Billy Graham ministry similar to Philip in Acts 8?

[Tithesmeister]

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.

Brother, this is a list of five signs. New tongues is one of the five. It is not given any prominence in the list. It doesn’t matter about the sound or lack of sound. The context is that these signs will follow them that believe.

This is not like twisting my words or the words of Aquila (although you do that as well), these are the words of Jesus. Please reconsider your words and admit that this is NOT speaking of initial evidence.

Otherwise we would need to amend the list of initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost to speaking in tongues and taking up serpents and casting out devils, and . . . and etc..

This is not that.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Tithesmeister

Brother, this is a list of five signs. New tongues is one of the five. It is not given any prominence in the list. It doesn’t matter about the sound or lack of sound. The context is that these signs will follow them that believe.

This is not like twisting my words or the words of Aquila (although you do that as well), these are the words of Jesus. Please reconsider your words and admit that this is NOT speaking of initial evidence.

Otherwise we would need to amend the list of initial evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost to speaking in tongues and taking up serpents and casting out devils, and . . . and etc..

This is not that.

My thoughts as well. Well said.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

He has an angel and the Holy Ghost instructing him but you believe that Phillip refused to preach tongues? In Acts 22:16 no tongues is recorded, yet Paul said he spoke in tongues more than anyone 1 Corinthians 14:18 . Again, the New Testament isn't a detailed play by play, it must be taken wholistically in order to get a better picture. Jesus tells Nicodemo that "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.”
It is that simple, Phillip wasn't a renegade or forgetful, or the doctrine of tongues was just one of many gifts. Tongues was explained to Nicodemus, that in everyone which is birthed by the Spirit you will hear the Spirit's voice. Which Mark explains as New Tongues.

I am asking WHY didn't Philip preach Acts 2:38 to the eunuch? Especially after Peter and John came down and the people received the HG. Repentance and baptism were important to Philip, that much is clear, because we see that happening in both instances recorded of his ministry. But there is no scriptural reference to him teaching about the promise of the HG.

We know that Paul's initial new birth experience does not record tongues, but later he mentions that he does speak in tongues, so by that we gather he did speak in tongues. But we have no further information to glean about Philip in that regard.

If it is the same Philip that was waiting tables, we know he was full of the HG. However, we don't know for sure WHICH Philip it is, because that information is not written, it is assumed that it is, but we cannot know for sure. It could have been the apostle Philip too. Either way, it seems likely that both of them had to have received the promise of the HG in their lives.

The question remains that even after Peter and John came down and the HG was given, Philip continued to preach repentance and baptism, with no mention of a further infilling of the HG with tongues.

I know that scripture leaves out a lot of details that we would have preferred to have to further enlighten us. However, just going on the information that we have in Acts 8, we are not sure which Philip it is, why he was only preaching repentance and baptism, even after people had received the HG, and yet his ministry was remarkable enough that the Lord caught him away in the spirit after this encounter with the eunuch.

Hence my wonderment about Billy Graham being somewhat like Philip in the sense that he brought many people to Christ, who hopefully have gone on to experience the fullness of the gospel, such as what Peter and John brought to the people.

Could it be possible that even if they did not preach the gospel in its entirety of Acts 2:38 that God allowed them to work and be used in spite of their lack of sharing about the promise of the HG?

I know that the complete answer to this question I posed is something only God knows, and that there is not one of us that really understands why Philip didn't preach about the promise of the HG to the eunuch.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by consapente89

No you cannot compare Phillip's ministry with that of Graham. Graham wasn't even in the Church and Phillip was ordained by the Apostles for his ministry. Graham didn't have the Holy Ghost and Phillip did.

Acts 6:3-5 (KJV) 3 Wherefore, brethren, look ye out among you seven men of honest report, full of the Holy Ghost and wisdom, whom we may appoint over this business. 4 But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. 5 And the saying pleased the whole multitude: and they chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Ghost, and Philip, and Prochorus, and Nicanor, and Timon, and Parmenas, and Nicolas a proselyte of Antioch:

If that is the same Philip would be the first question.

Indeed with either the apostle Philip, or the waiting on tables Philip, both were recorded to have received the promise of the HG.

Yes, it could have been the apostle Philip, the waiting on tables Philip or perhaps even another Philip, we don't know. All we know is it was a man named Philip with no delineation given of who he was, no mention if he was the apostle, the waiting on tables guy, or another Philip entirely.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Esaias

You haven't shown that's all he was preaching. According to Acts 8:5 he preached Christ, according to Acts 8:12 he preached the things concerning the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ. Phillip was also operating in the Spirit, he preached the gospel with signs and wonders confirming the word (Acts 8:6-7).

So you are assuming things, and then basing your argument on your assumptions.

I stated the outcomes of Philip's message (repentance and baptism) in both accounts occurred in both instances of his ministry, before and after Peter and John's visit. Nothing assumed there.

