Before anyone, especially the moderators, accuse me of promoting the Oneness view over the Trintarian view - I am not.
The OP asked the question, "Do you believe baptism should be performed only in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit?"
By highlighting the word only the OP was saying in effect that all other formulas were unacceptable (i.e. heretical).
I pointed out that the disciples baptized in the name of Jesus in spite of the words of the Lord. This indicates to me that they might have understood something more about the incarnation of the Father and the Holy Spirit that many others here do.
Most people who object to the formula used by Oneness proponents present a false picture of what they believe.
I'm merely pointing out that they are not promoting Arienism or full on modalism or Sebelianism or some other heresy as is often charged - but merely trying to understand these things in what they consider a more biblical manner than do Trinity proponents - namely that the "Son" was begotten at the incarnation as the scriptures say rather than eternally as the Nicene Creed insists we believe.
I.e. - Baptizing with the words "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit" is not the "only" acceptable formula to use. The one used by the apostles is also acceptable and indeed that many insist that it is more proper than the former formulation may have some validity.
I'm (reluctantly) OK with the insistence in the Forum that all posts be coming from a Trinity based belief system (as mine are). But then it would best if they didn't allow O.P.s which require that people address the question of the Trinity as this one does.
