Now why do you suppose there was a delay for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit here in Acts 8?
This was the exception and not the rule. There was animosity that existed between Jews and Samaritans, so it may very well have been essential for the Samaritans to receive the Holy Spirit in the presence of the Jews by the apostles and authentic God's purpose and maintain a unified church.
Notice that these Gentiles believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit and spoke in tongues (spiritual gift which is only for the body of Christ - 1 Corinthians 12) and were saved all
BEFORE water baptism.
False.
They were commanded to be baptized in Acts 10:48
AFTER they believed, received the gift of the Holy Spirit, spoke in tongues and were saved
BEFORE water baptism.
False. The new birth is signified, but not procured in baptism.
In regards to "water" in John 3:5, Jesus mentions "living water" in John 4:10, 14; 7:37-39 and in John 7:38-39, we read - "He who believes in Me, as the Scripture has said,
out of his heart will flow rivers of living water. But this He spoke concerning the Spirit. Did you see that? The Holy Spirit is the source of living water and spiritual cleansing. If "water" is arbitrarily defined as baptism, then we could just as justifiably say, "Out of his heart will flow rivers of living baptism" in John 7:38. If this sounds ridiculous, it is no more so than the idea that water baptism is the source or the means of becoming born again.
Also "water" is used in the Bible as an
emblem of the word of God, and in such uses it is associated with
cleansing or washing. (John 15:3; Ephesians 5:26) When we are born again, the Holy Spirit begets new life, divine life, so that we are said to become "partakers of the divine nature." (2 Peter 1:4) The new birth is brought to pass through "incorruptible seed, by the word of God, which lives and abides forever" (I Peter 1:23) and the Holy Spirit accomplishes the miracle of regeneration. (Titus 3:5) So to automatically read "baptism" into John 3:5 simply because it mentions "water" is unwarranted.
As I previously stated, in Acts 2:38, "for the remission of sins" does not refer back to both clauses, "you all repent" and "each one of you be baptized," but refers only to the first. Peter is saying "repent unto the remission of your sins," the same as in Acts 3:19. The clause "each one of you be baptized" is parenthetical. This is exactly what Acts 3:19 teaches except that Peter omits the parenthesis.
Excellent article on Acts 22:16 -
WHAT IS TRUTH: Acts 22:16--Baptism Essential for Salvation?
Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary makes not of the importance of the Greek in Ananias' statement. When Ananias tells Paul to "arise, be baptized, wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord," the tense of the last command is literally "having called" (aorist middle participle). "Calling on [epikalesamenos] --- 'having (that is, after having) called on,' referring the confession of Christ which preceded baptism." [Jamison, Fausset, and Brown Commentary, vol. 3 pg. 160]. Kenneth Wuest picks up on this Greek nuance and translates the verse as follows: "And now, why are you delaying? Having arisen, be baptized and wash away your sins, having previously called upon His Name." (Acts 22:16, Wuest's Expanded NT).
Water and blood constitute external witness to who Jesus was. The Father and the Holy Spirit testified to the Son at His baptism (Matthew 3:16-17) and the death of Jesus by shedding His blood also gave witness of who He was. This has nothing to do with the false doctrine of baptismal regeneration.
