Afrikaans
Akan
Albanian
Amharic
Arabic
Armenian
Azerbaijani
Basque
Belarusian
Bemba
Bengali
Bihari
Bosnian
Breton
Bulgarian
Cambodian
Catalan
Cebuano
Cherokee
Chichewa
Chinese (Simplified)
Chinese (Traditional)
Corsican
Croatian
Czech
Danish
Dutch
English
Esperanto
Estonian
Ewe
Faroese
Filipino
Finnish
French
Frisian
Ga
Galician
Georgian
German
Greek
Guarani
Gujarati
Haitian Creole
Hausa
Hawaiian
Hebrew
Hindi
Hmong
Hungarian
Icelandic
Igbo
Interlingua
Irish
Italian
Japanese
Javanese
Kannada
Kazakh
Kinyarwanda
Kirundi
Kongo
Korean
Krio (Sierra Leone)
Kurdish
Kurdish (Soranî)
Kyrgyz
Laothian
Latin
Latvian
Lingala
Lithuanian
Lozi
Luganda
Luo
Luxembourgish
Macedonian
Malagasy
Malay
Malayalam
Maltese
Maori
Marathi
Mauritian Creole
Moldavian
Mongolian
Myanmar (Burmese)
Montenegrin
Nepali
Nigerian Pidgin
Northern Sotho
Norwegian
Norwegian (Nynorsk)
Occitan
Oriya
Oromo
Pashto
Persian
Polish
Portuguese (Brazil)
Portuguese (Portugal)
Punjabi
Quechua
Romanian
Romansh
Runyakitara
Russian
Samoan
Scots Gaelic
Serbian
Serbo-Croatian
Sesotho
Setswana
Seychellois Creole
Shona
Sindhi
Sinhalese
Slovak
Slovenian
Somali
Spanish
Spanish (Latin American)
Sundanese
Swahili
Swedish
Tajik
Tamil
Tatar
Telugu
Thai
Tigrinya
Tonga
Tshiluba
Tumbuka
Turkish
Turkmen
Twi
Uighur
Ukrainian
Urdu
Uzbek
Vietnamese
Welsh
Wolof
Xhosa
Yiddish
Yoruba
Zulu
Today, we're going to consider one of the most serious difficulties that any of us has
to face in our Christian lives
The difficulty is one that is universal, and it’s one that has the power to be debilitating
and paralyzing to our personal growth
I'm speaking, of course, of the problem of guilt
When Paul gives his exposition of the Gospel in his epistle to the Romans, he talks about
the universality of human sinfulness
In chapter 3 of Romans, in verse 19 he makes this comment, "Now we know that whatever the
law says, it says to those who are under th law that every mouth may be stopped and all
the world may become guilty before God
Therefore, by the deeds of the law, no flesh will be justified in his sight, for by the
law is the knowledge of sin
Paul says. "Whatever the law says, it says to all who are under the law" and in a certain
sense all of us are under the law of God, so everything that the law says it says to
all of us
What it says to us is that when we stand before the judgment seat of God every mouth will
be quiet
Every mouth will be stopped because under the udgment of the law of God, the whole
world is guilty
Many times. I'm engaged in intellectual discussions with people doing the task of apologetics
and trying to answer their objections to the truth claims of Chnstianity
I've noticed on such occasions that if you answer one objection to the Christian faith
to their satisfaction, before they take a breath they’ll raise another objection
If you answer that objection to their satisfaction, again here comes the third one and a fourth
one and it gets to be almost an endless chasing of somebody around a circle
Frequently, what I will do in circumstances like that, after I've tried to answer these
questions, I'll stop this game and look the person in the eye and say, "Here's my question
for you
What do you do with your guilt?
What do you do with your guilt?"
I don t ask them. "Do you have guilt?”
I assume that they have guilt and that they know that they have guilt
It's an amazing thing to see how people stop in their tracks when you ask them a direct
question like that and begin to stutter and stumble as they grope for an answer to the
question, because if there's any place where the unbeliever is vulnerable and exposed
it is at that point because even though they may seek to deny the reality of their guilt.
they know that they are walking through this world with unresolved guilt
Several years ago, I had a friend who was a psychiatrist, and very seriously he came
to me on one occasion and asked me to come to work for him
I said "You must be joking
I don t know the first thing about psychiatry; and I'm certainly not qualified or capable
to work in your office dealing with people who are in therapy"
He says "Oh, but you are M
I said, "Why is that?"
