[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The Acts 2 sermon is the result of the miraculous outpouring of the Holy Spirit.

A miraculous outpouring that had no witnesses when it happened except the church. People gathered to see what was going on, and they discovered a Pentecostal meeting.

Simon Peter's Acts 3 and Acts 4 sermon is the result of the lame man at the Gate being healed.

They never preached or taught in the Temple prior to that?

Stephen's Acts 7 sermon is the result of the miracles he performed.

He was speaking because he had been arrested and was being tried for blasphemy and sedition. He was falsely accused by people who 'disputed' with him for a time. He spent his time in religious debates with opposers and unbelievers. Those debates came about because he was doing miracles and wonders 'among the people'. But PRIOR TO THAT, 'the word of God increased', meaning some kind of preaching was going on PRIOR to him doing miracles.

Philipp's success in Samaria was due to the miracles he performed.

Phillip went down to Samaria and preached Christ to them. The people gave heed to his preaching, seeing the miracles that occurred. Nothing about miracles first, then preaching. In fact, the order of Luke's narrative indicates the miracles were confirmatory of the word preached, not that the preaching was explanatory of the miracles worked.

Simon Peter's Acts 10 is due to the miraculous visitation of an angel.

An angel visited a non Christian as a result of the non Christian's prayers, not because of any anointing on Peter. Peter showed up, and preached Christ, and as a result of the preaching, a miraculous outpouring of the Spirit took place on those who heard the preaching.

The rest of Acts continues in much the same fashion, wherever "street preaching" takes place.

Acts 19, the disciples at Ephesus - preaching first, then outpouring of the Spirit.
Conversion of Paul - miraculous 'spiritual event' takes place in an unbeliever's life which results in him meeting a Christian. The Christian preaches to him, and lays hands on him and Paul gets his blindness removed and gets filled with the Holy Ghost.
Acts 13 - Paul preaching is interrupted and debated by a Jew named Elymas. Paul speaks and Elymas is blinded and carted off, and the preaching continues.
Acts 16 - Paul and company resort to a regular place of prayer, and a demon possessed woman shows up harassing them. He casts out the demon, and gets called into court over it and is able to testify.

There is no 'pattern' in Acts, rather there is preaching, and there is supernatural activity associated with the disciples everywhere they go. Sometimes supernatural events create an opportunity for preaching. Sometimes it follows preaching. Sometimes it occurs during the preaching. Sometimes it is absent altogether. Sometimes it takes place when and where no Christians are in the vicinity whatsoever. I think you are mistaken in your analysis.

The idea of going out to preach, and then maybe getting a chance to be used by God to perform a miracle isn't the ideal way.

The ideal way is to go forth, led by the Spirit to be in the right place at the right time to meet the right person/people, and deliver the word of the Lord, and expecting any needs for 'miracles, signs and wonders' to be supplied as needed, when needed, where needed, by the Holy Ghost

At the end of Mark, we see that the Lord confirmed the word the Apostles were sharing with signs.

The signs confirmed the word preached, not the other way around. This itself implies the 'standard' or 'normative pattern' would be that a message is preached and the miraculous accompanies the preaching in such a way as to help convince the hearers of the divine authority of the message.

Preaching the Gospel without signs, wonders, and diverse miracles isn't going to convince a whole lot of people that what a person is preaching is of great value to them.

And that says nothing about the 'ideal order of events'.