. 47:30-31); Joseph (Gen. 50:25); Elijah (1 Kgs. 17:1); Nehemiah (Neh. 5:12; 13:25); and Ezra (Ezra 10:5).
4. The example of Christ and the Apostle Paul vindicate the use of lawful oaths (Matt. 26:62-64; Rom. 1:9; 2 Cor. 1:23; Phil. 1:8).
5. The example of God Himself vindicates the use of lawful oaths (Gen. 22:16; Num. 14:28; Deut. 32:40; Ps. 95:11; Jer. 22:5; Amos 6:8; 8:7; Luke 1:73; Heb. 6:13-17).
But if lawful oaths are appropriate, then why does Jesus say, “Do not swear at all” (Matt. 5:34)? Why does He say, “Let your ‘Yes’ be ‘Yes,’ and your ‘No,’ ‘No.’ For whatever is more than these is from the evil one” (Matt. 5:37)?
In light of the ample biblical support for lawful oaths, we must not interpret Christ’s censure as an absolute prohibition against all oaths. Rather, as indicated by the context, Jesus is condemning Pharisaic casuistry and misuse of the Law. The Pharisees took the OT command “do not swear falsely, but perform [one’s] oaths to the Lord,” and they shifted the emphasis from the integrity of the oath to the formula of the oath. No longer was the emphasis upon keeping one’s promise, but now it was on the phrase “to the Lord.” As a result, the Pharisees concluded that one might break his oath provided that he did not swear by the Lord. In fact, they devoted an entire book to distinguish between the kinds of oaths that could be broken and those that were obligatory (cf. Matt. 23:16-22)! Thus, Jesus’ censure was not against lawful oath-taking but against sinful oath-taking.
C. The solemnity of a lawful oath (para. 3)
The third paragraph underscores the solemnity of oath-taking. Oaths should only be taken when required by a lawful authority or when circumstances demand it. The Baptists added a closing phrase, which highlights the consequences of sinful oath taking—God’s anger is provoked and society suffers. But Baptists also omitted a significant section of the WCF, which they apparently felt was sufficiently addressed elsewhere in the chapter.
Whosoever taketh an oath warranted by the Word of God, ought duly to consider the weightiness of so solemn an act, and therein to avouch nothing but what he knoweth to be truth; [WCF- neither may any man bind himself by oath to anything but what is good and just, and what he believeth so to be, and what he is able and resolved to perform. Yet it is a sin to refuse an oath touching anything that is good and just, being imposed by lawful authority]; for that by rash, false, and vain oaths, the Lord is provoked, and for them this land mourns.
D. The sincerity of a lawful oath (para. 4)
An oath is to be taken in the plain and common sense of the words, without equivocation or mental reservation.1 [WCF- ‘It cannot oblige to sin; but in anything not sinful, being taken, it binds to performance, although to a man’s own hurt. Nor is it to be violated, although made to heretics, or infidels.’]
The fourth paragraph addresses the need for absolute integrity in oath-taking. As pointed out earlier, some of the Pharisees were “spinsters.” They were experts at twisting the meaning of words and phrases (Matt. 5:33-37; 23:16-22). But such dishonest “word games” were not limited to Jesus’ day. Today, an American president can justify perjury because he intended something different than his interrogator when he used the word “is.” Liberal pastors and theologians can confess adherence to evangelical doctrinal standards after they “reinterpret” such words and phrases as “inspiration,” “deity of Christ,” “virgin birth,” “resurrection,” etc. Taxpayers can justify “fudging” on their tax return form on the basis of a loose interpretation of the phrase “to the best of my knowledge and belief.” This is precisely the kind of dishonest casuistry censured by this paragraph and forbidden by Scripture (Lev. 19:12; Matt. 5:34-36). As G. I. Williamson appropriately remarks, “The taking of an oath with secret intention of double meaning, not disclosed to others, or with mental reservations, whereby the mind silently voices dissent from part or all of what is being sworn, is a sin of enormity.” That is because the Bible commends absolute honesty and fidelity (Ps. 24:4; Matt. 5:37; Jas. 5:12).
The WCF includes some important qualifying and clarifying remarks, not included the Baptist Confession. First, an oath to do something sinful is non-binding. For example, an individual might wrongly swear allegiance to an apostate church. Later he is converted and realizes his error. In such a case, he not only may, but he must break that oath. A. A. Hodge notes that in such a case, “The sin is in taking the oath to do the unlawful thing, not in breaking it.” One might add that breaking an oath that leads to sin is act of obedience.
On the other hand, the WCF indicates that oaths resulting in personal loss or inconvenience are not to be broken. The righteous man “swears to his own hurt and does not change” (Ps. 15:4). In the spring of 1992, I made a commitment to serve another year as a Graduate Assistant teaching Greek at the university I attended. Just prior to the school year I realized I would have to use a good portion of my savings to supplement our living expenses and regretted the commitment I had made. However, to resign my post would place the university in a difficult position. In light of Psalm 15:4, I decided it would be better for me to suffer loss than to break my word.
