Baptism in the name of Jesus

[Pantocrator]

It is written, "Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (Matt. 28:19).

However, throughout the rest of the New Testament, the disciples seem to have used a different baptismal formula:

"Repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins" (Acts 2:38)

"They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 8:16).

"And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ" (Acts 10:48)

"Upon hearing this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" (Acts 19:16)

"Or are you unaware that all who have been baptized into (or, "in [the name of]") Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?" (Romans 6:3).

"What I mean is that each one of you says, 'I follow Paul,' or 'I follow Apollos,' or 'I follow Cephas,' or 'I follow Christ.' Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Or were you baptized in the name of Paul?" (1 Corinthians 1:11-12). The question "Or were you baptized in the name of Paul" implies that the Corinthians were baptized in a singular name. If they had been baptized in a threefold name, Paul would have most naturally written, "Or were you baptized in the name of Paul, Apollos, and Cephas?"

"For as many of you as were baptized into (or, "in [the name of]") Christ have put on Christ" (Galatians 3:27).


A common explanation I have heard is that "in the name of Jesus" means "by the authority of Jesus," just as the expression "stop in the name of the law" means "stop by the authority of the law." But since the Jesus-only baptismal formula occurs numerous times throughout scripture and the Trinitarian formula occurs only once in scripture, isn't it more likely that the reverse is the case and "in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" means "by the authority of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit"? In that case, was the command to baptize in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit ever meant to be a baptismal formula in the first place?


This problem is further exacerbated by the fact that Eusebius, the great church historian of the early fourth century, seems to have quoted this passage in a form that would not seem at variance with the passages of scripture teaching baptism in the name of Jesus:

"But the rest of the apostles, who had been incessantly plotted against with a view to their destruction, and had been driven out of the land of Judea, went unto all nations to preach the Gospel, relying upon the power of Christ, who had said to them, “Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name.”" (History, Book III, IV, 2).

And he quotes the same variant again in another work:

"What king or prince in any age of the world, what philosopher, legislator or prophet, in civilized or barbarous lands, has attained so great a height of excellence, I say not after death, but while living still, and full of mighty power, as to fill the ears and tongues of all mankind with the praises of his name? Surely none save our only Savior has done this, when, after his victory over death, he spoke the word to his followers, and fulfilled it by the event, saying to them, 'Go and make disciples of all nations in my name'" (Oration in Praise of the Emperor Constantine)

In fact, Eusebius refers to this passage well over a dozen times in the same form as the above quotations. The following quotation is particularly interesting:

"For he did not enjoin them 'to make disciples of all the nations' simply and without qualification, but with the essential addition 'in his name'. For so great was the virtue attaching to his appellation that the Apostle says, 'God bestowed on him the name above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven and on earth and under the earth.' It was right therefore that he should emphasize the virtue of the power residing in his name but hidden from the many, and therefore say to his Apostles, 'Go and make disciples of all the nations in my name.’" (Demonstatio Evangelica, col. 240, p. 136)

In Origen’s works, as preserved in the original Greek, he quotes the first part of the verse three times, but his citations always stop short at the words ‘the nations,' which may suggest that his text has been censored and the words which followed have been stricken out.

Although the external evidence for the Trinitarian baptismal formula in Matthew 28:19 is overwhelming (church fathers dating from the second century, every Greek manuscript, and all translations -- although the old Latin and old Syriac are defective at this point), is there a possibility that at one time in Caesarea there was an ancient textual variant in this passage?

Furthermore, all of the oldest church fathers (Papias, Irenaeus, Origen, Eusebius, and Jerome, among others) state that the gospel of Matthew was originally written in Hebrew (many scholars believe they meant Aramaic). If this is the case, do we even have a copy of the original gospel of Matthew, or just copies of an ancient translation thereof? Is it possible that Eusebius had access to the Hebrew original in the library at Caesaria? Jerome said that the purported Hebrew gospel of Matthew was preserved there.

 

[Ask Mr. Religion]

May I ask why you are importing content originally from here along with here? Are you attempting to argue a non-Trinitarian view?

