As they were a special case, not receiving the Spirit until the Apostles came, thus endorsing the reception of Samaritans, it cannot be used as a example of the norm. Incidentally it does not mention baptism in the Spirit..
it does not mention baptism of the Spirit. He was filled
they were not Christian disciples but disciples of John. They were not 'saved' men by the normal Christian standards. and they were not said to be 'baptised in Holy Spirit'.
as always with your type you assume what you should prove.
believers in John's baptism, yes. but they had not even HEARD of the Holy Spirit.
He does not say they had experienced rebirth. Indeed he recognised their LACK
but that was BEFORE baptism in the Spirit was given
none of the verse mention baptism in the Spirit except Acts1.4-5 which refers to the uniqueness of Pentecost. Speaking in tongues is NEVER directly connected with it.
Baptism in the Spirit DOES save after Pentecost. 'In one spirit we are all baptised into one body.' That is baptism in the Spirit. It is the fulfilment of the promises in Matth 3; Lke 3.
The phrase 'baptism in the Holy Spirit' is only used in connection with John's baptism with that one exception. It thus gains its meaning from that usage. You take it out of context and give it a meaning that it does not have in Scripture,.
Who says they are special cases??. Certainly not God, Because God isn't a respecter of people, and God doesn't have a plan [A] for those people and a plan for the rest.
One has to be born of the Spirit and baptised in the Holy Ghost before they can be filled, See Acts 1: 4--5, The promise of the baptism in the Holy Ghost, And Acts 2: 4, They were FILLED with the Holy Ghost, So Paul was baptised [Filled] with the Holy Ghost, And that was three days after he was born again.
How come Paul knew the disciples in Acts 19: 1, were saved??, Because they were, So he asked them have they been baptised in the Holy Ghost since they were saved. If the baptism in the Holy Ghost is the same as the rebirth, Paul's question wouldn't make sense, He would have know they had received the Holy Ghost, But what Paul meant was, have they been baptised in the Holy Ghost since they were born again.
The Baptism in the Holy Ghost, Doesn't save, One has to be saved before they can be baptised in the Holy Ghost.
It's the same as water baptism, One has to be standing in the water before they can be immersed.
As for 1 Cor 12: 13, That's the rebirth, Not the baptism in the Holy Ghost,
The Spirit baptises us into the body of Christ [The rebirth], 1 Cor 12: 13.
And Jesus baptises us with the Holy Ghost, Matt 3: 11. Lk 24: 49. Acts 1: 4--5.
I was born again [Saved], 7th Dec 1975, And I felt the Holy Spirit enter me, and I staggered back . But I wasn't baptised in the Holy Ghost until May 11th 1976, when I spoke in tongues, which is the Biblical evidence of the baptism in the holy Ghost. So I know the rebirth and the baptism in the Holy Ghost are two separate experiences.