So it’s pretty simple. Does it go deeper than that? We’d have to hear a lot more about the Trinity.

To be sure though, historically, it may well be that the whole doctrine of the Trinity came about in part, by way of early Baptisms. Different prophets, disciples, were baptising in the name of what might seem to be different gods: John the Baptist in the name of one; Jesus baptising no one it seemed at first; Paul baptising in the name of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.

It was important. The matter at issue in early baptisms, was nothing less than the identity of God. Or putting together the main concepts of him. Was the “father” of the Jews, one and the same as the “holy spirit”? When Paul re-baptised some early Christians, they had not heard of the “holy spirit.” And then too: when did they decide for sure, that the “son” belonged there also? And finally, what did they decide as their relationship?

The identity of God was the matter at issue; the problem came up first in the question of who do we baptise in the name of. Finally, it was all decided of course, in part by looking at how early disciples baptised … and then fit together according to much early philosophical – ontological’/epistemic – discussion, in early churches, Councils.

That’s my memory of what was pretty standard church history, c. 1950. Here, the author seems to simply assume knowledge of all this, in the reader.

Such things might seem very, very obscure to a scholar from the new (your?) generation, to be sure. But at one time, this kind of discussion was one of the hottest – and eventually, most boring – topics in Protestantism. In part because some Protestants believed in Baptism, and some did not. Therefore, it was once discussed endlessly. And knowledge of all this, was simply assumed.

God working through intermediaries, is a common idea. Some Catholics for example, believe God created the universe … but did it by way of or thru, say, the laws of physics; which were omitted from the original account for reasons of brevity. The advantage of this, is that it would give both the Bible/God, and man and his ideas, a place in God’s plan. As applied in Evolution: God brought people into existence … but not ex-nihilo; but by way say, of the intermediary processes of Evolution.

Personally, I like this idea. It seems to find a place for both the Bible, and secular knowledge too; at the same time. And in many cases, when well done, without contradiction.

But to be sure, we would like to make sure the intermediary agencies are behaving reliably. Many would say that this or that church, self-appointing itself as the arm or hand of God, has been merely presumptous. Many would say that many churches, many intermediaries, make mistakes, and are not really acting for God at all.

“For we all make many mistakes,” said the Apostle/St. James. Including, in this “we” apparently, even the holiest apostles, like James himself.