What was wrong with Phillip?

[Esaias]

Phillip's evangelistic ministry is described in Acts. Only two events are described. In one case (the eunuch) no mention is made of him receiving the Holy Ghost. In the other case (Samaria) it is specifically stated the converts did NOT receive the Spirit.

Seems to be a pattern here. Why does Luke make an issue of pointing out the Samaritans did NOT receive the Spirit, and yet leave out any mention of the Ethiopian receiving the Spirit? Is Luke trying to make a point?

What would we think of an evangelist who could get folks into the water but none of them ever got the Holy Ghost?

[KeptByTheWord]

Well then.... what are gonna do with the Apostle Paul who stated in 1 Cor. 1:17 that it was not his job to get people into the water, but that Christ called him to preach the gospel....

[Evang.Benincasa]

Phillip's evangelistic ministry is described in Acts. Only two events are described. In one case (the eunuch) no mention is made of him receiving the Holy Ghost. In the other case (Samaria) it is specifically stated the converts did NOT receive the Spirit.

Seems to be a pattern here. Why does Luke make an issue of pointing out the Samaritans did NOT receive the Spirit, and yet leave out any mention of the Ethiopian receiving the Spirit? Is Luke trying to make a point?

What would we think of an evangelist who could get folks into the water but none of them ever got the Holy Ghost?

How about a Mormon missionary getting the Holy Ghost with speaking in other tongues after you convince him of the Apostolic truth? All this while he is standing with the another missionary in a church parking lot? The other missionary was terrified! The one speaking in tongues could barely walk back to his bicycle. The moment the young missionary lifted his hands and said Jesus I love you! He burst into tears, and with snot bubbles flowing he began to speak in another tongue as the Spirit gave the utterance!

Yet, I wasn't translated.

[KeptByTheWord]

How about a Mormon missionary getting the Holy Ghost with speaking in other tongues after you convince him of the Apostolic truth? All this while he is standing with the another missionary in a church parking lot? The other missionary was terrified! The one speaking in tongues could barely walk back to his bicycle. The moment the young missionary lifted his hands and said Jesus I love you! He burst into tears, and with snot bubbles flowing he began to speak in another tongue as the Spirit gave the utterance!

Yet, I wasn't translated.

What an awesome testimony Bro.!

You are right - we want to find all the truth we can in one simple statement or telling of an event... but we can by no means say that just because your Morman missionary friend received the HG in the parking lot that he did not seek the Lord any further, or find himself buried in the waters of baptism. Surely there is more to your story.... and surely there must be more to the story of both Phillip and Paul. :)

[Evang.Benincasa]

What an awesome testimony Bro.!

You are right - we want to find all the truth we can in one simple statement or telling of an event... but we can by no means say that just because your Morman missionary friend received the HG in the parking lot that he did not seek the Lord any further, or find himself buried in the waters of baptism. Surely there is more to your story.... and surely there must be more to the story of both Phillip and Paul. :)

Amen! :highfive

[mizpeh]

Phillip's evangelistic ministry is described in Acts. Only two events are described. In one case (the eunuch) no mention is made of him receiving the Holy Ghost. In the other case (Samaria) it is specifically stated the converts did NOT receive the Spirit.

Seems to be a pattern here. Why does Luke make an issue of pointing out the Samaritans did NOT receive the Spirit, and yet leave out any mention of the Ethiopian receiving the Spirit? Is Luke trying to make a point?

What would we think of an evangelist who could get folks into the water but none of them ever got the Holy Ghost?

Luke doesn't give us everything that happens or is said in each book of Acts evangelistic encounter. He relates the aspects of the encounter that he deems important through the anointing of the Spirit.

If we start with the presupposition that speaking with tongues accompanies the baptism of the Spirit as it did in Acts 2, which imo is the basic pattern for all who will receive the Spirit, then I would expect that the Eunuch received the Spirit otherwise Philip would have sent for the apostles as he did in Samaria.

