| Home | Our Hope | |
| Bible Study |
|
December 23, 2025 |
| Lying About Guilt | ||
I find myself sensitive to the topic of guilt at the moment. This study will be the 3rd one I've done on that topic. I'm amazed at the things I see and hear from "Christian" sources, and the lack of understanding of guilt that is shown.
This study comes from a video about guilt. I won't name the author because that isn't my purpose this time. As I watched the video, it was quickly apparent that the author is a liberal.
Liberals hate laws because laws constrain them. This includes God's laws. So they spend a lot of time trying to find ways around them. So, hating God's laws means they also hate the guilt that comes when they break them. The author has found a way to deal with that.
The title image of the video says, "The 7 things you feel guilty about but God never called it a sin." The title caption below it says something slightly different, "The 7 things God never called a Sin, and Christians should not feel Guilty about." Notice the capitalization of "Guilt." Why has he chosen to break his pattern of capitalization for this word? Hmm?
The Author's Point
His point is that some kinds of guilt aren't from the Holy Spirit. Actually no guilt comes from the Holy Spirit. It's a technicality, but guilt comes from the conscience. The conscience knows right and wrong, as God sees it. The Holy Spirit keeps the conscience sharp. It is possible for the conscience to become dull, "seared" as the Bible calls it, and it no longer works in some areas.
Of course we need to be careful not to confuse regret and remorse with guilt. When the guilt is gone, we can still have those two hanging on. But that isn't the author's problem.
It is important here that he says there is more than one source of guilt. There is not. He wants this to be true so he can ignore his conscience when it bothers him about some things. He doesn't say that in the video, of course, but it is written between the lines. He wants us, the viewers, to do as he does so that he will feel better about ignoring his conscience.
His tactic is to say that there is more than one source. That puts him in charge of deciding which feelings of guilt are from God and which are not. He is going to use the narrowest reading of the Bible to make this decision: "Did Jesus say this is wrong?"
That's a game that liberals frequently play. An example is homosexuality. Did Jesus say homosexuality was wrong? It's a dishonest question. Of course Jesus didn't use the English word "homosexuality." The Jews of that time didn't even have a single word that they used to describe it. To meet the liberals' standard, Jesus would have to say homosexuality is wrong. It would not be enough for Peter or Paul to say it, or the Old Testament, and it wouldn't be enough for the Bible to use a phrase like "lying with a man as with a woman."
The author has seven examples that he says show people being guilty when they have no reason to be guilty. Therefore they are experiencing guilt from another source. Therefore he can, or even must, discern which of his are from God. He does use the word "discern."
I only followed the video as far as the 1st example because he was obviously wrong, and only one contradiction is enough to destroy his point.
This example comes from Peter's denial of Jesus three times. He says that Peter was showing his guilt afterward by going back to fishing. Essentially his actions were saying he felt he wasn't good enough to be a disciple. That's fair enough. I think you could also say that Peter's crying after his denials showed the guilt he felt.
But then he goes off the rails by saying Peter had done nothing wrong; there was no reason for him to feel guilty. There is nothing in the Bible that says it is wrong to deny Jesus. I told you this was coming.
This is so plainly wrong that I was shocked to hear him say it. Peter's denial makes a lie out of things that he had said before, but breaking covenants and unintentional lying are small potatoes here.
The word "deny" is useful for the author because it doesn't have the precision needed. Peter did not say, "I deny him." he said, "I do not know him." That is a rejection of God. If the 1st Commandment says, "I am the God of you," but you say, "I don't know you," that's breaking a commandment.
We have additional evidence from the "Feed my lambs" exchange that Jesus has with Peter after the resurrection. Jesus asks Peter 3 times, once for each denial.
Jesus was also pretty clear about the seriousness of denying him.
But whoever will deny me before the children of men, I shall deny him also before my Father who is in Heaven. (Matthew 10:33)
There are times in our lives when we find ourselves asking why we feel guilty about something when we didn't really do anything wrong. This is why there was a guilt offering in the Old Testament that was really a sin offering. The conscience is the only source of guilt, and it is not wrong.
For example, perhaps as a teen, your mother or father told you not to go to someone's house after school, and that you were to stay in the school library. You complained and expressed how unfairly you were being treated, but your parent was insistent. So you made a noise like "uh-uh," which sounds like "uh-huh," and off you went.
Later, when you went to the house you weren't supposed to go to, you found yourself feeling guilty. You didn't exactly say you wouldn't go there, so you didn't lie. So why do you feel guilty?
You might tell yourself it's only because you know your parents would be disappointed in you if they found out.
But you did sin. You deceived your parents into thinking you wouldn't go there. You know your parent wouldn't have let up except for your "uh-uh." The parent thought you had agreed to comply. Deception is a kind of lying.
Also, you've done the opposite of honoring your parents. So, that's two commandments broken.
It's sometimes difficult to figure out why you are feeling guilty. It is especially difficult when you don't really want to know. That's the problem the author of this video has. Yet the guilt persists. His plan is to dismiss it as guilt from another source other than sin.
That feeling of guilt comes from our conscience. The Bible talks about the role of the conscience. It's worth doing a word search through the Bible for the word "conscience," to see what is said.
The conscience was given to mankind by God to be a guide for us. It is not just part of our bodies. Even evolutionists can't understand how a conscience would have evolved. Evolution is driven by keeping accidental improvments. How would a conscience that contends against our natures have evolved? It wouldn't. There is no advantage to it. If there was an evolutionary advantage to it, animals would have it as well, but they don't.
The conscience knows godliness, what is right and wrong. Before the Old Covenant was given, the conscience was the only guide to godliness that mankind had. The purpose of the Law in the Old Covenant, and the Holy Spirit in the New Covenant, is not to replace the conscience, but to sharpen it so it is able to guide us.
In the New Covenant, we are blessed to be able to rid ourselves of that guilt by doing nothing more than asking for forgiveness. A trip to the temple is not required, and neither is a sacrifice. That doesn't mean we won't have a lingering regret about what was done. We still have the memory, and it can't be avoided. Satan may even use that to deceive believers into thinking they need to do something more to get rid of that feeling.
In the video, the author says Christianity shouldn't be a minefield of sin and guilt. It is only that way for a person who refuses to live according to God's standard. Those who use the standard as a map miss most of the mines.