[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.