[FlamingZword]

What an awesome testimony Bro.!

You are right - we want to find all the truth we can in one simple statement or telling of an event... but we can by no means say that just because your Morman missionary friend received the HG in the parking lot that he did not seek the Lord any further, or find himself buried in the waters of baptism. Surely there is more to your story.... and surely there must be more to the story of both Phillip and Paul. :)

Of course there is always more to the story.

Most people forget that the book of acts is actually a small summary of the acts of Peter and Paul in the early church.

They do not tell every detail of their ministry.
the travels of Paul are described quite briefly with little details of what happened in those travels.

[shag]

:evilglee Easy, Phillip the evangelist was not an apostle. :stirpot


:shocked: :jaw
Let the stoning begin!
:smack:smack:smack:smack:smack
:throwrock:throwrock:throwrock:throwrock:throwrock

[navygoat1998]

:evilglee Easy, Phillip the evangelist was not an apostle. :stirpot


:shocked: :jaw
Let the stoning begin!
:smack:smack:smack:smack:smack
:throwrock:throwrock:throwrock:throwrock:throwrock

He was a Baptist :heeheehee

[FlamingZword]

:evilglee Easy, Phillip the evangelist was not an apostle. :stirpot




some of the ancient texts have him as Phillip the apostle.
so either it was the same Philip or a different Philip.

[thephnxman]

Phillip's evangelistic ministry is described in Acts. Only two events are described. In one case (the eunuch) no mention is made of him receiving the Holy Ghost. In the other case (Samaria) it is specifically stated the converts did NOT receive the Spirit.
Seems to be a pattern here. Why does Luke make an issue of pointing out the Samaritans did NOT receive the Spirit, and yet leave out any mention of the Ethiopian receiving the Spirit? Is Luke trying to make a point?
What would we think of an evangelist who could get folks into the water but none of them ever got the Holy Ghost?

Beloved, we must remember that the KEYS to the kingdom were given to Peter. So it
was Peter who was to open the way into the kingdom for "...Jerusalem and all Judea, and
in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
The KEYS were not given to Phillip.

[Lafon]

Phillip's evangelistic ministry is described in Acts. Only two events are described. In one case (the eunuch) no mention is made of him receiving the Holy Ghost. In the other case (Samaria) it is specifically stated the converts did NOT receive the Spirit.

Seems to be a pattern here. Why does Luke make an issue of pointing out the Samaritans did NOT receive the Spirit, and yet leave out any mention of the Ethiopian receiving the Spirit? Is Luke trying to make a point?

What would we think of an evangelist who could get folks into the water but none of them ever got the Holy Ghost?

It does say that following Philip's baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch that "he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:39). I've always interpreted that to infer that following his baptism in water he received the gift of the Holy Ghost, for "rejoicing" is a common result of being baptized in the Spirit.

[shag]

Beloved, we must remember that the KEYS to the kingdom were given to Peter. So it
was Peter who was to open the way into the kingdom for "...Jerusalem and all Judea, and
in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth."
The KEYS were not given to Phillip.



Phillip had alreay preached the gospel of Christ and His Kingdom to them(Samaritans-acts 8), they then were baptised in the name of Jesus Christ, BEFORE Peter was sent or showed up.


So the question remains, why would Phillip the evangelist be able to preach the gospel, baptise folks that gladly received it, yet Peter and John were sent...Did they not have certain "goods" that Phillip the evangelist lacked? Or what was their purpose if Phillip lacked nothing by preaching the gospel and baptizing?

[n david]

It does say that following Philip's baptizing the Ethiopian eunuch that "he went on his way rejoicing" (Acts 8:39). I've always interpreted that to infer that following his baptism in water he received the gift of the Holy Ghost, for "rejoicing" is a common result of being baptized in the Spirit.
This is what I believe as well.

