Does Acts 2:38 mean we're required to be baptized in the name of Jesus to be saved and forgiven? And no other baptism is valid?
Mark 1:4 and Luke 3:3 also says "for the remission of sins" regarding John's baptism. This certainly doesn't prove John's baptism was the means of forgiveness for them. Same principle applies to Acts 2:38. The book of Acts makes it clear that repentance and faith results in the forgiveness of sins (2:21, 5:31, 8:22, 10:43, 17:30, 20:21).
The “name of Jesus” is usually unrelated to baptism in Acts: 4:18, 5:40, 15:26, 19:17, 21:13. It refers to the authority, character or identity of Christ rather than His proper name. Even David K. Bernard admits the name of God represents His presence, character, power or authority (The oneness of God, pg. 44). This supports baptizing in the name of Jesus means by His authority or in His character (rather than verbalizing the name 'Jesus').
We are baptized, "for the remission of sins" in the sense that baptism is the sign/symbol/seal of repentance and forgiveness of sins. It is an important command but it is not the means of salvation. A Muslim who becomes a Christian in Saudi Arabia and is murdered for his faith isn't going to hell just because a Oneness minister didn't baptize him in the name of Jesus. Non-Muslims are not even allowed in Mecca.
The blood of Jesus washes away our sins not the waters of baptism (Gal. 2:21).