[KeptByTheWord]

Originally Posted by Esaias

This right here is where many Pentecostals go off the rails and fall into the canyon below. The clouds are thick with the buzzards circling overhead, too.

Neither Phillip, nor any apostle, nor the entire early apostolic church, preached an "experience". They preached the Gospel of the Kingdom of God. Those who received their message "experienced" the effects of the Kingdom. You start preaching an "experience" and strong delusion is waiting in the wings.

Everyone is now looking for an "experience" instead of looking for Jesus and His Kingdom. Thus, we have a lot of tongue-talkers but few bona fide PENTECOSTAL, APOSTOLIC CHRISTIANS.

Isn't preaching Acts 2:38 preaching an experience?

Actually I agree with you on this. Preaching only on the experience gets people way off track. But that is what happens most times when people just preach the Acts 2:38 message.

I agree with you that Jesus should be preached, the gospel of the kingdom preached, tell about the promise that was given, and then let God work in people's hearts, instead of telling people they need to seek the experience, i.e. tongues, instead of Jesus himself.

Preach Jesus, the gospel, and the kingdom and not just an experience.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

In the book of Acts, we find that sometimes tongues were present, sometimes they weren't on a new birth experience.

Can you cite any example where someone is cited as receiving the Holy Ghost and either tongues or some other miraculous event not being present?

I can show a lot of people that repented and were baptized. I do believe that those people went on to receive the Holy Spirit but I cannot say with any authority when or how as the scripture is silent on that.

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?

Let me repeat. Tongues are not necessary for salvation. Tongues are not a requirement for salvation.

However, you have bigger problems than that, you insinuated that God may not fulfill his promise. Isn't that borderline blasphemy? God will always fulfill his promises.

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

God gave no timeline for when such people would receive the Holy Spirit, only that they would.

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

There was no mention of him receiving the Holy Spirit in that experience. What makes you so certain he received it there and not a month later?

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

Possibly so, however, some may think it's more dangerous to think you have the Holy Spirit when how you think you received it doesn't match up with how people in the book of Acts received it.

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.

Right, tongues is not ever listed as necessary or a requirement of receiving the Holy Ghost or for receiving salvation. I firmly believe God is able to provide the Holy Spirit to any person with or without a sign present at his discretion. It's his promise and his gift.

That said, as an individual, if the way I think I received the Holy Spirit is vastly different from the way those in the book of Acts received it then I am going to be questioning whether I really received or whether I just think I did. I would think any God fearing person would do so.

[jfrog]

Originally Posted by KeptByTheWord

If that is the same Philip would be the first question.

Indeed with either the apostle Philip, or the waiting on tables Philip, both were recorded to have received the promise of the HG.

Yes, it could have been the apostle Philip, the waiting on tables Philip or perhaps even another Philip, we don't know. All we know is it was a man named Philip with no delineation given of who he was, no mention if he was the apostle, the waiting on tables guy, or another Philip entirely.

I would think it was the same Phillip commissioned by the Apostles in Acts 6.

1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.”
5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen, a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their hands on them.

It is no coincidence that Acts 7 talks about Stephen and Acts 8 talks about Phillip right after these men were introduced in Acts 6.

[LifeGuide]

I’m always amazed when I read these posts about tongues (which I emphatically believe in) that there is never any mention of the fruit of the Spirit. The older I get the more my personal litmus test has become; what kind of fruit am I producing? I’ve been around plenty of people who could put on a good show at the altar but had a hard time walking it out. In my estimation, it’s much harder to fake the fruit side. As an old elder has said time and time again, the dove has 2 wings. One-the gifts and the other the fruit. That dove won’t “fly” without a proper balancing of both. What does this have to do with the previous posts? Not sure. Lol. Just my 2 cents.

[thephnxman]

His NAME is Jesus!

Originally Posted by jfrog

I would think it was the same Phillip commissioned by the Apostles in Acts 6.

1In those days when the number of disciples was increasing, the Hellenistic Jews[a] among them complained
against the Hebraic Jews because their widows were being overlooked in the daily distribution of food. 2 So the
Twelve gathered all the disciples together and said, “It would not be right for us to neglect the ministry of the
word of God in order to wait on tables. 3 Brothers and sisters, choose seven men from among you who are
known to be full of the Spirit and wisdom. We will turn this responsibility over to them 4 and will give our
attention to prayer and the ministry of the word.” 5 This proposal pleased the whole group. They chose Stephen,
a man full of faith and of the Holy Spirit; also Philip, Procorus, Nicanor, Timon, Parmenas, and Nicolas
from Antioch, a convert to Judaism. 6 They presented these men to the apostles, who prayed and laid their
hands on them.

It is no coincidence that Acts 7 talks about Stephen and Acts 8 talks about Phillip right after these men were
introduced in Acts 6.

I was just about to write on the very same topic.
(And basically expound on the very same things you did)

Brother Villa