He said. "Because the vast majority of the problems that I have to deal with as a psychiatrist
are all bound up with guilt, guilt and its consequences, guilt that is paralyzing guilt
that is unresolved," and he said, "Most of the people I see don t need a psychiatnst
They need a priest
They need to understand how to unlock this problem of guilt"
Well, the first thing I want us to understand about guilt is that guilt is objective
What I mean by that is that guilt has nothing to do in the final analysis with our feelings
or our subjective responses to situation
Guilt ultimately is defined strictly in objective categories
What I mean by that is this
Guift is incurred when the law of God is broken
We define sin historically as any want of conformity to or transgression of the law
of God
When we break the law of God either by failing to do what the law requires or actually doing
what the law prohibits, at that moment we incur guilt
Guilt is the breaking of the law of God, and God as our judge determines that when we have
transgressed his commandments, we have thereupon come to a status of guilt
Now I mention this business of guilt being objective because there's so much confusion
in our culture about the nature of guilt
We tend to associate guilt with guilt feelings
We need to distinguish between guilt as objective and guilt feelings which are subjective
That is, feelings about guilt have to do with our personal subjective attitudes and responses
to actual violations of the law of God
Now when we talk about guilt being objective, we're talking about it being defined stnctly
in terms of breaking the law
The first thing we have to understand about that is that the law that defines guilt in
the final analysis is not the civil law. not the customs and mores of a given social order,
but moral guilt in the final analysis is defined by the breaking of God's law
Now why is that so important to understand'?
Well, because human laws the laws of our society, the laws that we call the civic order
of our culture don t always agree or correspond to the law of God
That is there are many things that the civil law may allow or permit that God will not
EuEl
Now when we break the civil law. we expose ourselves to arrest and to prosecution and
we may have to go to court
We may have to go through trial
We have a prosecuting attorney, we hire a defense attorney
We listen to the presentation of the evidence, and the jury or the judge renders a verdict
and that verdict will either be guilty or not guilty
Now, again, no one is going to use as a defense for their behavior the statement that they
don't feel guilty
Imagine if you're charged with a crime in the civic court and the judge reads the charge
against you and asks you how you plead and you say, "I plead not guilty"
You don't even have a defense attorney there, and he said "Well, where's your defense attorney?"
You say, "Well, I don’t need one because I can prove that I'm not guilty"
"Well, how can you prove you're not guilty?'
"Well, your honor, I don't feel guilty, so if I don’t feel guilty, I must not be
Now what's wrong with this picture?
That will hardly work as a defense in a criminal trial or even in a civil case in our culture
because our courts understand that how you feel about what you have done has no bearing
in the final analysis on whether you actually have done it
The issue before the court is, has this person done the act or the crime with which that
person is charged?
The defense tries to argue that he's innocent of the charges
Now there may be an attempt on the part of the defense to argue, yes he's done it, but
he's not really responsible for it because he's insane or there are other extenuating
circumstances, he was coerced into it
Still, those are all attempts to either deny or ameliorate to some degree the reality of
the guilt
We know that there are people in our culture who are psychopaths or sociopaths
They can perform all kinds of heinous crimes without feeling guilty at all but again,
it is the task of the court to determine whether the law has been broken
Now it's also true that you may sometimes be obeying the law of God and in so doing.
disobeying the civil magistrate, and in the eyes of the civil magistrate you may be adjudged
to be guilty, whereas in the eyes of God you may be declared to be innocent
We remember in the New Testament, for example when the authorities of the Jewish nation
prohibited the apostles from preaching the Gospel and Peter asked the question, "Should
we obey God or men?"
They said. "We cannot obey this civil magistrate because if we do we will incur guilt before
God because he's commanded us to do these things"
We remember when Stephen provoked the outrage of his enemies, and in a kangaroo court he
was suddenly found guilty and was stoned to death
Even while he was being killed, he had the vision of heaven open before him and he saw
Christ standing there in heaven as his defense attorney pleading his case before God
The earthly court found Stephen guilty, while the heavenly court found Stephen innocent,
so we understand that there can be these conflicts but it's the other side of that coin that
we need to be very very careful of, and that is when the civil law allows us to do things
that God does not permit
I think people in America need to realize that we have gone through a powerful revolution
in our history
In the eighteenth century, we had the Revolutionary War, in which we achieved our independence
from the British crown
The historians talk about two major revolutions that took place in the eighteenth century,
one, the American Revolution and the other ne the French Revolution
Though they took place in much the same period of history what was happening in these events
was radically different one from the other
In the case of the French Revolution, what was going on was a revolt against the established
There was an attempt to overthrow a longstanding tradition of customs, morality, of values,
of institutions that were well established in the nation
The French Revolution with its bloodbath and with its reign of terror, again sought to
radically change the culture of France
Whereas in America, the American Revolution was not fought to establish a new order, a
new way of life; but rather, to preserve the Amencan way of life that had begun early
on in Colonial days and now was deemed to be threatened by changes that were enacted
by Kin George and by the Parliament of England
The American colonists were saying: "We will fight to preserve our traditions to preserve
our values, our customs our morality "
Even though it was a revolution in the sense of a civil uprising against another government.
