I don't understand who the "we" is in "we baptise." Is it the community? That would be a bad intention, there is no grace to be had from the community. Is it "we" the three persons of the Trinity? Better, but a little presumptive to speak on behalf of all three.
"I" baptise, as well as being ancient, seems to very much have the intention…
I don't understand who the "we" is in "we baptise." Is it the community? That would be a bad intention, there is no grace to be had from the community. Is it "we" the three persons of the Trinity? Better, but a little presumptive to speak on behalf of all three.
"I" baptise, as well as being ancient, seems to very much have the intention "I [, standing in the person of Christ,] baptise." On baptism the neophyte goes into the tomb with Christ, it is God who acts, not a committee. "We baptise" has bad ju-ju as far as I am concerned.
I don't understand who the "we" is in "we baptise." Is it the community? That would be a bad intention, there is no grace to be had from the community. Is it "we" the three persons of the Trinity? Better, but a little presumptive to speak on behalf of all three.
"I" baptise, as well as being ancient, seems to very much have the intention "I [, standing in the person of Christ,] baptise." On baptism the neophyte goes into the tomb with Christ, it is God who acts, not a committee. "We baptise" has bad ju-ju as far as I am concerned.
I believe you've described the issue succinctly and accurately.
I think the intent behind "we" was that it is the Christian community who baptizes.
But I think you identified the problem with that view. It is Christ who baptizes, through the person performing the baptism. Hence, "'I' baptize".
Glad to read that another Tarzan aficionado comments correctly!