I know there are doctrines that do not separate the baptism of the HS with the experience of salvation but it is important to point out that in Acts the baptism of the HS is shown as a separate experience from salvation and from water baptism.
Show me the doctrine in an epistle by an apostle and I will be convinced. As I stated Acts of the Apostles is an historic book showing the actions of the early church. It is not comprehensive. Acts points out the important events of how the church was started in word and power.
Acts 4 shows us a subsequent baptism of the HS for the original 120 present during pentecost manifested through special measure of boldness.
Of course and this happened for those present and who would the next day be out preaching the Gospel. This is a gift by the will of the Holy Spirit.
Acts 8 shows that the early Samaritans accepted faith in Jesus Christ as they were "[water] baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus" but had not yet "received the Spirit". Although not specific in the text it is clear from the reaction from Simon that by the act of laying of of hands and prayer that something noticeable happened as Simon immediately offered money so that he could have this power too.
Again, you even mention it is not specific. However, Peter was told he would exercise the 'keys.' He did. Peter was at Pentecost, at Samaria and was present for the first Gentiles saved at the house of Cornelius. After this point there is only one account where hands are laid on for receiving the Holy Spirit. The keys were exercised, the gospel now in the hands of Jews, Samaritans and Gentiles.
In Acts 10 shows us the baptism of the HS being poured out to Cornelius and his household after Peter affirms salvation. Peter reports the "Holy Spirit fell on them just as on us at the beginning"
Don't know how this supports your argument of a 'separate baptism of the Holy Spirit.'
The Gentiles heard, believed, received the Holy Spirit and were baptized. Sounds very familiar to me. They also received tongues as the Apostles did on Pentecost. Meaning they were speaking in a foreign language. As the first Gentiles to be filled with the Holy Spirit, I think tongues is a most important gift to spread the gospel.
These accounts in Acts do not show the HS giving out gifts each differently but rather like a blanket covering all and the results are the same for all. This is simply how the accounts of Acts shows the HS and I make no apologies that it does not following the rules laid out
1 Corinthians 12-14.
You are missing an important point. Acts is a historical book showing the early dealings and signs and wonders of the early church. Specific gifts were necessary in large quantities to move the Gospel through the Roman empire and beyond. What is reported by Luke are very important historical events. Can we derive doctrine from these events. Sure we can, but we must look to the entire NT for New Covenant doctrine. If we don't appeal to the Gospels and to the Epistles we are left trying to 'fill in the blanks' with the recorded historical events in Acts.
Therefore, we have Acts speak of spiritual gifts. However, not everyone is cited as receiving every gift nor specifically a certain gift. Nor does Acts speak of the many gifts recorded in other NT books.
Now we have teachings in the epistles which list out the gifts and the very same Paul who laid hands on people in Acts is the one who wrote most of the epistles. Paul goes into detail in 1 Corinthians 12-14 for a reason. He is directly addressing a church where there are multiple gifts and perhaps some abusing them or not using them for the edification for all. In those chapters he clearly states we are the Body of Christ and we have different functions. This is where (in the verses I quoted earlier) he says
some are teachers and
some speak in tongues and
some interpret and
some are apostles etc.
It is not an either/or, meaning Acts vs. 1 Corinthians. We must consider both and all of the NT.
Here is another consideration. What if I told you the disciples were filled with the Holy Spirit before the day of Pentecost? That what they received on Pentecost and Acts 4 was "But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you" (Acts 1:8). This was the fulfillment of the promise (on Pentecost) in Luke 24 where Jesus says the disciples would be
"endued with power from on high" as they tarried in Jerusalem (on Pentecost).
The apostles (and those who were disciples present) received the Holy Spirit before the Ascension of Jesus Christ:
So Jesus said to them again,
“Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on
them, and said to them,
“Receive the Holy Spirit. (John 22:21-22)
This was obviously before Pentecost.
Dr. John Piper, who is not a cessationist, has a very good sermon on what I posit above. Worth the read and a very good Acts study piece as well.
You Shall Receive Power Till Jesus Comes | Desiring God
As for the 3000 on the day of Pentecost the text only says they were baptised but not baptised by the HS so it would be irresponsible to look at this as an example of the baptism of the HS in Acts. The example would be from Acts 2:4 "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak in other tongues as the Spirit gave them utterance".
Yet Acts 2:4 was for those who were
"all with one accord in one place" (Acts 2:1) and not the 3000 we speak of.
So Paul teaches one thing and Acts shows another. Both must be true experiences of the HS but rather sweeping the accounts of Acts under a rug why not teach that these experiences are also genuine. I recognize there is a lot of abuse but abuse should not deter us from teaching and acting upon what the bible shows is correct. Read Acts and it will show the baptism of the HS is a separate experience from salvation and water baptism, it shows this experience is like a pouring out (or as scripture explains a "falling") indiscriminately to all, that there are subsequent moments in a believer's life and the baptism of the HS manifests recognizable power of the HS most typically tongues.
No one, me included, is trying to sweep any NT Scriptures under the rug. In fact, my position is to consider all the texts available to us and to consider the complete apostolic teachings as we have them revealed in Holy Scriptures.
Read Acts and it will show the baptism of the HS is a separate experience from salvation and water baptism, it shows this experience is like a pouring out (or as scripture explains a "falling") indiscriminately to all, that there are subsequent moments in a believer's life and the baptism of the HS manifests recognizable power of the HS most typically tongues.
I agree with most of what you wrote but only the parts which can be supported by Holy Scriptures. For example you say the baptism of the Holy Spirit which is
"endued with power from on high" is a separate event or experience from salvation and water baptism. I tend to agree. However, I don't agree being 'filled with the Holy Spirit' is the same as being
"endued with power from on high" and "So Jesus said to them again,
“Peace to you! As the Father has sent Me, I also send you.” And when He had said this, He breathed on
them, and said to them,
“Receive the Holy Spirit. (John 22:21-22)
I also don't see evidence of "indiscriminately to all." Acts 2 is evidence enough to show the people cut to the heart that day did not go off and start speaking in tongues and prophesying. Just as the Ethiopian eunuch did not. Now is the 'non mention' mean it did not happen. Yes you could argue from silence but bad doctrines arise out of guessing what should or should not be in what is recorded. That is why we have the apostolic epistles. And Paul used quite a bit of ink in 1 Corinthians 12-14 to specifically address gifts of the Holy Spirit and he made it clear we all don't have the same gifts.