Is the Holy Spirit a personal Holy Spirit?

Behold those disciples, hidden in that upper chamber for fear of the priests and rulers. They were to go everywhere to preach the Word. They were to speak with new tongues, not a foreign language, but words eloquent from lips which had been touched with a live coal from off the altar. After the disciples had received the baptism of the Holy Spirit, the priests and rulers marveled at the words which they spake, for they knew them as unlearned and ignorant men. But they took knowledge of them that they had been with Jesus. 

Their teaching was a second edition of the teachings of Christ, the utterance of simple, grand truths that flashed light into darkened minds, and converted thousands in a day. The disciples began to understand that Christ was their advocate in the heavenly courts, and that He was glorified. They could speak because the Holy Spirit gave them utterance. “The entrance of Thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple” [Psalm 119:130].  

Bible truth spoken by sanctified lips is eloquence and power. The disciples had a saving understanding of the words of Christ. Because they were united with Christ, eating His flesh and drinking His blood, the inspired book was to them spirit and life. We may understand the Bible as we understand other books, but it is not thus taken into our minds and hearts as the living bread from heaven...

“Greater works than these shall he do; because I go unto My Father.” He would then intercede for them, and would send His own representative, the Holy Spirit, who would attend them in their work. This representative would not appear in human form, but by faith would be seen and recognized by all who believe in Christ....

Before He left them, Christ gave His followers a positive promise that after His ascension He would send them the Holy Spirit. “Go ye therefore,” He said, “and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father [a personal God] and of the Son [a personal Saviour], and of the Holy Ghost [sent from heaven to represent Christ]: teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world” [Matthew 28:19, 20]

This positive assurance was given to the disciples, to be given to all who should believe on Him to the close of this earth's history.  

Christ desired His disciples to understand that He would not leave them orphans. “I will not leave you comfortless,” He declared; “I will come to you. Yet a little while, and the world seeth Me no more; but ye see Me: because I live, ye shall live also” [verses 18, 19]. A precious, glorious assurance of eternal life! Even though He was to be absent, their relation to Him was to be that of a child to its parent.  

The influence of the Holy Spirit is the life of Christ in the soul. We do not see Christ and speak to Him, but His Holy Spirit is just as near us in one place as in another. He works in and through every one who receives Christ. Those who know the indwelling of the Spirit reveal the fruits of the Spirit—love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith.   MR 12 pp 257-261

- Definitions -

Name:  Authority; behalf; part; as in the name of the people. When a man speaks or acts in the name of another, he does it by their authority or in their behalf, as their representative.  Webster

Baptize: To administer the sacrament of baptism to; to christen. By some denominations of christians, baptism is performed by plunging, or immersing the whole body in water. Webster

Personal:  1. Of, relating to, or affecting a particular person; 2. Done in person without the intervention of another; 3. relating to the person or body; 4. Relating to an individual or an individual's character; 5. a) being rational and self-conscious;  b) having the qualities of a person rather than a thing or abstraction. Webster 
1. Relating to an individual; 2. Pertaining to the corporal nature; 3. Present in person; not acting by representative. Webster 1828

Representative:  1. Exhibiting a similitude; 2. Bearing the character or power of another; 3. One that exhibits the likeness of another.  Webster

Represent: 1. To show or exhibit by resemblance; 2. To describe; 3. To exhibit; 4. To personate; to act the character;  5. To supply the place of; to act as a substitute for another; 6. To show by arguments, reasoning or statement of facts; 7. To stand in the place of. Webster

In the name of Jesus or in the name of the Trinity?

If Jesus said to His disciples in Matthew 28:19, baptize them in the name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, where in the Bible does it say that’s what they did?  Does that mean every single disciple of Jesus was disobedient? 

Bible reads:

Acts 2:38 “Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and you shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.”

Acts 8:12 “But when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.”

Acts 8:16 “For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 10:48 “And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then prayed they him to tarry certain days.”

Acts 19:5 “When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.”

Acts 22:16 “And now why tarriest you? arise, and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord.”

Romans 6:3 “Know you not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into his death?”

1 Corinthians 1:13 “Is Christ divided? was Paul crucified for you? or were you baptized in the name of Paul?”

Galatians 3:27 “For as many of you as have been baptized into Christ have put on Christ.”

Is Matthew 28:19 evidence of Trinity baptism?

How do we refute that the Catholic Church changed the way she baptizes from "In Jesus' Name" only to the Trinitarian formula?

I don't think you can refute it. As far as I know, all of the evidence indicates that baptism was in the name of Jesus until the time of Justin Martyr in the mid 2nd century when the Trinity doctrine was invented. Whenever baptism is mentioned in the Bible, it is ALWAYS in the name of Jesus. NONE of the writings of the early church fathers prior to Justin Martyr around A.D. 150 taught Trinity baptism.

BRITANICA ENCYCLOPEDIA – Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ. Vol. 3, page 82.

As far as the Didache quote that someone posted, scholars are not in agreement regarding the date of the Didache. It may not have been written until after the Trinity doctrine was invented in the second century. Even if it was written earlier, there is evidence that the baptism passage was changed from Jesus only to the Trinity. In another section of the Didache, on the Eucharist, it says a person must be baptized "into the name of the Lord" to receive the Eucharist. I would not consider the Didache to be reliable evidence of Trinity baptism in the early church.