[Michael The Disciple]

Evidently the "keys" must be able to be passed on. Otherwise Peter would not have been allowed to die. We have to get the Holy Ghost SOMEHOW.

My testimony of the Holy Ghost is I had never been in a Pentecostal Church in my life. Matter of fact 6 weeks after repenting and believing I had not attended ANY CHURCH.

As I prayed at work April 3 1974 I had a strange (to me) experience that involved another language and its meaning coming through me. As a doctrine I was not aware of the meaning of it. But after that time I began having prophetic dreams that have occured from time to time since then.

Point being the eunuch and many others could have received the Holy Spirit through the sovereign will of God at another time and we just dont have the recorded testimony.

[Esaias]

I was just wondering if Luke was making a theological point in his accounts of Phillip's ministry.

[votivesoul]

What would we think of an evangelist who could get folks into the water but none of them ever got the Holy Ghost?

I would be thrilled. It would mean people are gathering to hear the Word of the Lord. It would mean sinners are confessing and repenting. It would mean lost souls are turning their lives over to Jesus and believing in Him. It would mean remission of multitudes of sins. It would mean that as many as truly believed and were baptized would be saved, as the promise of the Father was theirs to receive.

What a great revival it would be!

[votivesoul]

I was just wondering if Luke was making a theological point in his accounts of Phillip's ministry.

I think the main point Luke was trying to make (if he was indeed trying to MAKE a point rather than just relate the facts) is that Philip was a consecrated deacon, evangelist, and true man of God who knew how to obey the leading of the Holy Spirit.

In Samaria:

1.) Philip preached Christ, just as he was commissioned (a deacon who uses his office well has great boldness in the faith of Jesus Christ - 1 Timothy 3:13)

2.) He had such an anointing on him that "multitudes" heeded his preaching.

3.) He performed miracles out of God's abundance, including exorcisms and "wheel-chair" type signs.

In Gaza:

1.) Philip hears the angel of the Lord tell him to draw near to the chariot

2.) Philip was able, from Isaiah, to preach Jesus Christ, with an anointing such that it caused the Ethiopian to want to immediately enter into the New Covenant.

3.) Philip was caught up by the Spirit to go onto other things

If we had a modern day Philip in our midst and all of the above happened and someone poo-pooed him because people didn't receive the Holy Spirit, they'd be nuts.

[DaveC519]

Luke doesn't give us everything that happens or is said in each book of Acts evangelistic encounter. He relates the aspects of the encounter that he deems important through the anointing of the Spirit.

If we start with the presupposition that speaking with tongues accompanies the baptism of the Spirit as it did in Acts 2, which imo is the basic pattern for all who will receive the Spirit, then I would expect that the Eunuch received the Spirit otherwise Philip would have sent for the apostles as he did in Samaria.
:thumbsup

[FlamingZword]

Has anyone taken into account that The Eunuch was not a Samaritan.

Peter had to open the door to the Samaritans, but since the Eunuch was not a Samaritan there was no need for Philip to call Peter, The Eunuch was a Jewish convert like the ones Peter preached on the day of Pentecost.

Once the door was opened by Peter, then anyone else could begin evangelizing the Samaritans.

[thephnxman]

Has anyone taken into account that The Eunuch was not a Samaritan.

Peter had to open the door to the Samaritans, but since the Eunuch was not a Samaritan there was no need for Philip to call Peter, The Eunuch was a Jewish convert like the ones Peter preached on the day of Pentecost.

Once the door was opened by Peter, then anyone else could begin evangelizing the Samaritans.

Good point.
Something to chew on.

[Esaias]

So... suppose you have an evangelist come through town preaching the gospel (which would include preaching about the Spirit, I would imagine...). And folks repent and are baptised. But nobody received the Spirit.

Does the evangelist send for someone else to carry on the work? Who?

Does the evangelist just tell them "go to nearest pentecostal church and pray through"?

Any other ideas?