Science
in Christian Perspective
THE
GUILT REACTION
John R. Howitt, M.D.
Supt., Ontario Hospital., Ft. William, Ontario
From: JASA 3
(March 1951):
10-20.
Comments
One
of the most significant factors in human experience is the sense of guilt.
Feelings of guilt are experienced very early in life at least as far back in
childhood as one can remember. The small boy., for example, who has never been
told that he must not steal the cookies, nevertheless feels an Immediate sense
of guilt when he does so. This is at once apparent when the mother discovers the
child in the act of stealing. When a child first
masturbates, he usually does so without breaking any command of his
parents.,- nevertheless he Is very conscious of a sense of guilt. Feelings of
guilt must., therefore, be present very early in life, perhaps even in Infancy.
A Universal Human Experience
The guilt reaction is also universal in human experience. Longfellow (1) has
said "that in even savage bosoms there are longings, yearnings,
strivings for the good they comprehend not", These elementary
aspirations reflect the sense of guilt in primitive man, a sense of failure and
a realization of imperfection which cannot be understood or satisfied.
Missionaries report that the primitive native is invariably conscious of a sense
of sin.
No Sense of Guilt Among Other Animals
There is certainly no evidence of any such element in the whole realm of biology
apart from man. There is no Indication whatever that animals experience any
feelings of guilt in stealing foods 'or in mating when and where they
please, or in destroying, fteh other. It is true, of course, that
animals can be trained to protect property and not to do certain things which
their master forbids, but this is the result of training and may be regarded as
a conditioned reflex.
The Sense of Guilt
The sense of guilt might be compared to a natural instincts like that of hunger
or self-preservation$ and it is the inevitable outcome of man's A priori
moral sense of good and evil. This moral sense stems from the sin of our first
parents who ate of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. (Gen. 2:17 and
3:6) Because man can distinguish between good and evil, as no other species is
able to dos he alone is morally responsible for his conduct and he
alone experiences a sense of guilt when he commits sin, Adam and Eve were
immediately conscious of their guilt (Gen. 317) after they had eaten of the
forbidden fruit.
Gregory Zilboorg (2) seems to recognize the instinctual nature of the sense of
guilt although., as an Analysts he naturally interprets the same from the
psychoanalytical point of view. He states that "Freud showed the humble
origin of man's mind, but he also showed that man possesses almost an instinct
against many of his lowly, universal drives". No one can escape from this
inner consciousness of guilt and there is ever present in the heart of
man a haunting sense of failure and of judgment to come. The guilt reaction is
indeed intimately linked with the thought of judgment And the two concepts are
inseparable. "It is appointed unto men once to dies but after this
the judgment. (Heb. 9s27)
The Conscience
The word "conscience" comes from the Latin verb 'cognosco' to know,
and implies nothing more. The word does not appear in the King James version of
the Old Testament. In the New Testament., the Greek word so translated
(according to Strong's concordance) implies the thought of co-perception,
meaning to see completely or to understand or to becomes aware, The word occurs
32 times in the New Testament and in each instance the meaning appears to be the
senses that of consciousness or awareness. Conscience might, therefore, be
described as the sum total of all our awareness or knowledge in the moral
sphere. The conscience might be regarded as the outgrowth or development of the a
priori or instinctual knowledge of good and-evil.
With the development of the intellectual faculties there occurs a corresponding
development of the moral sense. The intellectual faculties have fully developed
by the age of 14 to 16 which is the normal standard of intelligence and the
moral senses or the ability to distinguish between good and evil, appears to
have fully developed by this time also. It was for this reason that long ago the
Church with a profound knowledge of practical psychology set the age of
confirmation at 14. It was believed that at this age the child to moral sense
was sufficiently developed to make him responsible for his own conduct and to
enable him to make his own decisions. This truth was discovered by the Church
long before the modern science of psychology came into being and long before the
development of intelligence tests,
As our knowledge of good and evil develops from infancy to maturity the con
science must have some relation to a fixed standard or moral code and that
standard we know is revealed to us in the Ten Commandments. These commandments
were not given until nearly 2,500 years after the expulsion from Eden
but during the intervening period of time between Eden and Mount Sinai
man enjoyed a knowledge of good and evil as the record clearly shows, due
to his instinctual knowledge and the revelations of God, Later, however, the
standard of good and evil was defined in the Ten Commandments.
