>Though I speak with the tongues of men *and of angels*, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. (1st Corinthians 13:1 KJV) Is there a Greek or Hebrew root wording to signify that the "tongues of angels" are the tongues heard spoken by Pentecostals, Oneness Apostolics, and other types of similar Christians?

If Mathew 28:19 (and the Great Commission therein) is considered an authentic verse, why aren’t there any instances in the NT where the apostles actually baptized someone using the Trinitarian formula (i.e., “in the name of Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit”)? >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, (Mathew 28:19, NKJV, 1982) I'm looking for explanations given by defenders of Trinitarianism.

At the end of the book of Matthew, we see Jesus’ command for baptism in the name of all three persons of the trinity: > “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,” ‭‭Matthew‬ ‭28:19‬ ‭ However, in the book of Acts, there are many instances where baptisms only occur in the name of Jesus: - Acts 2:28 – be baptized…in the name of Jesus Christ. - Acts 8:16 – baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. - Acts 10:48 – baptized in the name of the Lord. - Acts 19:5 – baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. So why the lack of the three persons baptism as explicitly stated by Jesus in Matthew?

[Oneness Pentecostals and others](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/33218/21576) who hold to "Jesus-name" (or "Jesus-only") baptism maintain that the trinitarian formula used by Nicene Christians and others is based on a misunderstanding of Matthew 28:19 and a failure to recognize that all recorded baptisms in the New Testament were done in the name of Jesus only. The argument goes something like this: - [Matthew 28:19](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+28%3A19&version=ESV) refers to a single "name" of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and that "name" is *Jesus*. - Baptisms and baptismal commands described in [Acts 2:38](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+2%3A38&version=ESV) , [8:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+8%3A16&version=ESV) , [10:48](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+10%3A48&version=ESV) , [19:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+19%3A5&version=ESV) , and [22:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+22%3A16&version=ESV) all invoke the name of Jesus, with no indication of a trinitarian formula. To me the second point in particular is not easily dismissed. I'm thus interested in the history of the trinitarian baptismal formula. What is the earliest extrabiblical teaching on baptism that contradicts "Jesus-name" baptism and calls for a trinitarian (three-part) baptismal formula? ---------- To be clear, the word *trinitarian* here does not indicate a belief in *Nicene trinitarianism*: it simply refers to the three-part nature of the baptismal formula: Father, Son, Holy Spirit. So a church father whose views do not neatly coincide with Nicaea's could still employ a "trinitarian baptismal formula."

From [this question](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/questions/296/into-whose-name-should-christians-be-baptised) , are there any Christian denominations that baptise ONLY in *the Name of Jesus* and not by the Trinitarian baptismal formula? Would such a baptism be considered valid by those who use the Trinitarian baptismal formula? And if not valid, would Trinitarians consider those with such a baptism Christian?

Related: [What is the earliest extrabiblical teaching of baptism using a trinitarian formula?](https://christianity.stackexchange.com/q/47339/21576) According to Oneness Pentecostals and others, [baptizing in *the name of Jesus*](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus%27_Name_doctrine) , instead of *the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit*, is the correct form, and they point to [Acts 2:38](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+2%3A38&version=ESV) , [8:16](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+8%3A16&version=ESV) , [10:48](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+10%3A48&version=ESV) , and [19:5](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=acts+19%3A5&version=ESV) as evidence for this position. Of course, critics will argue that the main reason for this argument is that its proponents are avowed non-trinitarians. Still, it seems theoretically possible to me that even a trinitarian Christian, on this scriptural basis, might conclude that it is legitimate to baptize a new trinitarian Christian "in the name of Jesus." So, my question. **Would the Catholic Church ever recognize a baptism "in the name of Jesus" (i.e., *without* the trinitarian formula) as a valid baptism?** If the baptizer and baptized were both Nicene trinitarians at the time of the baptism, might a "Jesus-name" baptism be considered valid? Are there any other conditions that could be met that would make it valid? By "valid," I mean that the baptized would not be required to be rebaptized upon conversion to Catholicism. Perhaps suggesting "no," the Catechism reads: >In the Latin Church this triple infusion is accompanied by the minister's words: "N., I baptize you in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit." [(http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P3J.HTM)] But on the other hand, Cyprian suggests that Pope Stephen thought "Jesus-name" baptism was acceptable: > But, says [Stephen], the name of Christ is of great advantage to faith and the sanctification of baptism; so that whosoever is anywhere so-ever baptized in the name of Christ, immediately obtains the grace of Christ [[Epistle 74.18](http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/050674.htm)]