Billy Graham ministry similar to Philip in Acts 8?

[KeptByTheWord]

The reason I ask this is because I have been reading through the book of Acts, and when I read Acts 8, I was struck with some similarities in the ministry of Phillip the evangelist and Billy Graham (among others).

Acts 8: 5 Then Philip went down to the city of Samaria, and preached Christ unto them. 6 And the people with one accord gave heed unto those things which Philip spake, hearing and seeing the miracles which he did. 7 For unclean spirits, crying with loud voice, came out of many that were possessed with them: and many taken with palsies, and that were lame, were healed. 8 And there was great joy in that city.

Acts 8:12 But 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. 13 Then Simon himself believed also: and when he was baptized, he continued with Philip, and wondered, beholding the miracles and signs which were done. 14 Now when the apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent unto them Peter and John: 15 Who, when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost: 16 (For as yet he was fallen upon none of them: only they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus.) 17 Then laid they their hands on them, and they received the Holy Ghost.

Some things to note in this chapter:
1. None of the converts under Philip received the Holy Ghost, but only received it when Peter & John came and laid hands on them.
2. Philip baptized, but there is no record anyone received the HG under his preaching.
3. Philip baptized the eunuch (further on in that same chapter) and was carried off by the Lord after ONLY baptizing the eunuch, no mention of HG outpouring for that man.

34 And the eunuch answered Philip, and said, I pray thee, of whom speaketh the prophet this? of himself, or of some other man? 35 Then Philip opened his mouth, and began at the same scripture, and preached unto him Jesus. 36 And as they went on their way, they came unto a certain water: and the eunuch said, See, here is water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?
37 And Philip said, If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God. 38 And he commanded the chariot to stand still: and they went down both into the water, both Philip and the eunuch; and he baptized him. 39 And when they were come up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord caught away Philip, that the eunuch saw him no more: and he went on his way rejoicing.

Was the eunuch saved?

I've heard the baptism of the eunuch used many times to teach the necessity of water baptism. But there is no mention that the eunuch was saved, or that any of the people were saved under Philip, and no mention that even after the people received the HG that they were "saved".

All throughout the NT the most common essential ingredient for salvation was first faith, then baptism. Not ONCE is there a clear statement that speaking in tongues is an essential condition for salvation.

Bottom line... I don't see much difference in the ministry of Billy Graham, and the ministry of Philip the evangelist. Both preached Jesus, both preached baptism, and both saw many people turn to Christ.

But it was not Philip's ministry that saw people filled with the HG, but rather Peter and John's.

Was Philip preaching the full gospel, or not?

Why did Peter and John have to come and lay hands on the people for them to receive the HG?

And why did they not reprimand Philip for not fully bringing people to salvation?

And why did the passage with the eunuch not mention Philip telling the eunuch he must also seek the infilling of the Holy Ghost?

[houston]

Why did Peter and John have to come and lay hands on the people for them to receive the HG?

To signify to the Apostles that the gospel was open to them. The same reason the gentiles receive “just as we did in the beginning.” The same reason Peter has a vision of unclean animals and is told to “eat.”

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by houston

To signify to the Apostles that the gospel was open to them. The same reason the gentiles receive “just as we did in the beginning.” The same reason Peter has a vision of unclean animals and is told to “eat.”

Philip was one of the 12 disciples. He was there and saw the nail prints in Jesus hands. He would have been with the 11 apostles in Acts 1 and with them on the day of Pentecost. So Philip should have been able to lay hands on the people to receive the HG.

Why didn't he?

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Philip was one of the 12 disciples. He was there and saw the nail prints in Jesus hands. He would have been with the 11 apostles in Acts 1 and with them on the day of Pentecost. So Philip should have been able to lay hands on the people to receive the HG.

Why didn't he?

The Phillip in Acts 8 wasn't the Apostle Phillip was he?

[KeptByTheWord]

Whether he was or wasn't the same apostle is debatable.

Regardless, how could anyone preach the gospel of Jesus Christ after the outpouring of the HG and not see people filled with the HG?

And why was he not reprimanded by Peter and John to change his preaching... because evidently he continued on preaching Jesus Christ and baptism, but no HG, even after Peter and John came and people were filled with the HG, as evidenced by his encounter with the eunuch.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

I've heard the baptism of the eunuch used many times to teach the necessity of water baptism. But there is no mention that the eunuch was saved, or that any of the people were saved under Philip, and no mention that even after the people received the HG that they were "saved".

He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved. The Holy Ghost is a promise to those that believe and are baptized. Did the Eunuch believe and was the Eunuch baptized? If yes then you must believe that God kept his promise, and so you must believe the Eunuch eventually received the Holy Ghost.

Have faith that God is able to deliver on his promise!

All throughout the NT the most common essential ingredient for salvation was first faith, then baptism. Not ONCE is there a clear statement that speaking in tongues is an essential condition for salvation.

Nor could there be such a statement. Tongues is not required for salvation. The Holy Spirit can be called required as you cannot be saved without it. But even then it's less of a requirement and more of a promise. God fulfills giving you the Holy Spirit as long as you fulfill the rest.