The Doctrine of Rewards
The atheists state that Christianity is unethical because of
the doctrine of rewards. Theoretically there should perhaps be no
incentive necessary to do what is right. It may be said that virtue is its own
reward., but God., in His infinite wisdom, knew that "the heart is
deceitful above all things and desperately wicked". (Jer. 170) In his
fallen state man must have some incentive to counteract the evil within. The
doctrine of rewards implies a sense of responsibility and therein lies the
ethical value of the incentive. The same concept carries with it also the
negative aspect of condemnation where there has been failure. Here then is the basis of the guilt reaction, We
can distinguish between good and evil and when we fail to do what is
right we stand condemned as a consequence of which feelings of guilt Are
engendered. "Therefore thou art inexcusable., 0 man." (Rom. 21l)
Orign of the Guilt Reaction
According to Freud the guilt reaction., or the guilt complex~ has emerged in the
process of evolution by the development in man of the super ego which is
not in the realm of consciousness., But if the guilt reaction developed by a
process of evolution, from what did it develop? We have already noted that there
Is no evidence of any sense of guilt in the lower animals
and the reason for this is that they have not the knowledge of good and
evil which we enjoy. No special revelation has been given to them, as
to man,9 nor are they capable of understanding the Ten Commandments. Therefore
they will not be judged in eternity as we shall be. It would probably be
futile to argue that the knowledge of good and evil with the consequent
sense of guilt in man leaves An unbridgable gap between himself and
the lower primates. Nevertheless to the Christiam this is obvious and needs
no further elaboration or confirmation.
The guilt reaction could not have evolved from the brute creation. Ifty
should a man feel guilty when he steals bread in order to satisfy his
natural hunger for foodor to preaerve-Ke life? Why should a man
experience Any feeling of guilt in indulging his natural desire towards
A wqman who is not his wife? There can be Only one answer. It
is because man alone of all the species can distinguish between good
and evil.
Consequence of Guilt
The sense of guilt to one of the most potent sources of fear and misery
among men. It has been said that no man can be happy who has a feeling of guilt
and this is probably true. In a Christian society even such relatively
trivial matters as a slight act of discourtesy or rudeness will leave one with a
sense of guilt and shame which may render a person unhappy and
miserable for a tir4e,
There is no question of the part which the guilt reaction plays in the role
of mental hygiene, Thus Prof. Paul E. Johnson (3) of Boston University
states quite rightly that "Guilt" is a problem that concerns
religion first because religious people are responsible for fostering sense of
sin - talking and teaching of God as a stern judge, a watchful eye who
is continually looking on and seeing even what we do in
secret and what our secret thoughts may be, And teaching that God is an avenging
and punishing Deity. High moral Ideals, which are fostered by
religion,increase tension And failure, Perfectionism is a painful stress that
consistently brings on a sense of inferiority....
Religion has also taught a vivid eschatology of reward and punishment in the future
life to stimulate the urgency of attaining these ideals
and the fear of falling Short of them. Religious codes also have repressed sex
and the lusts of the flesh with forbidding commandments - 'Thou shalt not'.
They have added increasing emotional anxiety by cosmic imperatives which bring
more urgency behind this sense of guilt.
Religious organizations and people, therefore, have a special responsibility
because of fostering the sense of sin. We also have responsibility to provide a
-way of solving guilt problems. The burden becomes unbearable unless release is
offered. Severe depressions and compulsions withdrawal or paranoiac tendencies
may arise in this way."
Evasion of the Sense of Guilt
There can be no doubt that a sense of guilt and failure may lead to a morbid
state of mind. In recent years however, a very simple solution to this problem
from the point of view of mental hygiene has been evolved. Since the moral law
is the basis of man's sense of guilt with its consequent fear and anxiety, it
has become more And more common to ignore entirely the law of God. This is
well illustrated in the sexual field. The publication of the Kinsey report, for
instances has revealed that perversions of one kind or another are perhaps more
common than was formerly suspected. Now all this information is to be made the
basis of a new moral code. What people do by nature is now regarded as normal
and will constitute the moral code of the future based on biology apart from any
ethical or Divine standard whatever. Prof. Kinsey (4) and his
associates thus "conclude that normality and abnormality are primarily
moral issues without biologic justification and that it is society's code which
is responsible for the psychic trauma causing personality disturbance".
