Baptisms

Luke mentioned that Peter took 'speaking in tongues' as evidence that Cornelius' household had been given the Spirit. So it's true: 'speaking with tongues' is an evidence of the Baptism in the Holy Spirit. But Luke also mentioned that Peter took the fact that Cornelius' household had been given the Spirit, as evidence that God was accepting Gentiles, and therefore Peter went ahead and baptised Cornelius' household in water. So there's a sense in which the Baptism in the Holy Spirit was also mentioned as evidence of 'salvation'. But that didn't mean people who hadn't been baptised in the Holy Spirit yet hadn't been 'saved' - because Luke also wrote that when Philip preached the gospel in Samaria and they believed, Philip went ahead and baptised them in water even though the Spirit hadn't fallen upon any of them yet. They only received the Spirit later when the Apostles Peter and John came and laid hands on them. So even though the baptism with the Holy Spirit is mentioned as an evidence of salvation, you can be saved without having been baptised in the Holy Spirit yet. Peter wrote that baptism 'doth save us'. But that doesn't mean someone who hasn't been baptised in water yet hasn't been 'saved' - because Cornelius' household had evidently been 'saved' before Peter baptised them in water, or else God wouldn't have already given them the Spirit. Peter went ahead and baptised them in water, only because Peter was satisfied they were already 'saved'. Then Paul also wrote that all who have been baptised into Christ have been baptised into His death and resurrection. That didn't mean Paul was identifying a different baptism to baptism in water. But neither did it mean that someone who hadn't been baptised in water yet wasn't 'in Christ'. Because Cornelius' household had already been accepted and already given the Spirit, before having been baptised in water. And Paul wrote that if anyone doesn't have the Spirit of Christ, he is none of His. But that didn't mean that everyone who believed also got baptised in the Holy Spirit at the moment they believed. Not even Paul did - he was only filled with the Spirit a few days later, when a certain disciple named Ananias laid hands on him. Ananias told Paul to get up and be baptised, washing away his sins, and call upon the Name of the Lord. But that didn't mean someone who hasn't been baptised in water yet hasn't already had their sins forgiven - because Cornelius' household were only baptised once it was already evident that they'd already been accepted by God (it was evident because they'd been given the Spirit, which was evident to Peter when he heard them speaking with tongues). Luke mentioned people being baptised, either without specifying what Name they were baptised with, or mentioned that they were baptised in the Name of the Lord without specifying which Name, or mentioned that they were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus. But that didn't mean the Holy Spirit was never also mentioned at baptisms. Because when Paul met certain disciples at Ephesus (who turned out to be only disciples of John the Baptist), Paul must have perceived something lacking in them, because he asked them whether they'd received the Spirit when they believed. Paul would't have asked that question, if he thought all believers automatically got baptised with the Holy Spirit at the moment they believe. They answered that they hadn't even heard whether there be a Holy Ghost. So Paul said, "Unto what were you baptised then?" Paul was assuming they'd been baptised, because that's how people became disciples. And Paul evidently expected that they should have heard of the Holy Ghost, if they'd been baptised in the Name of the Lord. That means the Holy Spirit was sometimes mentioned during Christian baptisms, not only the Name of Jesus - or else Paul wouldn't have expected that they ought to have heard of the Holy Ghost at their baptism. And of course the 'Father' (God) is always in mind. So the early Church didn't always baptise in the Name of Jesus only - they also sometimes baptised in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost. Turns out these disciples at Ephesus had only been baptised with John's baptism so far. So Paul baptised them in water in the Name of the Lord Jesus - and then laid hands on them, and the Holy Ghost came upon them and they spoke with tongues and prophesied. All of the above is not contradictory, because in the early Church all disciples went ahead and got it all. The Apostles made sure of it! So it was possible for them to speak in terms of a single experience what actually could be experienced as separate experiences and not always even in the same order or on the same day. And also because 'salvation' isn't only a present experience - it's still also a future event. So, hearing and believing the gospel always comes first. That's enough to be 'saved'. Then either receiving the Spirit or being baptised in water, in either order. Not baptism first before believing (as in infant sprinkling) - but believing first and then baptism. Even though believing was enough for salvation (and for being baptised in the Holy Spirit), baptism does 'save us' as Peter wrote - because baptism will be part of our salvation-package between now and the ultimate Day of Salvation. Because in the early Church all disciples became so through baptism. None remained unbaptised. So believing always comes first. Then there is baptism in water, and baptism by Jesus in the Holy Spirit. Baptism in water is in the Name of the Lord, which is in the Name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Name of the Father, and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, whether that's all articulated in every instance or not. Some of what is taught in association with water baptism, is already true just by believing, even before being baptised in water. And yet being baptised in water also does it. And fulfils all righteousness. Same with the Holy Spirit. Even though it's necessary to be 'saved' before being given the Spirit, there is a sense in which the Spirit may already be with a believer even before the Spirit has come upon him. If that sounds indistinct, it's partly because the New Testament writers didn't need to distinguish it, because all believers went ahead and got it all. But if you asked them whether they could be distinguished, of course they would have answered yes - as at Cornelius' household; and at Samaria; and at Ephesus, etc. 

So the important thing is that having believed, you go ahead and have it all, if you haven't already at the moment you believed. Because its yours! The promise.