 

[joebonni63]

I have a friend that is Jesus only but it's just not baptizing in the name of Jesus. It comes with doctrine very much like JW's. So before you take a stance on this make sure you know the doctrine. It's not just the baptizing in the name of Jesus it's lots of weird doctrine.

 

[Pantocrator]

No, I am not trying to argue a non-Trinitarian view, and I didn't import content from either of those sites. I liberally borrowed content from different sources, apparently sources that both of those sites also used. I am just trying to understand why there were two different baptismal formulas in the early church.

 

[Pantocrator]

To clarify, I think that the Trinitarian baptismal formula is almost certainly authentic. As I already said, the external evidence for the Trinitarian baptismal formula is overwhelming. If anything the variant Eusebius quoted probably arose out of an attempt to harmonize or assimilate the Gospel of Matthew to the Book of Acts. There is also the possibility that Eusebius mistook a heretical Hebrew translation or paraphrase of Matthew as the original. Since the Eusebian variant of the Great Commission completely lacks adequate attestation and is the "easier" variant, I don't think it is original.

However, can anybody respond to my original question? How come the apostles never baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

 

[Phil D.]

In studying the topic of baptism in the early church one will come across a plethora of pre-Nicene/Eusebian era (early 4th century) church writings that attest to the historical origins and authenticity of Matthew 28:19. Here are several examples.

[c.100 AD - Didache] And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things [affirming basic orthodox Christian beliefs], baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [i.e. running] water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (7.1f, ANF 7:379)

[c. 185 AD – Irenaeus] Now faith occasions this for us; even as the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles, have handed down to us. First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. (J. A. Robinson, trans., St. Irenaeus: The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching [3], [London: 1920], 72)

[c.220 AD – Hippolytus] And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For the Jews gloried in the Father, but gave Him not thanks, for they did not recognize the Son. The disciples recognized the Son, but not the Holy Ghost; wherefore they also denied Him. The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth. (Against Noetus, 14; ANF 5:228)

[c.225 AD - Origen] From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, that is, by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit. (On First Principles, 1.3.2; ANF 4:252)
​

In fact, virtually any mention of baptism in other forms in early Church literature occurs in discussions about various minority groups that were deemed to be heretical by orthodox Christians, who were doing so in contrast to normal practice. Here are two examples.

[216 AD – Tertullian] After his resurrection He promises in a pledge to his disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three Persons, at each several mention of their names. (Against Praxeas, 26; ANF 3:623)

[256 AD – Cyprian] Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” How, then, do somesay, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and inopposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of JesusChrist, everywhere and in whatever manner can obtain remission ofsin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in thefull and united Trinity? (Letters, 72.18f; ANF 5:383f)
​

There were some who were willing to accept the validity of non-Trinitarian baptism with people coming into the orthodox churches from non-Trinitarian groups. The most famous of these was undoubtedly Stephen I (bishop of Rome, 254–257 AD). There is a notable work in this category which based on its subject-matter and literary form is widely believed to have been written during the same controversy over re-baptism that Cyprian was involved in (so, c.240—c.270 AD). Some historians suspect this writing was likely directed at Cyprian himself, and although the author didn’t specifically identify himself, he was apparently a fellow bishop. In any case, the author essentially sided with Stephen in the basic sense of deeming re-baptism unnecessary in many cases where people hadn’t been baptized in the full Trinitarian form. Yet his statements once more plainly attest to the normative use of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in baptism amongst pre-Nicene orthodox churches, including, by all indication, his own.