It may be noted in passing that if we concede one aberration from the moral code
as right or proper we would have to condone all aberrations. Thus if we approve
of homosexuality on the ground that it is.. like left handedness., a personality
trait beyond the scope of the individual to change, then we would have to
approve of sadism also as a component of the personality. And if we
approve of these perversions as normal or right we must accept the consequent working
out of the same in the lives of the individuals,, with all that that
implies. It is amazing how far and how rapidly one can travel if one fails to
recognize the true state of fallen man.
Moral Declension
It is interesting to follow the three stages which have led the world Into its
present chaotic state of lawlessness and fear and hatred. First of all the great
humanitarians or-humanists taught that religion should be abolished without
destroying morality. It was contended that morality would be preserved for its
own sake. It was even taught that there was no relationship between religion and
morality. In practice, however this concept has led to hopeless failure
as we all know. The next stage in the downfall was to suggest that morality
could be discarded without impairing the order of society. All too late it is
being die, covered that without morality the enforcement of law is impossible
and chaos inevitably follows. If the moral law be defied in the sexual fields
for examples it is inevitable that there will be a rapid increase in lying and
stealing as - well. And when the rights of property are not respected., neither
mill the lives of men be respected. This inevitably leads to an increase in
murder and brutality as-we see everywhere today. The third stage in the downfall
is the idealization of the very lawlessness which is the outcome of the
breakdown of morality. Lawlessness and sin and violence are being extoled
as virtues in themselves and the and result is that "men's hearts are
fai1ing them for fear and for looking after those things which are coming on the
earth". (Luke 21:26)
Morality and Psychology
Psychiatrists and psychologists have largely followed the destructive
teachings of Freud and the general idea has developed that the moral low with
its., implication of the guilt reaction should be abolished on the ground of
mental hygiene. This mould relax the inhibitions and eliminate an the discordant
complexes which beset the human mind. By abolishing the sense of guilt we would
be emancipated from its sordid influence and an men would be free. Such
is the forlorn hope of the modern world.
Zilboorg (2) fully appreciates the quarrel between religion in the broad sense
of the term and psychiatry over the guilt reaction and states that
"psychiatry must get away from its new medievalism whichs by identifying
the neurotic ~pd the moral sense of guilt, serves to ascribe moral values td
health and disease". H6 has stated elsewhere
(5) "For of recent years we seem to have fallen into the general
error that all sense of guilt is neurotics all conscience reactions are
super-ego reactions, and that not to feel guilty is the ide&l of normalcy.
It is this almost unconsious purely philosophical error into which we have
drifted that has made us a prey in the hands of those who would attack
psychiatry and psychoanalysis for their alleged godlessness and
immorality",
The Concept of Punishment
The fact of guilt involves the question of punishment. In the Christian
ethic there is no ambiguity or doubt of the reality of punishment for sin.
"The wages of sin is death." (Rom. 6t23) Our Lord's description of the
rich man in hell (Luke 16s23-24) and other passages of Scripture (Mark 943) are
sufficient authority for the truth of punishment beyond the grave for
the sin$ done in the flesh. It is interesting to note however the rapid decline
in recent years of the concept of punishment as ethical and proper. Largely as a
result of the philosophy and teaching of John Dewey, many authorities now
consider it wrong to punish children. The muddled thinking of the modern world
seems to confuse cruelty with Punishments but this is
only an example of the superficial thinking of today. Punishment implies the
concept of paying the penalty and must be just and tempered with mercy., but
cruelty is the infliction of pain or suffering without cause. It is often a
greater cruelty not to punish a child than to allow him to grow up with
bad habits which will destroy his usefulness in society and his enjoyment
of life in later years. Childhood is the Divinely appointed period of life for training.
It is of primary importance,, therefore that children should be trained
rather than amused. How are children to understand the great principles of the
judgment to come if they do not learn in childhood that punishment follows wrong
doing?