The WCF also addresses the issue of oaths made to heretics or infidels. Historically, the Roman Catholic Church had justified the practice of breaking oaths to those judged to be heretics or infidels. One of the most notorious examples was the case of Bohemian Reformer Jan Hus. In 1414 the Emperor Sigismund invited Hus to a council in Constance and promised him safe conduct. But the Catholic authorities arrested and imprisoned Hus. Under pressure from the Church, the emperor informed Hus that he was not bound to keep his promise of safe conduct since Hus was a heretic. The Puritans rightly condemned such deceptive behavior. They commended the virtuous example of Joshua, who kept his oath with the Gibeonites though they had deceived him into making the oath (Jos. 9:1-20).
II. Concerning Lawful Vows (para. 5)
A vow, which is not to be made to any creature, but to God alone, [WCF- and that it may be accepted, it] is to be made and performed [WCF- voluntarily] with all religious care and faithfulness; but 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.
The English terms “oath” and “vow” are sometimes used interchangeably. But the Old and New Testaments employ distinct vocabulary for each concept. Though oaths and vows are clearly related (cf. Num. 30:2), an oath refers to a promise made in God’s presence to another human party; whereas a vow refers to a promise made directly to God. The vows in Scripture often included both a negative and also a positive pledge. Negatively, the individual promised to abstain from some liberty, comfort, or necessity for a period of time. For example, the Nazarite promised to abstain from grape products, cutting his hair, and touching anything dead (Num. 6:2-8; Jud. 13:5-7; cf. Num. 30:3ff.). David vowed to give himself no rest until he had found a resting place for the Ark (Ps. 132:2-5). Positively, the individual pledged his (or another’s) time, energies, and/or resources to God’s service. Jepthah vowed to sacrifice the first living thing from his home that greeted him should God grant him victory in battle (Judg. 11:30, 31). Hannah vowed to dedicate Samuel to God’s service (1 Sam. 1:11, 27, 28). As these examples demonstrate, vows were often conditioned upon God’s answering prayer (cf. Gen. 28:20-22). In other cases, vows were offered as a thankful response to prayers already answered (Pss. 22:25; 50:14; 116:14-19).
Since vows are closely related to oaths (cf. Num. 30:2), much of the Confession’s teaching concerning the latter would also apply to the former. This may be the reason why the Baptist’s abbreviated three of the WCF’s paragraphs into one paragraph. Monastic vows were one issue the Baptists did judge worthy of reiteration. These included vows of celibacy, poverty, and unquestioned submission to the Church. Since all these practices are unbiblical, the Puritans rightly viewed such vows as “superstitious and sinful snares,” and as a result, non-binding.
Closing applications
(1) Oaths are not only valid, but when wisely and solemnly employed, they can bring glory to God and promote good among men.
In light of the potential dangers of oaths, we might be tempted to avoid them altogether. There are times, however, when oaths are prudent and necessary. According to Scripture, a properly taken oath glorifies God (Deut. 10:20-21). By taking an oath in God’s name we publicly confess our faith in the one true God who is omniscient, omnipresent, and just. Furthermore, oaths have the potential to promote good among men. Jochem Douma explains,
A society that respects the oath is not easily disrupted. In this kind of society, people still recoil from lying and expend energy in taking their office or calling seriously. An oath-bound monarch is bound by the rights of his subjects that have been established in the constitution, so that his administration does not exercise tyranny. Oath-bound physicians are committed to healing their patients. An oath-bound officer serves the preservation of the state. An oath-bound property assessor can be expected to estimate property value honestly. By means of an oath in court, witnesses are restrained from declaring the innocent to be guilty, or the guilty to be innocent. By means of the oath, we are placed before the very face of God. Reverence for God has salutary consequences for society.
It might be added that reverent oath taking can have salutary consequences for the church in settling unresolved interpersonal strife or conflict.
(2) The Bible and Confession require absolute honesty and unflinching commitment from those employ oaths and vows, especially those in positions of leadership.
Those of us who have taken wedding vows or pledged commitment to a local church need to reflect upon the high demands under which we have placed ourselves. Too often, professing Christians quietly qualify their promises with all sorts of secret conditions and provisos. As a result, the marriage vow or church covenant loses much of its binding force. Christian leaders also need to take seriously their ministerial oaths and vows. Too often in our day, pastors and theologians publicly vow allegiance to a Confession of Faith while secretly at variance with substantial doctrines in that confession. This kind of behavior is unethical and irreprehensible among those who should be models of integrity. “It is little wonder,” writes G. I. Williamson, “that the spiritual condition of the churches is low, when it has become accepted practice to swear deceitfully, and that on the part of the shepherds of Israel.” If a minister takes exception with a doctrine or teaching of the confession he vows to uphold, he should make his church aware of his exception(s).
(3) The high ethical demands of oaths and vows should caution us against the practice of pressuring small children to make unwarranted or untimely pledges to God.
It’s common practice among evangelical churches today to pressure small children into making pledges of commitment to Christian service. Sometimes young children are encouraged to sign a pledge card or publicly to dedicate their lives to “fulltime” Christian service. As the child grows, his family and friends, as well as his own conscience remind him of this pledge. As a result, he may struggle with feelings of guilt at the thought of pursuing a secular vocation. This practice not only betrays a false view of “fulltime” Christian service, but it also reflects a lack of wisdom among those who pressure children into these formal pledges. Since oaths and vows should not be made lightly or rashly, we must be sure that those upon whom we call to make them are mentally and spiritually able to understand and fulfill the commitment they are making.
Bob Gonzales, Dean
Reformed Baptist Seminary