it was not a cultural revolution, as such
Yet, the cultural historians have told us that the most radical revolution in American
history did not take place in 1776, but it took place in the twentieth century chiefly
in the decade of the sixties where the revolution of the sixties was a revolt against established
values, established customs, against the established
With it, came the sexual revolution the feminist movement, the gay rights movement, the free
speech movement and so on
These were attempts of a new generation to create a new society, a great society a new
order and in many respects it was successful
Those who are old enough to remember the culture before 1960 sometimes still remain somewhat
dazed and confused about what has happened in our own country, and we experience life
now as people who are from the old order and are now forced to accustom ourselves to a
new order in which there's great miscommumcation between those two orders and we're engaged
in a cultural war
Now in many respects, that revolution was an ethical and moral revolution in the sixties
and it had some very strange dimensions to
In the youth culture, university campuses in the sixties, with the advent of the drug
culture and the advice of Timothy Leary for young people to turn on and to drop out and
so on and we had the hippie generation and all of that there were two famous slogans
that emerged in our culture
The first was everybody has the right to do his own thing
Now listen to that for a moment
Everyone has the nght to do their own thing
That salutes a philosophy of moral relativism and pure subjectivism, saying, "I have the
right morally to do what I want to do
If I want to be engaged in premarital sexual behavior or extramarital sexual behavior
that s certainly not the government's business
It's nobody's business
The government has no right to invade the bedroom
This is a matter of personal and private preference for me "
It's subjective, it's relevant, and we witnessed the impact of that kind of thinking in the
trauma of 1998, going into 1999, with the impeachment process of the president of the
United States, where the nation was very much divided over the question of distinguishing
between the president’s personal moral behavior and his political behavior as the chief executive
officer of the land, because the second slogan of the sixties was that cry and call of the
young people under thirty, and you remember they said we can't trust anybody over thirty,
the so called generation gap that was spoken of at that time: called the older generation
to tell it like it is
Tell it like it is
Now the phrase tell it like it is. is a call to objective truth, and you see the tension
here
On the one hand, the young people were saying, "We want to do our own thing
We want to live on a subjectivistic basis but we want you to tell it like it is to
conform to some kind of objective standard of truth
Now if we analyze that carefully, what we discover that what happened in that decade
of the sixties and into the seventies was a radical disjunction between what we call
personal ethics and social ethics
The same group of people who were marching in behalf of social justice with respect to
civil rights and had a deep passion to make sure that human rights were protected in the
land and were opposed to the violence and the bloodshed and the Vietnamese War and so
on and protested against war and the violation of human rights around the world, having a
high sense of social morality were the same ones that were living in communes, getting
high on drugs, and involved in promiscuous, unbndled sexual behavior so that there was
this disjunction between personal morality and social or public morality
In a sense, what happened was sin was now reduced to institutional behavior, not personal
behavior, and personal immorality was rationalized on the basis of people having the nght or
the freedom to express themselves however they wanted to
We're living on the other side of that revolution. oO today we encounter all kinds of confusion
about the matter of guilt
I remember meeting with a college coed, a senior in college, in the sixties when I was
teaching on a university campus, and this young lady asked to have an appointment for
counseling
She came to me and she was very distressed and she explained that she had recently been
engaged and that she and her fiance were involved in premarital sexual activity
She said to me, "And I feel so guilty"
I listened
She said, "And I went to see the chaplain of the school and I explained to him how guilty
I was feeling, and he told me that the reason I was feeling guilty was because I was a victim
of an outmoded Victorian or puritanical ethic that had a tendency to oppress us in our sexual
freedom and in our right to express ourselves as mature adults
He counseled me to that end," she said, "but Professor Sproul, I still feel guilty "
I said; "Well, you're very fortunate." and she said? "What do you mean fortunate?"