I cannot say for certain if tongues will always occur on receiving the Holy Ghost, or whether some other gift will manifest on receiving it or whether one can receive it and have no gift manifest at all. I can say that Act's portrays receiving the Holy Spirit as something fantastic with miraculous things occurring nearly every time it mentions someone receiving it. I would find it peculiar if I or someone I knew did not receive it similar to those in the book of Acts. Wouldn't you?

Bottom line... I don't see much difference in the ministry of Billy Graham, and the ministry of Philip the evangelist. Both preached Jesus, both preached baptism, and both saw many people turn to Christ.

Maybe not much difference. Maybe a lot. One surely had no objection with his converts receiving the Holy Spirit with some kind of outward sign so fantastic that a man was willing to pay to be granted that ability.

I'm not sure the same can be said about the other.

But it was not Philip's ministry that saw people filled with the HG, but rather Peter and John's.

It was God that saw people filled with the Holy Ghost.

Was Philip preaching the full gospel, or not?

I don't know how one could believe otherwise

Why did Peter and John have to come and lay hands on the people for them to receive the HG?

Because that's how God chose to fulfill his promise to them

And why did they not reprimand Philip for not fully bringing people to salvation?

How could they when the Holy Spirit is not Philips to give?

And why did the passage with the eunuch not mention Philip telling the eunuch he must also seek the infilling of the Holy Ghost?

I can't think of anywhere in the bible that people are admonished to seek the initial infilling of the Holy Spirit. The modern day practice of seeking it as we do may not have a biblical origin.

That said, there is always "Ask and ye shall receive" "Seek and ye shall find". So even if the practice itself isn't biblical at least there are biblical principles to fall back on in regards to it.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Mark 16:16-17 He that believeth and is BAPTIZED shall be SAVED; but he that believeth not shall be damned. And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with NEW TONGUES

Don't have to hunt and pick to the Bible to find the initial evidence of tongues teaching in the New Testament. Baptism is just as plain. Jesus name baptism is mandatory The only reason why Apostolic Pentecostals even entertain the idea that Billy was saved, or like a Biblical missionary is because of his fame. Sorry KBTW, I mean you no disrespect. But eternity is too long to be wrong. I know we spit and whittle about these subjects, but for me to think that Billy Graham is a book of Acts preacher is like saying the Apostle Paul is like a Time Lord.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

Whether he was or wasn't the same apostle is debatable.

Regardless, how could anyone preach the gospel of Jesus Christ after the outpouring of the HG and not see people filled with the HG?

And why was he not reprimanded by Peter and John to change his preaching... because evidently he continued on preaching Jesus Christ and baptism, but no HG, even after Peter and John came and people were filled with the HG, as evidenced by his encounter with the eunuch.

Phillip also would of understood John 3:8 and Mark 16:16-17. The Bible is wholistic and must be understood in its own context. Playing Thomas Jefferson with the Bible and scissors usually end up with wrong conclusions. Peter and John church elders were summoned as the threefold witness, and
to signify to the that the gospel was open to Samaria. The Northern capital of the Kingdom of Israel. Acts 2:5 has every Judean from the Diaspora in the known world. Acts 8:4-40 has Samaria (the Northern Kingdom) being rejoined with the Judea (the Southern Kingdom) Acts 10:1-48 has the Romans being grafted into the domestic olive tree, through Acts 2:38. Deuteronomy 23:1 strictly prohibits a eunuch from entering the assembly of the Lord. Yet, Isaiah spoke of a time when Messiah would make all things NEW Isaiah 56:3. The New Testament isn't a play by play, but shows Judeans who lived 2,000 years ago their story. Which they understood CLEARLY. We need to understand what it meant to THEM, for it to WORK for US. What we sadly do is make up our own 20th century theological view of the scriptures and therefore everything that says Jesus gets a ride on the bus to heaven.

The book of Acts is relaying the story on how Israel/Judah is restored and how all those who were once afar off are now allowed through her gates.

If we can't navigate the path, we won't find the door, If we don't have the key, we won't be able to get through the cracked opening.

[thephnxman]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

The reason I ask this is because I have been reading through the book of Acts, and when I read Acts 8,
I was struck with some similarities in the ministry of Phillip the evangelist and Billy Graham (among others).

And why did the passage with the eunuch not mention Philip telling the eunuch he must also seek the
infilling of the Holy Ghost?

___________

Before installing a roof, one must first install the foundation upon which the roof
and walls are established. Listen:

Jesus told Peter:
"And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven..." And so it was
Peter that was to OPEN the door to the kingdom (there's only ONE door);

Before ascending, Jesus commanded:
"...ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye
shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria,
and unto the uttermost part of the earth." So Peter had to open the door of the
kingdom FIRST to the Jews; then to the Samaritans; and finally, to the Gentiles:
and this did Peter. Witness chapters 2, 8, and 10, in the Book of Acts,

The eunuch to whom Phillip preached the gospel was a "Gentile"; and the door to
the kingdom was not yet opened to them! The first Gentiles to receive the message
to enter the kingdom was the centurion and his house (Acts 10).

I hope this helps

Brother Villa

[consapente89]

Peter opened the door of the Gospel to every people group in the Book of Acts because he had the keys. Acts 2, 8 & 10. The Samaritans were a new people group that had not yet received the Gospel and it was required that an Apostle, namely Phillip, open the door to them. It was also required that Peter open the door to the Gentiles.