Not only in regard to children., but in the case of lawbreakers., the same
curious confusion of thought occurs. Hugh Christie (6), Director of Correction's
acceptance of the fact that prisons., when using retributive methods make Little
contribution to the genuine protection of society. Canadian institutions remain
almost completely punitive in nature. The article then goes on to describe some
of the cruelties which exist in Canadian penal institutions today. Cruelty, of
courses can never be justified, but punishment is necessary as a deterrent to
the offender and it is corrective as many of us can testify from childhood
experience. This truth is also confirmed by the testimony of many offenders
against the law who have learned their lesson. It is well that men should learn
here and now that 'wrong doing will be punished else how will they ever
understand the truth of the Judgment to come?
In discussing the problem of juvenile delinquency and the increase in
crime, the trouble is that those in authority do not realize that we
have entered upon the period of time which the prophetic Word has foretold
would be characterized by the spirit of lawlessness, and Which will prepare the
way for the ant4christ who is the lawless one. (2 Thess. 2:7) Consequently all
investigations which do not take this fact into consideration are quite useless
and futile. So much is hidden from those who cannot discern the signs of the times. (Matt,,16:3)
The truth of our Lord's second advent is the only key by means of which we may
understand the days in which we live.
The Only Solution to the Problem
There is
only one solution to the problem of guilt. Prof. Read Bain
(7) of Miami University refers to the doctrine of the blood atonement as one of
the man - made myths., Nevertheless this so called myth is the basis
of our present peace of mind and of all our hope for eternity. "Without the
shedding of blood there is no remission of sin." (Heb. 9:22) It is this
very fact which gives us the Scriptural and true answer to the problem
of the guilt reaction, Instead of abolishing the-moral law# as has been
suggested., with all its consequent ruination to the peace of the world
let us rather abolish the sense of guilt in the individual with its
attendant morbid results by finding a substitute to bear the penalty of sin
and purge away the guilt. This is the Divine prescription.
The doctrine of the atonement is the only logical solution to the problem. If we
accept the free gift of salvation by faith through the merit of Christ's atoning
work on Calvary., then there will be not only judicial forgiveness but release
of tension and peace of mind which Are not possible under any other
circumstances. There will be no fear of the judgment to come for the believer's
sins have been judged already on Calvary. The Gospel., therefore., presents the
only satisfactory answer to this problem And it is applicable to all
who will accept the gracious invitation of the Saviour of the world Whom to know
is life eternal. There is no greater therapeutic agent known to man in the
field of mental hygiene than the application of the doctrine of the atonement.
The Applcation
When the guilt reaction is a symptom of a psychosis such as involation
melancholia or manic depressive psychosis the patient should be referred to a
psychiatrist for treatment, just as a patient with cancer would be referred to a
surgeon. In such cases the sense of guilt has no basis in reality. The
depressed patient feels guilty in an exaggerated -way and may ascribe to
himself a host of sins which he has never committed. Such patients are in need
of active psychiatric treatment such as shock therapy psychotherapy., and
occupational therapy et It may be noted in passing that there is no
promise the Bible that believers will be exempt from mental or physical illness,
The rain falls on the just and the unjust alike,
Where there are no evidences of organic change such as retardation of speech or
thought or decreased psychomoter Activity or Agitation, when the
sensorium is clear and the reasoning power unaffected, and when, indeed, there
is obviously no psychosis presents then the minister or the
psychiatrist can point to the blood of Christ as the only means by which the
guilt complex may be resolved. The writer knows of one psychiatrist who is not a
believer. This man, however., frequently uses the doctrine of the atonement as a
therapeutic measure in his clinic., simply because he has found that it works.
For the Christian psychiatrist.. however, there is much more involved than the
purely therapeutic aspects of the problem. The eternal salvation or a
human soul is of far greater importance than any temporary relief of
symptoms and it wou1d be a sacrilege to employ the Gospel for any leaser purpose
than the glory of God.
