Billy Graham ministry similar to Philip in Acts 8?

[thephnxman]

His NAME is Jesus!@

Originally Posted by 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.

Beloved, that was not the Apostle Phillip: it was a disciple chosen to serve the tables
for the widows (Acts 6). This Phillip was executing "...the work of the ministry...",
which is the primary function of [everyone] in the Church. He was later called into
the office of evangelist.

Brother Villa

[Tithesmeister]

Originally Posted by 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.

EB,

With all due respect I would like to have you read the scripture you quoted above. You seem to interpret it as initial evidence. I believe it is not an example of initial evidence for this reason. Before new tongues is mentioned, casting out devils is mentioned.

Is casting out devils initial evidence?

We have other scripture that I believe support speaking in tongues. I do believe in tongues, I just believe that this is a poor example to support initial evidence.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

God bless.

[consapente89]

Originally Posted by thephnxman

His NAME is Jesus!@



Beloved, that was not the Apostle Phillip: it was a disciple chosen to serve the tables
for the widows (Acts 6). This Phillip was executing "...the work of the ministry...",
which is the primary function of [everyone] in the Church. He was later called into
the office of evangelist.

Brother Villa

I'm sorry I meant the Apostle Peter. No Phillip was not an Apostle. My apologies.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

EB,

With all due respect I would like to have you read the scripture you quoted above. You seem to interpret it as initial evidence. I believe it is not an example of initial evidence for this reason. Before new tongues is mentioned, casting out devils is mentioned.

Is casting out devils initial evidence?

We have other scripture that I believe support speaking in tongues. I do believe in tongues, I just believe that this is a poor example to support initial evidence.

Let me know what your thoughts are.

God bless.

Let's see, casting out devils, no sound, laying on hands, no sound, drinking deadly things, no sound, picking up serpents, no sound. New tongues SOUND.

While casting out devils and laying on of hands has the sound of prayer, it is the authority we are initially given. Yet, Jesus said "the Spirit breathes where He will, and you hear His voice, but you do not know from where he comes and where he goes; thus is everyone who is born from The Spirit.” You will hear the voice of His Spirit from everyone who is born again. Authority is initially given to everyone who receive the Holy Ghost when you hear the sound of the Spirit which is tongues.

[Amanah]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Let's see, casting out devils, no sound, laying on hands, no sound, drinking deadly things, no sound, picking up serpents, no sound. New tongues SOUND.

While casting out devils and laying on of hands has the sound of prayer, it is the authority we are initially given. Yet, Jesus said "the Spirit breathes where He will, and you hear His voice, but you do not know from where he comes and where he goes; thus is everyone who is born from The Spirit.” You will hear the voice of His Spirit from everyone who is born again. Authority is initially given to everyone who receive the Holy Ghost when you hear the sound of the Spirit which is tongues.

:

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote the entire passage and it changes the perspective a bit...

16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

17 And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;

18 They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

There is not just one sign mentioned here but several signs, new tongues among them.

The "new tongues" is always picked out as the sign, but in this passage, it is among a list of signs that is plural, not singular.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by jfrog

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!

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?

In the book of Acts, we find that sometimes tongues were present, sometimes they weren't on a new birth experience. Couple that with no specific scripture equating tongues with salvation, then it is a stretch to equate tongues with salvation, especially being that it is given as a promise. If God doesn't fulfill His promise, and fill someone with tongues, does that then mean they are not saved?

How about all the people who have asked, have had hands laid on them, who have repented, and still have not received the promise?

How about the eunuch who went on his way rejoicing? No mention of tongues in his experience.

That is why it is dangerous to say tongues is a sign of salvation. No scripture does that, and neither should we.

Should we encourage the new tongues experience? Absolutely. But do not equate tongues with salvation, because the scripture is just not there to support it.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Let's see, casting out devils, no sound, laying on hands, no sound, drinking deadly things, no sound, picking up serpents, no sound. New tongues SOUND.

While casting out devils and laying on of hands has the sound of prayer, it is the authority we are initially given. Yet, Jesus said "the Spirit breathes where He will, and you hear His voice, but you do not know from where he comes and where he goes; thus is everyone who is born from The Spirit.” You will hear the voice of His Spirit from everyone who is born again. Authority is initially given to everyone who receive the Holy Ghost when you hear the sound of the Spirit which is tongues.

The eunuch went on his way rejoicing ... there is sound in that passage. Many people rejoice in their new birth experience, without speaking in new tongues.

[KeptByTheWord]

Back to the original question... I understand that there were different people groups that needed to be introduced to the gospel of Jesus Christ in that time. And it is important to note that Peter and John went to lay hands on the people Philip had preached to, and then they received the HG experience, so powerful and exciting that Simon the sorcerer wanted to buy it.

So we see the key had been delivered to unlock the promise of the HG to these folks.

Why then did Philip not preach the FULL (repent, baptism, tongues) experience to the eunuch? He certainly heard the message Peter and John preached, and whoever he was (the apostle, or the evangelist, scripture is not clear), he should have been enlightened at that point, and certainly should have changed his message at that point.

Why was he still preaching only repentance and baptism AFTER Peter and John visited?

That is the thorn here in this whole discussion.

And why I still wonder about the correlation of the deceased Dr. Graham, and Philip. Dr. Graham most certainly heard the good news about tongues, and rejected it, for whatever reason. Did Philip also reject it? And just continue preaching what he had already been preaching?

[Esaias]

It's amazing to me how a question can be asked, answered, and then asked again as if no answer had been given.

And now we've gotten to the point where Phillip's character is impugned!

smh