Anonymous: So that not without reason we also in the present day may believe that men, amended from their former error, may be baptized in the Holy Spirit, who, although they were baptized with water in the name of the Lord, might have had a faith somewhat imperfect. Because it is of great importance whether a man is not baptized at all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or indeed whether in some respect he halts when he is baptized with the baptism of water, which is of less account, provided that afterwards a sincere faith in the truth is evident in the baptism of the Spirit, which undoubtedly is of greater account. Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: “Go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Because, although this is true and right, and to be observed by all means in the Church, and moreover has been observed, yet it behooves us to consider that invocation of [just] the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name. (A Treatise on Re-Baptism, 6f; ANF 5:671)
​

 

[Contra_Mundum]

However, can anybody respond to my original question? How come the apostles never baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

I suppose you mean to ask: "How come [we don't have NT records that explicitly record a baptism by] the apostles [-]never baptized[/-] in the [full Triune] name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?"

The question, as it stands, first makes a claim that cannot be verified: "The apostles NEVER baptized in the full Triune Name;" then compounds the statement by asking, "Why?"

Put this way, it becomes clear that the allegation is a pure inference drawn from 4 or 5 texts in the book of Acts. It seems to set those reports over against the dominical command of the Lord, the actual explicit instruction as to what ought to be said when a person is baptized.

(The references in the OP that draw on epistolary statements are fudging the data to make it fit the author's primary assumptions; but a similar response is suitable against those also.)

Correctly viewed from the standpoint of Christ's ordinance, we do as we were bidden by the Lord. And we interpret the instances of baptism in Acts where but the one Person is referenced by name, as descriptive shorthand.

We should not assume that the "discrepancies" that seem to float in the descriptions are actually more authoritative than a plain command, or the theology of baptism that is expressed in the practice of it. Both of those are more fundamental than the descriptions, which may for one reason or another be limited.

Hope this answers your questions.

 

[Pantocrator]

However, can anybody respond to my original question? How come the apostles never baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

I suppose you mean to ask: "How come [we don't have NT records that explicitly record a baptism by] the apostles [-]never baptized[/-] in the [full Triune] name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?"

The question, as it stands, first makes a claim that cannot be verified: "The apostles NEVER baptized in the full Triune Name;" then compounds the statement by asking, "Why?"

Put this way, it becomes clear that the allegation is a pure inference drawn from 4 or 5 texts in the book of Acts. It seems to set those reports over against the dominical command of the Lord, the actual explicit instruction as to what ought to be said when a person is baptized.

(The references in the OP that draw on epistolary statements are fudging the data to make it fit the author's primary assumptions; but a similar response is suitable against those also.)

Correctly viewed from the standpoint of Christ's ordinance, we do as we were bidden by the Lord. And we interpret the instances of baptism in Acts where but the one Person is referenced by name, as descriptive shorthand.

We should not assume that the "discrepancies" that seem to float in the descriptions are actually more authoritative than a plain command, or the theology of baptism that is expressed in the practice of it. Both of those are more fundamental than the descriptions, which may for one reason or another be limited.

Hope this answers your questions.

I am confused by your suggestion that "baptized in the name of the Jesus" is "shorthand" for "baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The two expressions are not at all equivalent. They are strikingly different, so I don't understand how one could be shorthand for the other--unless either Matthew or Luke thought that the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit was the name Jesus, which would naturally imply the heresy of modalism.

Perhaps Matthew's baptismal formula was meant for the "nations" or "Gentiles" and Luke's baptismal formula was meant for converts from Judaism? This is the only way I can think of to resolve the apparent discrepancy.

 

[TheOldCourse]

However, can anybody respond to my original question? How come the apostles never baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?

I suppose you mean to ask: "How come [we don't have NT records that explicitly record a baptism by] the apostles [-]never baptized[/-] in the [full Triune] name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit?"

The question, as it stands, first makes a claim that cannot be verified: "The apostles NEVER baptized in the full Triune Name;" then compounds the statement by asking, "Why?"

Put this way, it becomes clear that the allegation is a pure inference drawn from 4 or 5 texts in the book of Acts. It seems to set those reports over against the dominical command of the Lord, the actual explicit instruction as to what ought to be said when a person is baptized.

(The references in the OP that draw on epistolary statements are fudging the data to make it fit the author's primary assumptions; but a similar response is suitable against those also.)