Only God can forgive sins and only He can heal the broken
heart. Even Zilboorg (8) seems to realize this when he states, "The
principle is a simple one: we, want to relieve our patients of
the sense of guilt for things they have never really or wittingly done, and
we leave them with the conscious sense of guilt for things they have really
done. As a matter of fact we could not relieve them of this real sense of guilt
even if we wanted to. Those who impute to us the possession of this magic power
do so only to attack in us the figure of their own imagination of what a
psychiatrist or a psychoanalyst is. The purely clinical manifestations of moral
values have as a rule nothing to do with real moral values. They are guilts
expressed in terms of moral values. Real moral values are non-neurotic;
they are healthy. It may be added that Gregory Zilboorg's contributions to the
psychiatric problem of the guilt reaction are perhaps the best that have
appeared in recent years on this subject.
We see then that the Christian psychiatrist can make an important positive
contribution in his chosen field by the application of the doctrine of the
atonement in dealing with the problem of the guilt reaction. With the knowledge
of sin forgiven and with the assurance of salvation there comes complete release
of tension to the tortured soul. Anxiety and fear are abolished and
into the heart of man to born "that peace which passeth all
understanding". (Phil. 40) Then and then only.. is it-possible to
forget "those things which are behind" and to reach forth "unto those
things which are before" (Phil. 3213) in the Christian life.
This is true mental hygiene.
References
(1) Longfellows: Song of
Hiawatha. Introduction, lines 88-90.
(2) Zilboorg:: Digest of Neurology
and Psychiatry April 1950., p. 226.
(3) Johnson: Psychiatry and Religion, The Beaton Press, 1948, p. 126-128 (4)
Kinsey: Psychiatric Quarterly 1949.9 p. 790. (5) Zilboorg: American
Journal of Psychiatry, April 1950., P-7470
(6) Christie: Canadian Bar Review November,, 1949s P. 1055.
(7) Bains: Scientific Monthly, Julys 1947.. p. 68.
(8) Zilboorg; American Journal of Psychiatry April 1950s p. 747,
_______________________________________________________________
Comments
on THE GUILT MOTION
Mr. James Buswell III
Guilt in childhood is not necessarily felt in some cultures, where stealing
is condoned, for instance, the stealing of horses among the Dakota Indians, and
I would submit that in many cultures where different systems of
values hold., that the guilt reaction is not present in connection with the
same behavior. We must differentiate between the moral law of God and
culturally established systems of value which are purely relative.
Therefore, the illustration of sexual indulgence of masturbations or stealing,
although in some parts of the world cultures condoned do not
necessarily give rise to feelings of guilt. The conscience is a function of the
learned cultural system of values and the development of the conscience would
not be universally the same, The paper is valid, but not universally so. It must be qualified by saying
that it applies only to one cultural system of values.
Dr. Marquart
I wonder If a few passages from the scriptures might not sort of clear up
some of those points. It is surprising how scripture answers questions in so
many of these comparative psychological problems. For Instance, we refer to
Freud and his super ego which is only acquired through experience, yet we as
Christians must believe that conscience is innate. We are born with a4 conscience;
it is inherent in us from birth., but according to Romans 2.l5 we see that
the conscience does not come into operation until after the reasoning -- that is
the thought life -- comes into function, which is, we would say then,
after the age of three; it is acquired by experience and environment, In
accordance with what it says in Proverbs "Train up a child in the way that
he should go and he will not depart therefrom." Dr. Howitt uses
the term "conditioned" as though that was the only way we could
acquire anything. That wouldn't be good for a Christian to follow. He
mentions in some places here how the Freudians indicate that if you suppress
these impulses that are within you it will develop a conflict and cause a
maladjustment and neurosis. Very often it is just the other ways as Dr. Howitt
knows too, and he suggests that he has seen cases-!.and I have seen them
too-that actually developed a neurotic condition because they gave way
to the impulses which they should have suppressed, They repressed their
conscience, in other words and you can't do that and get away with it as a human
being It will cause earthquakes In your personality every time. One of the best
examples I know is a soldier overseas who did something that
he bad been trained not to do and he ended up by stealing a jeep in order
to get the punishment that he knew he so richly dezerved and he was really a
mess until I finally brought him back by 1 John ls9 to the original belief that
he had. He was a Christian soldier, by the way. Similar cases would
illustrate how the guilt re, actions when the conscience is repressed, develop
all kinds of maladjustments.
