Our church has no insistence one way or the other, and actually read from both scriptures with both "formulas". They say that they say the words "Father Son and Holy Ghost" because that is what Jesus commanded --- which is really hard to argue with.

If a person believes "In the name of" signifies "by the authority of," it makes perfect sense. You would say, "Go conquer the enemy kingdom in the name of the king and queen." (Not in the names of the king and queen). Additionally, since ALL Christians who believe in the Trinity (not the Latter-Day Saints nor the Jehovah's Witnesses, they don't believe the same way) believe God is ONE entity, ONE being, ONE essence (so far as I know), then it also makes perfect sense if you're baptizing by His authority you'd say, "Baptize in the name of..." [that ONE essence]. The word Person when used to explain the Godhead is not the same as a human being-person.

I think there are LOTS of names that belong to the Godhead- Yahweh, Jehovah, Elohim, Adonai, Emmanuel, Wonderful Counsellor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace, Messiah, Lily of the Valley, Bright Morning Star, Son of Man, Seed of Abraham, Lord Jesus Christ, Holy Spirit, Holy Ghost, El Shaddai, Jehovah-Rapha, Jehovah-Jireh, Jehovah-Nissi, Jehovah-Shalom, Jehovah-Tsid-Kenu, Jehovah-Shammah, Jehovah-Sabaoth, Jehovah-Raah... Of course we wouldn't refer to the Lord Jesus as the Everlasting Father, though. So I suppose some of these names are more specific than others.

@Berean- I'm not insisting on either Matthew 28:19 formula nor Acts 2:38. At this time I am perfectly satisfied with both.

This is why the Godhead is a very complex subject. Because look at the prophecy of the Christ child:

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a Child is born, Unto us a Son is given; And the government will be upon His shoulder. And His name will be called Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

You see.... Jesus IS called "Everlasting Father".

Thus a trinitarian view has all sorts of issues and internal conflicts like this. It is nearly impossible to harmonize if you have (3) distinct "persons" in the trinity.

Here is another one. The baptism of Jesus. What John saw descending from above is actually stated as the "Spirit of God", the "Holy Spirit" and "the Spirit" in the Gospel accounts. This to me leaves a bit of a problem if the Holy Spirit is a unique person separate from the Father. For it says in Matthew that it was the "Spirit of God" that descended. Thus either the Holy Spirit is the self same being as "the Spirit of God" or we have a problem here... We can't have "person A" referenced in Matthew and "person B" referenced in Mark and Luke.

John 4:24
God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth.”

The Holy Spirit is God's Spirit, not a "3rd person" of a triune God. I don't know how we can have the verse above say "God is Spirit" and then have a separate Spirit which is the "Holy Spirit". Are there (2) Spirits?

Matthew 3:16
When He had been baptized, Jesus came up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened to Him, and He saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting upon Him.

Mark 1:10
And immediately, coming up from the water, He saw the heavens parting and the Spirit descending upon Him like a dove.

Luke 3:22
And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven which said, “You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased.”

oops... this post is starting to go all over the map.

To bring this back to the subject of the thread... if we start putting some of these orthodox doctrines thru the same level of scrutiny and testing that WMB's every word is put through, then we start to be on shaky ground as well with the doctrines. IMHO

And to borrow a theme from Seek's other post... at some point... do these doctrines start to be upheld because "well that is how it has always been taught". To me the situation seems to be very similar.

I like how my pastor says it: "God is bigger and greater than our mortal minds can understand." He doesn't try to explain God, he points you to the scriptures that describe His majesty.

I had lunch with a brother in Christ today that explains the Trinity best: "The trinity is only the generalization that God is more than our minds can understand. He's one and he's three, because our culture tries to quantify God -- and that explanation does not allow us to. To say he is only one would be limited God. To say he is three would be incorrectly describing Him."

My problem with WMB is that he tried to explain God -- and in doing so made God less than He really is.

COOL! I should have known that.

See, I told ya'all I'm not sold out to a Trinity doctrine that denies anything in the Bible or doesn't run in continuity with the Bible. I just believe the Bible, all the troublesome parts and all. I refuse to any longer read the New Testament and have my eyes glaze over trying to fit God into a box of One Person with three "offices". That becomes like Abbott and Costello's Who's On First?

LOL... What's on second?

Even more than that, his explanations seem tailor made to point people to believe that HE embodied the same God, so when I contrast that "point" to the lies and deceit it becomes very nearly blasphemous. (See, if it's all the same... God who wasn't God till he was worshipped, Logos which was the Word of God, Melchizedek, the "theophany" body who talked to Abraham, the "back parts of a man" Elijah saw from the cave, the Pillar of Fire, I AM who spoke to Moses, the Lord Jesus Christ, the Holy Spirit, if they're all one and the same person, then WMB is claiming HE, himself personally is embodying the same Entity. He goes even further, claiming the "Elect" can also become the same and expect to have Spoken Word creative power, speaking squirrels into existence, etc).

It sounds like the Latter Day Saints, aspiring to become gods.

In no way am I suggesting that God did not honor His promise that "Where two or three are gathered in my name, there am I in the midst of them." I truly believe there were true believers on the Lord Jesus Christ and in His Word the Bible present in the WMB meetings. I believe God honored those believers and their faith and healed some of them. I just can no longer put my faith and trust in anyone who would lie over the pulpit. (Even if it was a delusion).

Very true. And though all who believe WMB will deny this, that's exactly what Joseph Smith did.

And here is one verse that makes me tremble and is VERY humbling... and I just am not sure where to go with it.

2 Thessalonians 2:11
And for this reason God will send them strong delusion, that they should believe the lie,

Here is my focus...

To humble myself and seek with all I have the Living God first and foremost and learn what is the true meaning of:

2 Thessalonians 2:10
10 ".......because they did not receive the love of the truth, that they might be saved."

Because this is the ancedote to verse 2:11

From all I've read, it seems that the issue at the time of the Nicene Council was that Arias was teaching that God was a spirit (ok there) that dwelt in a man, Jesus (OK there) in the same way it dwelt in any Christian (that's the problem). The doctrine of the trinity was invented to nail down the belief that Jesus was God, and his followers were not. I don't think its a perfect solution, but sure can't offer a better one.