I said, "Well, it's a wonderful thing when you feel guilty rf you are guilty
The problem is when we are guilty and don't feel it"
I said, "The reason you feel guilty is not because of something the Puritans did or because
of the legacy of Queen Victoria
The reason why you feel guilty is because you are guilty
You have violated the law of God by your own admission and by your own testimony
And all of the attempts to psychoanalyze and rationalize this guilt away, fortunately for
you have not been effective
The pain of guilt feeling is a marvelous curative thing
Imagine what would happen to us as human beings if our physical bodies suddenly lost the capacity
to feel pain
We would never be alerted to the presence of invasive disease that could be life-threatening
s uncomfortable as the pain is, it is a warning sign, an alert to us that something is wrong "
I said "So you're fortunate that you still at least have the capacity to feel guilty,
because the guilt feeling is one of the things that we have become masters of eliminating 1
Think back in your own life and how you have dealt with guilt, how if you commit a sin
once, you may be overwhelmed with sickness in the pit of your stomach, a sense of personal
revulsion because of what you have done
You’re sick about it, literally because the weight of your guilt feelings is so enormous
Then you do it again, and the second time it's not quite as uncomfortable
Then you do it a third time, a fourth time, a fifth time a sixth time, and pretty soon
you can cruise along in this behavioral pattern without any feelings of guilt whatsoever
You have acquired the status that Jeremiah described when he spoke to the hardheartedness
of the people of Israel when he said to them because of their repeated transgressions of
the law of God, "You have acquired the forehead of the harlot, that is, you have lost you
ability to blush
You have become recalcitrant, you've become calloused so that now you can violate the
law of God and not think anything of it H
There is where the absence of guilt feeling becomes a license to continue to sin and to
sin with the assumption that you can do so with impunity
We talk about the moral issues of our day
I've been interviewed many times on radio shows and television shows and particularly
with respect to the most serious ethical issue of our day namely the issue of abortion
I'm asked by these radio hosts as a theologian what I think about it and I say "I don't
have time to go into the full case against abortion-on-demand and so on but I can give
you a shorthand answer
As a person who's spent his whole life studying theology there are things that I still don't
know, a lot of things I don t know "
I said, "But if there's anything I know about God it's that God hates abortion, that in
God's sight, this is not a minor transgression, but this is a gross and dreadful violation
of the sanctity of human life "
I said: "There's no doubt in my mind about
What astonishes me is the cavalier way in which people in the modern culture can deal
with these issues without any apparent sense of guilt
I wonder how that woman feels who's been encouraged to have an abortion and everybody in the group
says it's okay, it's okay, and the law permits it and everything else and she has it
I can't believe that that woman is under normal circumstances completely free from the assault
of her conscience
I assume that she has to know better
Yet for every sinful action there is under heaven, somebody has brought forth a carefully
crafted rational defense for it, an attempt to justify
That’s why we have a problem with this conflict between guilt and guilt feeling
We can desensitize our consciences, and remember conscience is crucial here
Scripture speaks about conscience as that inner voice within us, that voice that either
accuses us or excuses us for the behavioral things that we do
However, it wasn’t God who said, "Let your conscience be your guide "
It was Jimmy Cricket, and we have to be careful about adhering to what I call Jiminy Cricket
theology
Now our conscience should be our guides in some things that is, if our consciences are
duly informed by the word of God, then we ought to be following our conscience but
the conscience, the scripture says, can be seared
It can be twisted, it can be distorted, and the conscience can actually excuse us for
the very thing that God accuses us of doing
We think of David
I can't for the life of me imagine that King David who elsewhere was defined and described
as a man after God's own heart, who wrote so many of the magnificent psalms Here
was a man whose soul was aflame with passion for the things of God and he got engaged
in adultery and because of his involvement in that adultery he then used the power of
his political office to have his lover’s husband sent to the front lines where conveniently
he would be killed and removed as an obstacle for David's desire so that he could take Bathsheba
to himself
I can't believe that David went through that process without the pangs of guilt haunting
him
Yet. even this one who was so familiar with he law of God, managed to silence those internal
voices so that when Nathan, the prophet, came to him to confront him with his behavior and
Nathan told the parable in order to get David’s attention, David didn t recognize himself
in the parable
David expressed his outrage, his moral outrage at the behavior of the villain in the parable,
and he said "Where is this man?
Not in my kingdom will I tolerate that" until Nathan looked at David and said "Thou art
the man
Then, the house of David collapsed on his head because suddenly, through the power
of the Holy Ghost David was brought face to face with the reality of his guilt and
he was devastated
Fortunately for David, there was still a sensitivity in his soul to the things of God so that when
God the Holy Spirit touched him with the conviction of his sin, now David restored a proper relationship
between his guilt feelings and the reality of his guilt
The objective and the subjective came together, but for most of us, that's rare
We have all kinds of subjective techniques to hide our guilt to conceal our guilt to
deny our guilt, but we have to remember, beloved that guilt is real, and it's defined not by
what we want
It's not defined by what we feel
It's not defined by what is legal in the state
It's defined by the law of God
«D°JI (HL11 (ID HO#^U ^
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get subtitles in any language from opensubtitles.com, and translate them here.