Mr. Uuras Saarnivears,
The reason guilt reactions differ among different people is obviously caused by
the fact that the knowledge of right and wrong is not innate in them, The
conscience does not contain
knowledge of what is right and wrong, It is formal in the sense it does not
say what is right or wrongs but when we learn *at is right and wrong then our
conscience binds us to that, so that all the knowledge of right or wrong is
learned from other people or from the Bible, For example., cannibals feel that it is their obligation to kill their enemies
and eat them. In order that our conscience would be able to react In a
proper way it must be enlightened and guided by the Bible, by the word of
God--and If we remember this., that the conscience does not contain
knowledge of, right and wrongs but it binds us to do what is right and forbids
us to do what is wrong., If we, know what is
right or wrong.
Mr. John Wiebe
We
sometimes have to own up that our understanding of right and wrong
is not
always absolutely Biblical, but it is to some extent more or less the way it
has been brought down to us from generation to generation. We have to get this
under standing of right and wrongs. Now there was a missionary
who went to South Africa. When he came there he said he was terribly surprised
be0ause the negroes would lie
all the time--well., practically all the time-no matter if the truth would serve
them better, and their byword was "mother you lie; father you lie;
sister you lie,
preacher you lie", and he said, "Now lets get together. If
you ever catch me telling a lie I will treat the whole crowd., and I will
treat them right", and they watched him one week, two weeks, three weeks;
It was the biggest shook they ever
had in their lives to see a man that, always spoke the truth.. and he said
that was the greatest move to bring them Into Christianity. He could leave for
two or three weeks, leave all kinds of Jewelry on the table and they would
walk back and forth and wouldn't take a thing. The German saying is,, "A
young liar is an old thief." That always goes together,, but there never
was anything missing so he traced back their traditions and he found out that
there was a ruling that if anybody got caught stealing he-was beheaded,, and in
many cases before they killed a man they killed both his wife and children to
make him suffer as much as possible. Then the British Government came in and
stopped it, For this case you get one year in the penitentiary; for that thing
you get six months in Jail; for this thing six days, and they imported
the Chinese and the Hndus and they stole.; went to jail for a week or two., and
the first thing you knew they were just as well versed on stealing as anybody
else.
Dr. Monama
I would like to make a few remarks in connection with the remarks that were made
by Mr. Buswell a while ago about the difference in guilt reaction among
different civilizations. Fundamentally,, It seem to me that in the human race
there to definitely guilt reaction. If you go back to our parents, when they had
committed sin we find a deep guilt reaction immediately after they had committed
the sin, That seems to have been a normal condition originally of human nature.
Now we find that that guilt reaction is missing among certain civilizations.
What is the cause of that? It seems to me the cause is sin.. The further they
get away from God the less the guilt reaction will be. Wherever they are
acquainted with God, and where they have his special revelation, the guilt
reaction is increased. So, It seems to me that our duty is simply thins the
bringing of the gospel., always applied first to acquaint these people with his
Jawn. When they see their sin they will
also be willing to accept the mercy of Jesus Christ.
Dr. Eckert
I wanted to ask., does this mean then that we believe the guilt reaction I* not
an innate or native property, or whatever Instinct it Is now called,- do we
accept that as being consistent with the scriptural teachings?
Dr. Monsma
I would like to reply to that. In reformed theology we distinguish between
common and special grace and I think that in the human race there is this common
grace left, with these various civilizations. We
do not have the
special grace there of God's special revelation.
Dr. Eckert
What I am
referring to is the second chapter
of Romans. Aren't we told there that all men become a law unto themselves and
that they are judged - first., without the law; and aren1t we told subsequent to
that that when they by their own conscience do the things that produce A law
unto them., they have by instinct a
guilt complex,, or am I reading something into the scripture?