Correctly viewed from the standpoint of Christ's ordinance, we do as we were bidden by the Lord. And we interpret the instances of baptism in Acts where but the one Person is referenced by name, as descriptive shorthand.

We should not assume that the "discrepancies" that seem to float in the descriptions are actually more authoritative than a plain command, or the theology of baptism that is expressed in the practice of it. Both of those are more fundamental than the descriptions, which may for one reason or another be limited.

Hope this answers your questions.

I am confused by your suggestion that "baptized in the name of the Jesus" is "shorthand" for "baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The two expressions are not at all equivalent. They are strikingly different, so I don't understand how one could be shorthand for the other--unless either Matthew or Luke thought that the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit was the name Jesus, which would naturally imply the heresy of modalism.

Perhaps Matthew's baptismal formula was meant for the "nations" or "Gentiles" and Luke's baptismal formula was meant for converts from Judaism? This is the only way I can think of to resolve the apparent discrepancy.

It's a synecdoche, the use of a part to mean the whole and not an uncommon figure of speech in Scripture. Being baptized into Christ is an important theological point underlying the claims of the gospel Luke is making, so it makes sense for him to emphasize that aspect within the Trinitarian formula. If you are baptized into the Trinitarian name you are also baptized into the name of Jesus. They are not equivalent but one comprehends the other.

 

[C. Matthew McMahon]

Bruce is correct.

And this is a hermeneutical question Scott.

The way you are tackling this is akin to allowing women to the Lord's table where we don't have one recorded instance of that command.
Or, for that matter, we don't have one recorded instance of a young person growing up in a "Christian" home, coming to the "age of discretion" and then giving a statement of faith, and then being baptized thereafter. Not a one. But I'd imagine that's a common practice in your church.

Read Bruce's post again. And Chris'.

 

[Contra_Mundum]

I am confused by your suggestion that "baptized in the name of the Jesus" is "shorthand" for "baptized in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit." The two expressions are not at all equivalent. They are strikingly different, so I don't understand how one could be shorthand for the other--unless either Matthew or Luke thought that the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit was the name Jesus, which would naturally imply the heresy of modalism.

Perhaps Matthew's baptismal formula was meant for the "nations" or "Gentiles" and Luke's baptismal formula was meant for converts from Judaism? This is the only way I can think of to resolve the apparent discrepancy.

I guess I'm confused by not being sure what is your starting point.

Do you begin with a dominical statement from the mouth of Jesus as your starting point? If so, why wouldn't Jesus' command be normative in all times and places?

Is this your view?: Luke's coverage of the next three decades of church existence and expansion introduces specific data that is prima facie evidence that Jesus' command IS NOT normative in all times and places.

If the above correctly states your view, all I can say is historically the church has treated the Gospels, and specifically the Lord's doctrine and commandments as foundational. Second in order of importance is the epistolary doctrine, which carries no less divine authority, and is still Christ's own word by Holy Spirit speaking through the apostles. And in conjunction with their doctrine is the record of their preaching in Acts. All the NT epistles, from any author, stand shoulder to shoulder in harmony with each other and with the words of the Lord.

Now, besides didactic instruction in the faith, both Gospels and Acts contain historical narrative. Redemptive history (in real space and time) forms the context for all the teaching that gives shape to our theology, piety, and practice. The one embeds the other. These narratives are true descriptions of events. But that doesn't mean they are exhaustive descriptions. The Gospels mainly cover the 3.5yrs of Jesus' ministry, which John testifies was still much more than could be wholly rendered in a single treatise (or four), Jn.20:30; 21:25. In addition, we look to harmonize the whole combined witness of four Gospels, rather than looking for tensions to exploit, as if the "truth" were hidden someplace between two incompatible recollections.

In Acts, the length of the book does not far expand on the average set by the Gospels. However, the number of main characters is at least doubled from the Gospels, the geographic coverage is vastly expanded, the period in question is about 10X as long. Of course there must be judicious "shorthand." Even the sermons presenting clear preaching of the gospel and Christian doctrine and exhortation are necessarily condensed. Hours of speech and sometimes even dialog are presented in a few verses, that cannot possibly be more than an outline, or the very pith of the message, the vital point.

