Why do the majority of Christian Churches baptize wrong?

They baptize wrong because of tradition!!

Matthew 28:19 was a command by Jesus to baptize in the NAME. The Apostles did not repeat the word of the command, but they did obey it as seen in the book of Acts. Since Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are titles of the manifestations of the Almighty Spirit and His body, the Apostles understood His SAVING NAME to be JESUS. Can any dare say that the Apostles disobeyed the Lord, or failed to baptize properly? THE NAME OF THE FATHER, SON, AND HOLY GHOST IS LORD JESUS CHRIST. The actions of the Apostles in the Book of Acts prove this to be true.

A refutation of an article found at http://www.carm.org/religious-movements/oneness-pe...

The author's main argument is that, because "in the name of" can mean "in the authority of," it doesn't necessarily indicate a precise baptismal formula. He then proceeds to conclude that, because of that fact, baptism "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is the "correct" formula without ever really proving it.

First off, Matthew 28:19 is the one and only, single example in Scripture where the phrase "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost" is used. The Scriptures he cites in the article actually do not disprove "in the name of Jesus Christ" as a baptismal formula but lend further credibility to it.

He cites Acts 16:18: "And this did she many days. But Paul, being grieved, turned and said to the spirit, I command thee in the name of Jesus Christ to come out of her. And he came out the same hour," an example of a situation where the spoken word was appropriate. Notice that he used the phrase "in the name of Jesus Christ" when he commanded the spirit to come out of her. There is one other example of the use of the spoken word in the book of Acts in addition to the one he cites: "Then Peter said, Silver and gold have I none; but such as I have give I thee: In the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth rise up and walk." The same phrase is used here, "in the name of Jesus Christ" with the addition of the further identifying phrase "of Nazareth." Both are instances where the

spoken word was appropriate and both were spoken "in the name of Jesus Christ."

He cites multiple examples in the book of Acts that all refer to baptism "in Jesus' name" in some form. The Biblical principle of interpretation, "Scripture interprets Scripture" dictates that, when one credible lone witness gives an account from a slightly different perspective than multiple other credible witnesses, the lone witness should be harmonized with the other witnesses. It's not a matter of Jesus being more credible than the apostles; it's a matter of understanding that the apostles had a specific commission from Jesus and that they understood and carried it out correctly.

There are other basis for baptism in Jesus' name that the author did not cite:

1. 1 Corinthians 1:13: "Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were ye baptized in the name of Paul?" These are rhetorical questions that, from the grammar, we can tell that the obvious answers are: Is Christ divided? No! Was Paul crucified for you? No, Christ was! Were you baptized in the name of Paul? No, you were baptized in the name of Christ!

2. Before the command to make disciples and baptize them in Matthew 28:19, Jesus said, "All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth." (Matthew 28:18, NKJV). "Go THEREFORE and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit" (NKJV). Since all authority has been given to Jesus, to baptize "in the authority of Jesus Christ" IS to baptize "in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

3. Colossians 3:17 says "And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him." Of course, that does not mean to speak the name of Jesus over everything we do (that would make eating difficult and conversation almost

impossible :-). Since baptism is done both in word and in deed and since it is a situation where the spoken word is appropriate, the fact that we were instructed to "do all in the name of the Lord Jesus" is strong support for baptism in Jesus' name.

4. Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ represents the only "name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved" (Acts 4:12 with Acts 4:10).

5. Philippians 2:9-11: " Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth; And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father."

These are just a few examples. There are many more throughout the New Testament. I stand firm behind the conclusion that the whole of Scripture, including Matthew 28:19, supports baptism in Jesus' name. Note also that none of these arguments for Jesus' name baptism are based on Oneness or Trinitarian theology. It is possible to harmonize baptism in Jesus' name with Trinitarian theology as well.

Apostolic Believer in One God, JESUS

My understanding was that they are all one, but this scripture does show

who Jesus really is, and it does show His equivalency with 'God' and the

'Holy Spirit'. I think they only have say 'in Jesus' Name' also, but since

it is there once, then it's just to show it means all put together, and

that saying Jesus implies all...One God, One baptism etc. You could

also put that question to a pastor and see what they say.