Baptism without water?

[Sublime_Prince]

Ok I was reading the book of acts in my spare time and I came across something in ACTS that confused me about baptism. In some instances no water was needed. The disciples simply laid their hands on those who wished to receive the holy spirit and it was given.

I never see laying of the hands in church, is this a valid way to baptize someone today. If so who can do the baptism?

 

[Yerusalyim]

The laying on of hands probably conforms to what we call confirmation, not baptism.

 

[puzzleannie]

Ok I was reading the book of acts in my spare time and I came across something in ACTS that confused me about baptism. In some instances no water was needed. The disciples simply laid their hands on those who wished to receive the holy spirit and it was given.

I never see laying of the hands in church, is this a valid way to baptize someone today. If so who can do the baptism?

NO, they baptized with water in the sacrament of baptism, and laid hands and called down the holy spirit in confirmation–two actions so intimately linked as to be almost one sacrament and essential for full Christian initiation. the addional anointing with oil was added a bit later. Laying on of hands was then and still is an essential part of the sacraments of Holy Orders and Anointing of the Sick. Laying of of hands is a specifically apostolic action and that is its meaning in a sacrament, that the power is coming from the Holy Spirit sent by Christ on those to whom he has given his authority to call the Holy Spirit.

you will find elsewhere in Acts situations in which Paul or other apostles found cells of new Christians who had received the Holy Spirit but not been baptized with water, and the apostles speedily baptized them to complete their initiation.