Did Peter make an Executive Decision to change formula for Baptism?

Did Peter make an Executive Decision to change the Formula for Baptism?

Was Peter there when Jesus said in Matthew 28:19 "Go you therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.”

If so, why did he stand up and say in Acts, “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 Spirit.” (Acts 2:38)

Did he have a misunderstanding of what Jesus commanded him to do? The same Jesus who said "thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matthew 16:18,19). The authority to bind and loose was inextricably joined with the possession of the keys of the kingdom of heaven. Those keys belonged to the kingdom and allowed entrance into it just as keys belong to a door and allow one to unlock it, thereby allowing entrance into the particular locale. The words translated "bind" and "loose" are from the Greek deo and lyo, which are themselves translations of the Aramaic asar and sera. This was the Jewish formula for excommunication and reinstatement. With this historical meaning in mind, then, Peter was given the authority to bar entrance into, or allow entrance into the kingdom.

Did all of this power go to Peter's head and he decided to change what Jesus told him to do?

Were the other disciples unclear as well? Why did they not stand up to Peter that day and correct him?

Phillip was actively concerned with the Samaritans and evidently was the first to proclaim the Good News to them: “But when they believed Phillip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.” Acts 8:12.

Read throughout the book of Acts how they were baptized: Acts 2:37-41; Peter and John in Acts 8:5-17
16 For He had not yet fallen upon any of them; they had simply been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.;

Paul was baptized by Ananius in Acts 9:1-18; would he have changed the way he was baptized when he arrived at Ephesus in Acts 19? Acts 19:5 When they heard this, they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. The same Name Paul cast out devils in.

I'm thinking the executive decision was made later on.
Encyclopedia Britannia 11th edition vol.3, pg.365-366- you will find this statement: "The baptismal formula was changed from the name of Jesus Christ to the words Father, Son, Holy Ghost by the Catholic church in the 2nd. century.

Encyclopedia Britannia, vol.3 pg.82- "Everywhere in the oldest sources it states that baptism took place in the name of Jesus Christ."

The Canney Encyclopedia of Religion, pg.53 states,
"The early church always baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus until the developement of the trinity doctrine in the 2nd century."

According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 2 pg.377,-- Catholics acknowledge that baptism in Jesus' name was changed by the Catholic church.

Hastings Encyclopedia of Religions, vol 2 pg.377 states---
Christian baptism was administered using the words "In the name of Jesus"(from the same source pg.378),The use of the trinitarian formula of any sort was not suggested in the early Church's history."(from the same volume,pg.389)-note that, baptism was always in the name of Jesus Christ until the time of Justin Martr, when the triune formula was used.
Under “Baptismal Formula,” the Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1911 edition, states:
“The trinitarian formula and trine immersion were not uniformly used from the beginning, nor did they always go together. The Teaching of the Apostles, indeed, prescribes baptism in the name of Father, Son and Holy Ghost, but on the next page speaks of those who have been baptized into the name of Jesus -- the normal formula of the New Testament. In the 3rd century baptism in the name of [Messiah] was so widespread that Pope Stephen, in opposition to Cyprian of Carthage, declared it to be valid.

When we look at commentary:
The Jerusalem Bible, a scholarly, well-respected Catholic work, admits: “It may be that this formula, so far as the fullness of its expression is concerned, is a reflection of the liturgical usage established later in the primitive community. It will be remembered that Acts speaks of baptizing ‘in the name of Jesus,’ cf. Acts 1:5.”

The International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, vol. 4, p. 2637, under “Baptism,” says, “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 “foreign to the mouth of Jesus.”

New Revised Standard Version notes on Matthew 28:19: “Modern critics claim this formula is falsely ascribed to Jesus and that it represents later church tradition, for nowhere in the book of Acts is baptism performed with the name of the Trinity...”

No Other Name
Acts 410 Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. 11 This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. 12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved.

Executive Decisions
Acts 4: 1 The priests, and the captain of the temple, and the Sadducees, came upon them, 6 And Annas the high priest, and Caiaphas, and John, and Alexander, and as many as were of the kindred of the high priest, were gathered together at Jerusalem.
These all made an executive decision; v16 We cannot deny it. 17 But that it spread no further among the people, let us straightly threaten them, that they speak from now on to no man in this name. 18 And they called them, and commanded them not to speak at all nor teach in the name of Jesus.

Act 5:27 And when they had brought them, they set them before the council: and the high priest asked them, 28 Saying, Did not we straightly command you that you should not teach in this name? and, behold, you have filled Jerusalem with your doctrine, and intend to bring this man's blood on us. 29 Then Peter and the other apostles answered and said, We ought to obey God rather than men.

Wow, the Name and the Blood are tied together. No wonder it brought on an Executive Decision.
What decision will you make?