"But let no one eat or drink of your Thanksgiving (Eucharist), but they who have been baptized into the name of the Lord (Didache, Ch. 10)"

Is Matthew 28:19 evidence of Trinity baptism?

“according to a wide scholarly consensus, it is not an authentic saying of Jesus, not even an elaboration of a Jesus-saying on baptism." (The Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 1, 1992, page 585)

“In place of the words "baptizing... Spirit" we should probably read simply "into my name," (Peake's Commentary on the Bible, 1929, page 723).”

“It has been customary to trace the institution of the practice (of baptism) to the words of Christ recorded in Matthew 28:19. But the authenticity of this passage has been challenged on historical as well as on textual grounds. It must be acknowledged that the formula of the threefold name, which is here enjoined, does not appear to have been employed by the primitive Church, which, so far as our information goes, baptized 'in' or 'into the name of Jesus' (The Dictionary of the Bible, 1947, page 83)”

“Critical scholarship, on the whole, rejects the traditional attribution of the tripartite baptismal formula to Jesus and regards it as of later origin. (The Philosophy of the Church Fathers, Vol. 1, Harry Austryn Wolfson, 1964, pg 143)”

"It is often affirmed that the words in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost are not the ipsissima verba [exact words] of Jesus, but...a later liturgical addition. (The Tyndale New Testament Commentaries, I, 275)"

"The testimony for the wide distribution of the simple baptismal formula [in the Name of Jesus] down into the second century is so overwhelming that even in Matthew 28:19, the Trinitarian formula was later inserted. (Wilhelm Bousset, Kyrios Christianity, page 295)"

“the formal authenticity of Matt. 28:19 must be disputed (The Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge)”

“Matthew 28:19 in particular only canonizes a later ecclesiastical situation, that its universalism is contrary to the facts of early Christian history, and its Trinitarian formula (is) foreign to the mouth of Jesus. (The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, Vol. 4, page 2637, Baptism)”

Here's how the well respected church historian Eusebius quoted Matthew 28:19 in his writings before Constantine established the Trinity at the Council of Nicea:

"Whereas He, who conceived nothing human or mortal, see how truly he speaks with the voice of God, saying in these very words to those disciples of His, the poorest of the poor : ’Go forth, and make disciples of all the nations.’ ‘But how,’ the disciples might reasonably have answered the Master, ‘can we do it?’… But while the disciples of Jesus were most likely either saying thus, or thinking thus, the Master solved their difficulties, by the addition of one phrase, saying they should triumph ‘IN MY NAME.’ For He did not bid them simply and indefinitely 'make disciples of all nations,' but with the necessary addition 'In My Name.' And the power of His Name being so great, that the Apostle says: 'God has given him a name which is above every name, that in the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth.' He shewed the virtue of the power in His Name concealed from the crowd, when He said to His Disciples: 'Go, and make disciples of all nations in my name.'

Source - The Proof of the Gospel, Vol. 1, edited and translated by W.J. Ferrar, 1981, page 157

Why does Eusebius's quote matter? It matters because ALL known manuscripts of Matthew prior to A.D. 325 when Constantine established the Trinity doctrine are conveniently missing the last page, the page that would have contained Matt 28:19. I don't know whether they were burned to get rid of the original version, but what's known is there is NO biblical evidence that Jesus taught Trinity baptism since there aren't any other verses in the Bible that teach baptism in the name of a Trinity. In fact, they teach the opposite, that baptism was done in the name of Jesus.

There is also textual evidence against Matt 28:19. Which version do you think sounds authentic?

Matthew 28:18-19, Quoted by Eusebius in early 4th Century (A.D. 320)
Jesus said, “All authority … has been given to me. Therefore go and make disciples of all nations in my name…”

Matthew 28:18-19 (NIV), Current Version dated from late 4th Century (A.D. 390)
Jesus said, “All authority … has been given to me. 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…”

Why would Jesus, after announcing that all authority has been given to him, then say that, because of his authority, his disciples should baptize in someone else's name?

Don't think Matthew 28:19 could have been changed to support the new Catholic Trinity teaching? Research 1John 5:7, the other verse used to support the Trinity. The evidence is so overwhelming that it was added to the Bible, that it has been removed from all modern non-Catholic Bibles.

Unlike the modern Catholic Church, early Christians always did everything in the name of Jesus, and NEVER in the name of a Trinity.

“God greatly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend, of those in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. (Phillipians 2:9-11, NAB)”

“giving thanks always and for everything in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ to God the Father (Ephesians 5:20, NAB)”

“And whatever you do, in word or in deed, do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him (Colossians 3:17, NAB)”

I think everything includes baptism.

*St. Paul (Acts 19) commands some disciples at Ephesus to be baptized in Christ's name: "They were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus*." In Acts 10, we read that St. Peter ordered others to be baptized "in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ". Those who were converted by Philip. (Acts 8) "were baptized in the name of Jesus Christ", and above all we have the explicit command of the Prince of the Apostles: "Be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of your sins (Acts 2). Source - newadvent.org/cathen/02258b.htm Catholic