Is 1 Peter 3:21 Bible?
Let's take a look:
1 Peter 3:18-21 : 18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, 19 through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison 20 who disobeyed long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built. In it only a few people, eight in all, were saved through water, 21 and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also — not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ, ...
This is a matter of interpretation, as it usually is. As an aside, I note that the bolded part is 100% antithetical to Catholic teaching. Be that as it may, we have an honest disagreement as to the underlined part. I see this as baptism by the Spirit, which in my view is the only thing that counts, and you see it as referring to a physical baptism with water. I would say that the symbolism in this passage is self evident.
It is not antithetical. In fact, it is antithetical to Calvinism, but it is 100% Catholic. Also, the reference to "prison" is another prooftext for the doctrine of purgatory.
the underlined part [and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also]. I see this as baptism by the Spirit, which in my view is the only thing that counts, and you see it as referring to a physical baptism with water.
The verse (the translation you offer leaves some to be deisred) says that baptism saves. It also says that the Ark of Noah in the flood symbolized it. I go by what it says: Baptism saves. You interpret and hypothesize.
You are wrong. Baptism is based upon the saving works of Jesus Christ, not its own inherent power. Why do you keep this charade up, that Christ's work is antithetical to Catholic teaching? Why can't you get past the polemics and rhetoric and listen to what we say? We believe that Christ died for our sins once and for all, BUT that it is not applied to us until we are baptized, until we ask for forgiveness of sins, and until we receive the Eucharist. Is this so difficult?
Regards
Heck no (in my untutored opinion)!
Wise ones, check me on this, please. The problem is, once again, one of language AND one of time (and, I guess, place) and eternity. God is everywhere and everywhen; we aren't.
In our everyday experience, a delegate or deputy or minister plenipotentiary must operate in the absence of the one he represents. Because even the great ones among us are finite and of limited intelligence, they have to delegate power and authority to others.
Strictly speaking, though, the term "apostolic" when applied to the Church is of course metaphorical. It seems completely apt in this sense: If I had given you power of attorney and my bank account info (well, except that in my case it wouldn't do you any good -- Let's say Bill Gates had given you all that stuff.) In that case you're doing the spending, but it's Gates's money.
Here (to unwind the comparison a little) the priest is writing the check, but it's God's account. Since God agreed to be bound by the acts of his "apostles", and consequently we rightly trust those acts and take confidence that when the the bishop or priest says, "You are forgiven -- even of this sin which troubles or ought to trouble) you so greatly," it is really so.
( I also think there is great evangelical and pastoral wisdom in this. I can SAY ever so boldly, 'The Lord has put my sins away, I am washed in the blood of the Lamb, and my robes are made clean!" But if I cannot say even to one person who is bound under incredible strictures to keep my information so secure that he can never even hint at it again without my express permission, do I really believe it? I can SAY, "My harness is good, my carabiner is good, the rope is good, the belay point and knots are good," and still balk at backing over the edge of the precipice. Trusting in God's forgiveness is a virtue that takes grace -- and practice!)
But the metaphor is wrong in the sense that God is right here and right now -- ALL of God, not a piece of Him. So while it's just Fr. So-and-so whom I see listening and trying to suppress a yawn and wondering when he''ll get a potty break, it is God to whom I speak and God who forgives me.
I don't mean that to be so much persuasive as descriptive, and no doubt it's very wrong in some particulars.
1 Peter 3:18-21 : 18 For Christ died for sins once for all, ...
... As an aside, I note that the bolded part is 100% antithetical to Catholic teaching. ...
What the ... Heck no!
It's that "everywhere and everywhen" problem again and related to my absolutely brilliant and evocative ... and modest, don't forget that part ... essay earlier on on the Incarnation, on the womb, the manger, the stable which held something bigger than all Creation in them.
I think we just have to hurl ourselves over and over again against the problem of God and Time.
And also, just to make it completely incomprehensible, when it comes to the sufficiency of Christ's dolours and sacrifice, there's Colossians 1:24.