Dr. Monsma
In some of these areas they do not have a
guilt complex for the same reasons we do, In fact, it Is pointed out if they
don't have a guilt, complex for going Out and stealing horses they do
have a guilt complex for something else. There is that basic guilt complex. Why
does anyone feel guilty about doing anything which for some reason or other in
their civilization has been forbidden? The point is When you go back to the
beginning, that there was a command of God that they were not to eat before
there was any falling away, When they did it they recognized the
fact that they had transgressed that command. It seems to me the guilt complex grows
out of that. If there hadn't been any command there wouldn't have been any
transgression so it seems to me the specifics to which they come to be attached,
as pointed out as the proceed of learning, civilization, and covered by a great
many things, and what they feel guilty about isn't the important thing.
Mr. Buswell
The fact that these other cultures which have guilt reactions on different
things is not so much they have less or more guilt reactions than our culture
but that they are governed by different cultural values. It is true also that
the guilt reaction of Adam and Eve would not seem to be so much instinctive as
learned from the c=aand of God. Dr. Howittle examples were brought as bearing
universally., and oW criticism was that those examples applied only to our awn
culture, not that there-wasn't guilt reaction in all mankind,
Dr, Monsma
I think I would agree with Mr. Buswell2 on that. The example of the boy who
feels a guilt reaction on stealing cookies, I think., all depends on whether he
is allowed to take the cookies. When he comes in after school or any other time,
he can take a cooky, and that is perfectly all right; when the cooky jar is
empty he doesn't have any guilt reaction; he says., "Mother the cooky jar
is empty." Of course., here is the thing we have to bear in mind:
Psychologically, sometimes it is impossible to trace back and find out where the
youngster ever got the idea that he should not do certain things. Sometimes you
can't trace them. Your own youngsters come around and they have certain
react4ons,, too., that you ~Ave never taught them. Maybe some neighbor child is
not allowed to do a certain thing) so they get the idea that maybe they
shouldn't do it, So I think the examples myself often were not very well chosen;
didn't really illustrate the point he was trying to make.
Dr. Marquart
The guilt response is a better tem than guilt reaction. The Pygmies know what is
right to do but they cannot do It. That is almost a Christian concept. On the
other hand there are other people that have so far been distorted away
from the usual guilty reactions that we saw even in Adam, that they feel
perfectly complacent as long as they have a necklace about their necks and
nothing else on; they think they are perfectly dressed up and that, of course,
is quite a distortion away from what one would ordinarily find among human
beings. The guilt response is susceptible to a great deal of change acquired
through the environment.
Mr. Wiebe
The Lord God said, to Adam and Eve you shall know right from wrong. They knew
from then on right from wrong., and what did they do the first thing? They tried
to cover it up, bide away, flee away from God. Nobody had told them anything of
salvation yet. God came after and told them there would be a Savior coming. They
had fallen very deep from God but they still had a certain amount of the image
of God in them and had to be saved., and the difference between right and wrong
and their conscience started bearing right, then and there. Take a small child
that never has been with anybody else but probably father and mother., never
seen any deceived; the first time he tries to do something he is going to
try to keep it secret., and there his conscience is going to beat whether he has
been forbidden or not. Satan is already working before anybody else has had a
chance to have an influence on him.
Mr. Uuras Saarnivaara
We all know that guilt reactions or general activity of
conscience depend on several factors. The ability to have the guilt reaction on
the activity of our conscience is inborn, The second factor is
the knowledge of right and wrong, it is known from various sources, like the
social customs and training and Christians and the Bible, but the is the fact
that if man acts against his conscience first his guilt reaction is strong.,
but when he acts against his conscience again, it weakens and weakens and as
the Bible says, the conscience is hardened, It becomes dull, and this of course,
due to the fact that the spirit of God has left and leaves man when he continued
to be disobedient, and activity of the conscience is aroused again by
two factors, namely, the knowledge of right and wrong, and
it is because of that the law of repentance must be preached and the second
factor is the presence and working of the Holy
Spirit. ,
The
knowledge of the law of God does not cause much guilt reaction unless the Holy
Spirit makes the law effective in the conscience, but the law works only guilt reaction on fleeing away from
God,, as it did in Paradise, and the gospel is needed in
order that the conscience would be released from guilt and that we
would be able to trust in God and not flee away from him because of our
guilt. So this Innate Ability to feel or have this guilt reaction -the
knowledge of right and wrong and habitual sinning, and the preach g of the law
and the work of the Holy Spirit, all of them belong to the activity of
the conscience., as we all know.