As I am focusing on the working of the Holy Spirit in the lives of the earlier Christians and how the Church made its decisions and created community, there is not much to report on in chapter 3. I did note one particularly interesting point.
After speaking about their involvement and guilt in Jesus' death in verses 14 and 15, Peter acknowledges both the crowd and their rulers acting in ignorance when they crucified Christ. He then calls them to repentance in verse 19. Essentially, Peter states they are culpable for the morality of their actions despite their intentions and knowledge. In fact, they were guilty despite a lack of a posteriori knowledge of their action. (Greg Finley, if you read this, let me know if I am getting too big for my philosophic boots and misstating this idea). Taking it to a more current situation, those who have never heard a "formal" presentation of the Gospel or have mentally grasp the idea they are guilty before God of their sin and must repent are still under judgment. However, we know that the Holy Spirit convicts us of our sin (John 16:8) so our guilt does becomes known and we have an opportunity to repent. So we all, no matter our situation, are under sin. St. Paul explains the theology of this in Romans 1-3. This is so different from our world where people are always quick to offer a "I didn't know" as an excuse. Reading this passage reminds how strong and decisive and consistent and fair is God's judgment. This seems like the justice the God of the universe would administer.
You may not be too big for your philosophic boots but you may need them in the peripatetic pursuit of philosophical knowledge. It does become a circle surrounded by a circle connected to a loop. No wonder Aristotle walked around as he talked. He was probably muttering to himself trying to hop off the merry go round of the mental gymnastics in which he was involved!
ReplyDeleteGood job.
Regarding your statement..."they were guilty despite a lack of a posteriori knowledge of their action." Although I agree with your point, I don't know if using a posteriori helps to make it any clearer. As the wikipedia article you link to points out, 'a posteriori' typically involves experience whereas its opposite 'a priori' does not involve experience. In the statement that you are making here, it doesn't seem to matter whether the knowledge they lack is a priori or a posteriori, it just seems that they are guilty whether they knew it or not.
ReplyDeleteOn a similar note, I seem to recall one of the sacrifices listed in Deuteronomy was specifically for unknown sins. (I'll leave it as an exercise for the reader to find out which one it was). If that's the case then it also seems to support the point that you are making here.
I look forward to reading your future analyses.
Cheers!