Replies

So the Lord just couldn't get the apostles to understand him.

No, I'm convinced that Peter was in complete understanding of that command, for the Lord didn't fail to instruct him, or the rest of the apostles.
Peter commanded baptism in the name of Jesus Christ in Acts 2:38; in the name of the Lord, in 10:48. Philip baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, in 8:12,16. Paul baptized at Ephesus in the name of the Lord Jesus, 19:5

What's to interpret? Do you have children? You no doubt have parents. Are you married? If so, you're a father, a son, and a husband. Is that what you sign on your drivers license, checks, etc.?

The fullness of the Godhead is found bodily in the Lord Jesus Christ (Col. 2:9). Just the mention of his name 'covers all the bases' (3:17).

I don't have time to do all the homework necessary to completely answer you. I will do so after I return from Mass this morning.

Having said that, have you ever heard of a document called the Didache? It is a document dated from around 74-100 AD. While it is not part of the Canon of the New Testament, and thus is not something that can contradict scripture with authority, it is something that can show what others believed and practiced in the early Church.

Chapter 7 of the Didache says the following in regards to baptism:

1. And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. 2. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. 3. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. 4. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.

Again, I am not citing this as a doctrinal authority, but as something that is an indication of the beliefs and practices of the first century Christians.

So the Lord just couldn't get the apostles to understand him.

That surprises you?

Seriously though, I think the "fun" part of your contention is the phrase "in the name of" and what meaning or meanings it has. And I think even in English the phrase has at least two meanings.

We need to turn Diego and UC loose on it since they are the recondite research kings of the thread.

Of course, as far as I'm concerned, I think a resolution of the question is impossible Sola Scriptura.

To continue on,let's take a look at the accounts described by St. Luke in the Acts of the Apostles:

Acts 2:38 And Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.

Acts 8:16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

Acts 10:48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ. Then they asked him to remain for some days. (Note: the Stephens Text says "in the name of the Lord")

Acts 19:5 On hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.

So which is it? Baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus, baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, or baptized in the name of the Lord?

Now if I understand correctly, you are a Oneness Pentacostal? If that is the case, we really would have to have a discussion that precedes a discussion of baptism...that is, the nature of the Godhead. If I am correct, I would fully understand why you wouldn't use a Trinitarian baptism formula.

The point is that the difference in our respective views of God would likely explain the disconnect in the views of baptism.