Bible vs. Baptism and Confirmation

[DeepeningFaith]

Ok so here’s the argument, which sounds fairly logical and I need some help debunking. Nothing is cited, nor are the facts necessarily 100% correct.

The Church teaches that Baptism and Confirmation are two seperate Sacraments. The argument is that Baptism starts Confirmation, but only goes half way. Acts was written before Matthew. Acts says that Baptism was done (more than once) in just the name of Jesus Christ. Then the Apostles had to go and lay on hands and invoke the Holy Spirit on the already baptized. Matthew says to go and baptize in the name of the Father, and the Son, and the Holy Spirit. ((Here’s one issue) This part of Matthew was written after the early Church got under way and the rite for Baptism was made so that the Apostles/Bishops did not have to go to every Baptism. They say that Confirmation is based on what was written in Acts. So, Baptism is a full Baptism, and half of Confirmation because of the invoking of the Holy Spirit. The thing lacking is the laying on of hands.

So…thoughts?

 

[NotWorthy]

Well, it seems that our good Samaritans that Phillip baptized needed to be confirmed as well. In Acts, somewhere around 8 or 9, I believe, immediately after the stoning of St. Stephen, Phillip (or Andrew) travels to Samaria and baptizes them. But the Apostles need to follow up this act with the “Laying on of Hands”.

Evidently, Baptism and Confirmation were most often performed at the same time, because the Apostles who did most of the baptisms had the authority to do both. But Phillip was a deacon and didn’t have the authority to confirm.