The Conflict of Church and State

Sunday’s service was about not taking an oath or “swearing.” Many scriptures were cited during the service. It was also great seeing one of our youth members visiting from her duty. She is a combat medic.

Anyway, the discussion after church was mostly about the Bible’s instruction not to take an oath and you can’t serve the country without taking one.

Thoughts?

It's a principle not a law. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. Doesn't mean you shouldn't take an oath of office or put your hand on a Bible and swear to tell the whole truth. It's just a principle meaning to live in honesty.

So was the pastor wrong to state it is a sin to do so and improperly used the scriptures toward his claim?

First, I question how the topic of taking an oath came up in the sermon. Does the pastor pick and choose topics for his sermons? Or has he been preaching through a book of the Bible and this topic just happened to come up in the text being studied? Did the preacher know the combat medic would be attending the service?

I do not see in the Bible where lawful oaths are prohibited and don't know what would be used as justification for preaching such a position. From Deuteronomy 10 "Fear the Lord your God and serve him. Hold fast to him and take your oaths in his name. 21 He is the one you praise; he is your God, who performed for you those great and awesome wonders you saw with your own eyes."

This link references the Westminster Confession of Faith section 22 which summarizes the Bible's teaching in vows and lists many scripture references as the source.
http://www.apuritansmind.com/westminster-standards/chapter-22/

Matthew 5:34

The context of that is people are quick to "swear to God" I did or didn't do such and such. The devalue God's name by swearing on it flippantly.

I didn't hear your preacher's sermon but I'm pretty sure that's what Jesus was talking about during his sermon.

Matthew Henry's commentary on Matthew 5:34 doesn't take that verse to prohibit taking an oath when required by the civil magistrates.

https://www.biblegateway.com/resources/matthew-henry/Matt.5.33-Matt.5.37

Also see commentary from the Reformation Study Bible:



I can't find any Bible scholar who claims that verse from Matthew or the verse in James mean that it is wrong to take any oath whatsoever.

Hope the preacher don't end up in court and have to swear on a bible to tell the truth. Jephthah made a vow to sacrifice what ever came thru the door first when he returned home if only he could win the battle. Which in itself brings the argument if that was literally ( which would be as to Molech) or merely dedicated her for a lifetime duty to God).
I think a lot of people start making vows to do such and if God will do such and such, turning God into a game show host."Come on Down" if the price is right.
Better not to vow than make and break.
Don't think you could believe the liberal way and ever become a Chaplin in the military.
We are not in the 1000 year rein yet.
Jesus was setting up the Kingdom and when he was rejected by his people things changed and opened up for the Gentiles to "seek the Kingdom of God" and not the "Kingdom of Heaven.
I'm thinking their wouldn't be many church's or preachers if we followed the utopian ways of the flower children in the "60,s
And to conclude the vow of Jephthah, we should give ours kids to God when they come thru the door at birth.

We give a Bible to each youth member that moves on from the group, should we be giving them the Scholar’s book instead?

I had heard about Quakers not Swearing an oath but not many others and that being why they may Affirm their oath of office hence not swearing.

I believe the context is you may only swear an oath to your church or god and not a state and thus why the legal and biblical scholars whom wrote our constitution allowed those Quakers or any other so religiously bound to Affirm their pledge.



In law, an affirmation is a solemn declaration allowed to those who conscientiously object to taking an oath. An affirmation has exactly the same legal effect as an oath but is usually taken to avoid the religious implications of an oath; it is thus legally binding but not considered a religious oath.


now my 3 favorite priests were Chaplin of the Navy , Air force and Marines. they certainly found a way to do both share the Gospel and serve.

The liberals would outlaw the 10 commandments if they could. So next to it they need to convince the people not to take an oath, vow, or promise, and to even join the military is wrong. They would love to do away with the party system, the Constitution, Guns and God. Their goal is to get to the state atheism (gosateizm).

Foxpaw, you paint all liberals with the same brush and you’re far from the truth. We liberals come in many colors. Some are red, others blue. Some go to church and others don’t. Some serve their country while others claim they have bone spurs and get deferments. Your problem with liberals seems to be they don’t believe what you think is important. I’m a liberal but I served my country, took an oath to defend America. Worked my entire life to keep people disease free and educated. Foxpaw, liberals and conservatives on this site enjoy trapping. It’s what we have in common. Thank goodness however, we don’t all think the same.