So, there are obvious space limitations. There is a single quotation (Act.2:38) of Peter using the expression "be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ." Three other texts include references to baptism in Jesus' name.

What I understand you to propose is that this narrative record ought to be evaluated in isolation from Matthew's record of Christ's command; and that all by itself Acts witnesses in a complete (self-contained) manner to a second strand of tradition; and that each tradition must now fit with the other side-by-side, and the difference represents the "tension" between the texts.


To reiterate: I, along with the historic church, begin with the Lord's command. Unlike you, I don't find "the two expressions are ...strikingly different," inasmuch as the one distinction between them is the presence or absence of the full Triune Name. The shorter statement refers only the Second Person; and while it speaks of him as Lord/Jesus/Christ (in various combinations) Acts contains several references to Jesus the Son; so there is really no question as to Who he is.

What is NEVER present is an actual description of a baptism conducted, together with the words of the baptizer/speaker quoted. So, what we do have are a call to baptism quoted from Peter, or a description of the event, with reference to "the name of the Lord/Jesus/Christ."

I won't grant it, but even if we assumed that these descriptions were all indirect-discourse and reflected the literal speech of the baptizer to the exclusion of the dominical Words of institution, in conducting our own baptisms we would still be faced with the decision of whether to follow what our Lord instructed; or the example we adduced from the apostles (apart from any command to imitate them). Or if they did as they pleased, why shouldn't we decide to say whatever we please?

I don't think the single reference to Christ is modalistic in the least. He is simply the persistent, dominating figure in Acts no less than he was when he was present in his flesh in the Gospels. Christ Jesus as the Mediator is simply the One in whom we have all our identity as members of his Body. It is by him that we have fellowship with the Father, and communion with Holy Spirit. If the apostles make the most of him even leading into the ritual of baptism, I don't see how this obscures the dominical command of Christ. As "TheOldCourse" well says above, the two descriptions do not stand in competition, "but one comprehends the other."

Nor do I think that the suggestion that Matthew and Luke have contrasting concerns (the former Gentile converts, the latter Jewish assimilation) makes any better sense than acknowledging that the dominical statement has a natural priority, and the narrative statements of Acts should be fit into that framework. Narrative, in order to supply us with authoritative guidance, must be found consistent with explicit didactic material. Otherwise, we could never tell the difference between a bad example and an approved example. If the "right person" did something, then we might assume it was OK or normative. And consider there are activities that belonged to some NT figures that were OK for them, and not for anyone else since.

In short, after the sustained elevation of Christ in everything, I do not myself find anything in Luke's descriptions that drive me to the conclusion that we have a prima facie case of contrasting methods enjoined, alternating from what we know by Matthew. Whatever Acts contains, it has no comparable command to Mt.28:18-20. And the claim: that the descriptions in Acts exclude conformity in those events to the dominical statement of Christ, itself rests on assumed implications of the text isolated from the witness of Matthew.

I think you should reject such a view.

 

[Andrew P.C.]

In studying the topic of baptism in the early church one will come across a plethora of pre-Nicene/Eusebian era (early 4th century) church writings that attest to the historical origins and authenticity of Matthew 28:19. Here are several examples.

[c.100 AD - Didache] And concerning baptism, thus baptize ye: Having first said all these things [affirming basic orthodox Christian beliefs], baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living [i.e. running] water. But if thou have not living water, baptize into other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. (7.1f, ANF 7:379)

[c. 185 AD – Irenaeus] Now faith occasions this for us; even as the Elders, the disciples of the Apostles, have handed down to us. First of all it bids us bear in mind that we have received baptism for the remission of sins, in the name of God the Father, and in the name of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, who was incarnate and died and rose again, and in the Holy Spirit of God. (J. A. Robinson, trans., St. Irenaeus: The Demonstration of the Apostolic Preaching [3], [London: 1920], 72)

