It would seem rather odd and redundant for Peter to have said [meant]: “Repent and be baptized [with the Holy Spirit.]...and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.”
I also found the arguments of a Lutheran minister named James Brown in refuting another persons arguments in the same vein as your friend (a Presbyterian minister named James Dale) quite helpful and persuasive.
...First of all, it is admitted that the common, well nigh universal, view recognizes all these [passages like Acts 2:38, 9:18, 22:16] as cases of ritual baptism...We have great confidence in what may be called the “common sense” interpretation of the Bible, and are slow to believe that the great mass of Christians have been in error on this point for so many centuries.
...Ritual baptism was a well known and recognized religious ordinance at that time, and when the word is used without anything to suggest a different meaning, the natural impression is that of ritual baptism. It seems hardly necessary to offer any proof of the familiarity of this ordinance. It was practiced by John, submitted to by Christ Himself, and administered by the apostles before and after the death of their Master, as a means and a pledge of discipleship. ...The Eunuch at once said, as of a fully understood matter, “See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?” [Acts 8:36b] At Samaria, “when they believed Philip preaching the things concerning the kingdom of God, and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized both men and women.” [Acts 8:12] ...These and similar cases show how well it was understood at that time that ritual baptism was to be administered to all who desired to be disciples of Christ. The language of the Commission is in perfect harmony with this idea. It is to make disciples of, or to disciple, matheteusate, all nations, baptizing them, etc. It seems scarcely possible to receive any other impression from the words, than that they were to disciple the nations to Christ, and as a means were to baptize those who became disciples, and further to teach them to observe all things whatsoever commanded by Christ. The relation of baptizing and teaching is suggestive of baptism being the initiatory step in the work of making disciples, or that the baptism was to be followed by instruction and obedience in the school of Christ. This, it also seems to us, is fatal to the interpretation of an exclusively higher and ultimate baptism, in which baptism with water, or as an external ordinance, is to have no part. ...When Peter said to the multitude, “repent and be baptized, every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ,” and when Ananias said to Paul, “arise and be baptized,” we can hardly think of a command that does not embrace the well known baptism with water, or that this was not the very baptism enjoined as a condition and evidence of their discipleship. It may help to confirm this to refer to the case of Peter at Ceasarea. Here there is no room for dispute or doubt, as distinct mention is made of the water, for baptism: “Can any man forbid water,” etc. [Acts 10:47a] The very form of expression in the original, “Can anyone forbid the water,” to hyd[FONT=&]ō[/FONT]r, indicates how distinctly it was understood that water baptism was to be administered in all such cases. We believe that every reader of these accounts will naturally, if not necessarily, receive the impression of ritual baptism here, as in the cases where it is distinctly stated or so clearly implied as to place it beyond doubt.
…No mere men could be commissioned to baptize with the higher and ultimate baptism exclusive of water, nor could the command be given to men by men to be thus baptized. Men are but the instruments employed by God and by which he is pleased to accomplish His work, and God never delegates to the instrument what belongs absolutely to Himself. He may commission men to preach repentance and remission of sins, but He commissions no man to do what He alone can do—forgive sins. So he may commission men to preach baptism and to administer the ordinance, but He does not commission men to bestow the higher and ultimate baptism into the triune God. ...We doubt if Rome has ever claimed more than is involved in this assumption by our modest Presbyterian brother. Of course he will disavow all idea of such an assumption, but we can not help thinking that his interpretation of the Great Commission, and that of the baptism of the three thousand and of Paul, must include thus much: When Christ said to the apostles, “Go ye therefore and disciple all nations, baptizing them,” etc., if He meant this highest baptism and this exclusively, then He commissioned men to administer and bestow it, and that just as actually and surely as He commissioned them to teach the observance of all things commanded by Him. It is all plain enough if we understand it of submission to a divinely instituted ordinance, the condition and proof of their discipleship to Christ, but mysterious beyond comprehension, if it must be understood of something wholly divine, a baptism of the Holy Ghost.