I might infer that your pastor would be unwilling to serve in the military if he had to take the oath. Would that be his position ??

Not instead - but giving a reputable commentary or two, in addition to the Bible, would be a great idea. God especially gifted some individuals with the gifts of knowledge, teaching, and exhortation for the benefit of His people in the church. It would be a waste for us not to make use of the gifted teachers that God has generously given us. There is wisdom in a multitude of counselors.

After all, if you take the time to listen to the teaching of your pastor and/or sunday school teachers (or ask for discussion from Trapperman.com members), why couldn't you also consider the exposition of the Bible from other respected scholars who have devoted their lives to the study of God's Word? Obviously, we need to test everything we read or hear and, to the best of understanding, verify that all these teachings are in accord with the Holy Scripture. Apparently, you and the folks in your church already do that since the congregation was discussing the sermon and you have also come here also to discuss it with others.

What is the difference between an oath and the vows taken by the religious? (Priests, ministers, nuns, deacons, rabbis, whatever)

Matthew 22:21 Jesus said "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's." Romans 13:1 "Let every person be in subjection to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God and those which exist are established by God."

Wonder what that preacher thinks of the Holy war we've been fighting for almost two decades?

Very interesting discussion …

Garry-

I'm no liberal but, because I agree with some of their positions and disagree with some on the extreme right, many try to put me in the liberal camp.

There are many who pick and choose what they believe (or want to believe)the bible says.
No matter who one listens to when it comes to interpreting what God's words mean, he should always pray for understanding. I believe God gave man his intellectual curiosity so that our beliefs and the free choices we make demonstrate our faith. If everything was cut and dried and proven beyond all doubt, there would be no need for faith.

As for the court of man's laws, we can affirm our testimony is true without bringing the Bible into things.

I think you are right in that not all liberals are the same. But, beyond liberals there is another class that are referred to as the left. They are different than the liberals in that they all come in the same color Foxpaw described.

He served, Air Force, I believe.

While I pray to God every night I have not been in a church in decades! Just seems to me they are out to take your money.

I guess if you went once in a while you would realize how wrong you are.

There's a guy on tv-murdock maybe? who only asks for listeners to send him money. He says it is planting a "seed" and, if the sucker is faithful enough, it will come back to him many times over. I wouldn't want to be near the guy during a lightening storm.

I am certainly sorry if you have identified yourself with any of the negatives I mentioned. However I don't think any of the labels that's used in today's arena are the same thing they was even 20 yrs ago. What other label could be used to describe a preacher who is ok with ordaining certain hybrids in there congregations, or confusing young individuals whether its ok to give your word, vow, or whatever to do your best to uphold what is asked of him or her as to their duty to their country. Or what would be a good label for someone who wouldn't twink twice about changing the constitution to fit their own agenda. What would be a good label for someone who wants to turn the borders loose and just have a free for all at voting time.
Traper7 implied that those farther off would be to the left. But since it was you that seems offended, if you would would pick the right label , I will edit out liberal and add as to your choosing. If you still identify with the negatives I just mentioned, then I truly am sorry I offend you.

If your beliefs tell you not to take an oath then don't join the military where you are asked to pledge to defend the Constitution, which means if you don't believe in taking oaths then maybe the constitution means little to nothing to you as well. I feel God throws out a huge net, far bigger than mere humans can comprehend and if we as humans want to play in the little sand box with our small outlooks than that is on us and not God.

Bryce

There are no honorable, ethical, moral, or honest leftists.

That's true of some. Not true of all.

Not knowing the full context of the sermon, I have no idea what your pastor was implying. As for swearing I would suggest to be careful what you swear for. If you can't fulfill the obligation you swore by it would be no different than telling a lie to God Almighty. As for oaths to country and such, I see no sin in such oaths. IMO.

Swearing an Oath on the Bible Is Not Required
Court scenes in American movies, television, and books typically show people swearing an oath to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Typically, they do so by swearing an oath "to God" with a hand on the Bible. Such scenes are so common that most people seem to assume that it's required. However, it's not.


You have a right to simply "affirm" that you will tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. No gods, Bibles, or anything else religious need to be involved.