[c.220 AD – Hippolytus] And we cannot otherwise think of one God, but by believing in truth in Father and Son and Holy Spirit. For the Jews gloried in the Father, but gave Him not thanks, for they did not recognize the Son. The disciples recognized the Son, but not the Holy Ghost; wherefore they also denied Him. The Father’s Word, therefore, knowing the economy and the will of the Father, to wit, that the Father seeks to be worshipped in none other way than this, gave this charge to the disciples after He rose from the dead: “Go ye and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” And by this He showed, that whosoever omitted any one of these, failed in glorifying God perfectly. For it is through this Trinity that the Father is glorified. For the Father willed, the Son did, the Spirit manifested. The whole Scriptures, then, proclaim this truth. (Against Noetus, 14; ANF 5:228)

[c.225 AD - Origen] From all which we learn that the person of the Holy Spirit was of such authority and dignity, that saving baptism was not complete except by the authority of the most excellent Trinity of them all, that is, by the naming of Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and by joining to the unbegotten God the Father, and to His only-begotten Son, the name also of the Holy Spirit. (On First Principles, 1.3.2; ANF 4:252)
​

In fact, virtually any mention of baptism in other forms in early Church literature occurs in discussions about various minority groups that were deemed to be heretical by orthodox Christians, who were doing so in contrast to normal practice. Here are two examples.

[216 AD – Tertullian] After his resurrection He promises in a pledge to his disciples that He will send them the promise of His Father; and lastly, He commands them to baptize into the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost, not into a unipersonal God. And indeed it is not once only, but three times, that we are immersed into the three Persons, at each several mention of their names. (Against Praxeas, 26; ANF 3:623)

[256 AD – Cyprian] Finally, when, after the resurrection, the apostles are sent by the Lord to the heathens, they are bidden to baptize the Gentiles “in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” How, then, do somesay, that a Gentile baptized without, outside the Church, yea, and inopposition to the Church, so that it be only in the name of JesusChrist, everywhere and in whatever manner can obtain remission ofsin, when Christ Himself commands the heathen to be baptized in thefull and united Trinity? (Letters, 72.18f; ANF 5:383f)
​

There were some who were willing to accept the validity of non-Trinitarian baptism with people coming into the orthodox churches from non-Trinitarian groups. The most famous of these was undoubtedly Stephen I (bishop of Rome, 254–257 AD). There is a notable work in this category which based on its subject-matter and literary form is widely believed to have been written during the same controversy over re-baptism that Cyprian was involved in (so, c.240—c.270 AD). Some historians suspect this writing was likely directed at Cyprian himself, and although the author didn’t specifically identify himself, he was apparently a fellow bishop. In any case, the author essentially sided with Stephen in the basic sense of deeming re-baptism unnecessary in many cases where people hadn’t been baptized in the full Trinitarian form. Yet his statements once more plainly attest to the normative use of “Father, Son and Holy Spirit” in baptism amongst pre-Nicene orthodox churches, including, by all indication, his own.

Anonymous: So that not without reason we also in the present day may believe that men, amended from their former error, may be baptized in the Holy Spirit, who, although they were baptized with water in the name of the Lord, might have had a faith somewhat imperfect. Because it is of great importance whether a man is not baptized at all in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or indeed whether in some respect he halts when he is baptized with the baptism of water, which is of less account, provided that afterwards a sincere faith in the truth is evident in the baptism of the Spirit, which undoubtedly is of greater account. Neither must you esteem what our Lord said as being contrary to this treatment: “Go ye, teach the nations; baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” Because, although this is true and right, and to be observed by all means in the Church, and moreover has been observed, yet it behooves us to consider that invocation of [just] the name of Jesus ought not to be thought futile by us on account of the veneration and power of that very name. (A Treatise on Re-Baptism, 6f; ANF 5:671)
​

Phil,

I think the formula is important here. I'm glad you quoted these specific ones because the two liturgical books in the early church were the didache and the apostolic tradition (at least the most used). In both writings, it was common practice to use the "Apostles" creed as a series of questions for baptism, which included the Trinitarian formula.