This is not an issue that only affects atheists. Many religious believers, including some Christians, object to swearing oaths to God and would prefer to affirm that they will tell the truth.

Really what good would it do to have an atheist swear on a bible. Or swear in an atheist president for that matter.

so Christians always tell the truth after they swear on a bible?

Of course, it’s right there in the Ten Commandments

There will be a judgement. God is a just God and would not judge one on some scale they had never heard of. In heaven there is an Ark that the one here on earth was designed from. A believer has the commandments in their heart. Law is the heart of our religion. If you have never been convicted of any thing then you know nothing of it. Once is enough. The world would cut the very heart from Jesus if possible. Jesus is our lawyer and Judge.So you see a pledge, vow ,promise, oath is bringing judgement on the believer if he breaks it. There is another judgement for the unbeliever its the Great White Throne judgement. That's why its important to change before its too late. One bright note is that the little puppies even get the scraps so there is hope for the lost. One can tell just how hungry the puppies are when you drop a scrap and they grab them right up. They will even get on the table if you let them, lol.

That's why you don't make it a habit to swear. If you're going to swear you better honor it.
Of course this would also apply to atheist. We've all heard the saying, "A man is only as good as his word."
Only wish that was followed/applied more often in today's world. A handshake and a man's word doesn't mean what it once did. Dang shame.

I wonder how the preacher feels about marriage vows. Would he say they are verboten, too?

And it was quiet in heaven for 30 minutes.

You don't have to use a bible to take an oath.
Muzlims can use a Koran(their bible),and native people often use the Eagle feather to swear an oath.
Non believers can solemnly swear,without using any prop.

Why would a Godless world want to adhere to anything Godly. Standards are used as a means to get everyone on the same playing field. People go into contracts to bind. People take vows to marry or have witnesses at the ceremony for a binding contract, one importance is the welfare of the children, should unforeseen events happen. When you swear or vow it only makes sense to swear to a cause or institution or name bigger than yourself. To do less would be meaningless. To make a contract would be more binding if you knew it was going to cost you something to break it, but still it has be enforceable, if its not enforceable then how binding can it be? Man is becoming unaccountable to anyone, he is thinking he is Supreme. He makes his own standards. If gold is unattainable as a standard then make bitcoin. I guess for copy right reason things are becoming less universal. If you want to invest in something you would want to put your money where it is liquid enough to get your money back instead of buying scrip in Al's possum farm where the only place you can get your value back is in trading for possums. Why mess with new standards.

Nothing is ever new its all been before. When I first heard the word prenuptial I thought that was something new that was just thought up to make lawyers rich. Later in life I studied in the Talmud and found that they had the same thing way back then to protect the woman. If a woman married a tanner and brought her dowry to the marriage she had 6 months to try the marriage and at the end of 6 months she wanted to leave she could and take her dowry with her. They reasoned that before she lived with him she didn't know how bad he stank. Or he could have even lied and told her his bad odor came from a more profitable perfume business. Any way if she stayed with him more than 6 months her dowry was bound to the marriage, if she left she had to leave the dowry. They thought that after 6 months with him she knew if she could stand the smell, after that she was bound by the marriage contract.

You see things have been recorded thru the ages, things that were tried and proven were kept and/or modified. Our country has was worked using standards that have been in place for hundreds and thousands of years. Why throw it away in only a generation or two? Surely you can look at the other atheistic country's. Yes, the socialists may give the people every need until they gain power from and by them but then will be thrown away like an old pair of shoes.

"Oh for a thousand tongues to sing" "Blessed be the Name Of The Lord"

I don't believe the context your pastor is referring to dictates a believer can't swear any kind of oath. But can swear an oath to something or someone as long as it doesn't put one at odds with God.

There was a daughter that was killed as a result of a hasty decision to make an oath. So the moral there would be to be very careful in the oath you swear!

As far as the "conflict of church and state goes:. There is no conflict! Our govt is to make no law prohibiting religious liberty. We can write in God we trust on our computer screens, Congress halls, etc... Etc...

This guy refused to take an oath.

Fast forward to the 47 minute mark. Its the Perfect Pizza guy.

http://milwaukee.granicus.com/Media...2aM6LbE7nEqjP9kyyHsp3Cr3rhRVP97h7xq8RHm8

Not a big fan of professors or ministers ,Even the Pope has made some crazy statements .