Bible Study Do you believe everything in Acts is doctrinally for today

[sehad]

As you concede, nowhere does scripture say that 'tongues' is necessary for salvation. So to me it is a rather dangerous thing to say it is necessary in order to have true salvation. Is there another type of salvation?

Ok, maybe "true" salvation is not the term that I should have used. I'm not really good at explaining what I mean sometimes, but I will try. What I mean by "true" salvation is this: In John chapter 16, Jesus tells his disciples after he is taken up that he will send the Comforter(the Holy Ghost, Holy Spirit, what have you) to them and in verse 13 Jesus states: "Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come."(KJV) In Philipians Chapter 2, Paul, in his letter to the church at Philippi, tells the church in verse 12 to work out their own salvation with fear and trembling. In other words, seek out what salvation is, but do it with reverence and respect. Now if you are seeking out salvation, how would you go about it? You would seek the Holy Ghost because, as shown, the Comforter will lead you into all truth. As you well know, Christ did most of his teaching through parables. In Luke chapter 12, he tells the story of a master that leaves and his servants begin to do things they shouldn't. When the master returned, the servants that knew his instruction and did not obey were beaten with many stripes and the servants that knew not the mater's instructions were beaten with only a few stripes, and point Jesus is making is in verse 48....unto whomsoever much is given, of him shall be much required. Therefore, I believe that there is one "true" salvation, but only God himself(not religion) will show you that and you must do so by seeking his will and studying the word of God. My interpretation of this is that if someone that is doing all that they know how to do and is truly seeking God's will, I do not believe that God will turn his back on them. My backing for this is this, in John chapter 9, John told Jesus that they found one that did not follow them that was casting out devils and he forbade them to cast out devils because they didn't follow them. And Jesus responded to John by telling him not to forbide him just because he didn't follow with them. Ok, all that to say this....if you are following the Holy Ghost which will lead you into all truth, but you have not yet reached full truth and the rapture takes place will you be lost? I am not the judge but I think not, that is where what is truly in your heart will come to the surface. If you have been shown something that is against your personal belief and do not test it out with God and just ignore it, you're opening yourself up for alot of trouble because we as humans cannot rightly divide the word of truth, only with the direction of the Holy Ghost can we.

I think you would also have to concede that tongues is a gift. So I ask you, what if God has not given me the gift of tongues? What if God has given me the gift of prophecy or discernement or some other gift - but not tongues. Does that exclude me from true salvation or perhaps give me salvation at a different level to you? No of course not. God has given each member of the body different gifts. Otherwise, the body could not function.

What do you say to this?

My answer is this, there are two different type of tongues. One is refered to as "new" tongues. In Mark 16:17 is says that one of the signs that will follow them that believe is that will speak with "new" tongues. The new refered to in this scripture is the initial speaking in tongues, which is the evidence of the Holy Ghost. Afterall, it can only be new if you've never done it before. The second is that of 1 Corinthians 12:10, aka as one of the Gifts of the Spirit. This is known as Divers tongues. This gift is given for the edification of the church but must be used in conjunction with the gift of interpretation of tongues. Usually these are given by two different people in the service, but I have seen it to where both were given by one person. The "new" tongue is the evidence of the Holy Ghost. There are five examples in the Bible of people receiving the Holy Ghost (Acts 2:4; 8:17; 9:17; 10:44; 19:6). In three out of the five examples we are told that they spoke in tongues when they received the Holy Ghost. In one of the examples, a bystander saw that they were filled with the Holy Ghost so there had to be some physical evidence since I can say that I have never SEEN the Holy Ghost. I speak in tongues but I have never given tongues and interpretation in service. They are two totally different animals if you will. A question for you is have you ever spoken in tongues before and why do you believe that they are not necessary?

 

[gingercat]

Charismatic churches sure emphasize the gift of tongues way too much. Paul never give as much credit as much as you do. In fact the gift of tongues is the last in the list in the gifts.

 

[SputnikBoy]

A question for you is have you ever spoken in tongues before and why do you believe that they are not necessary?

'Tongues' were 'known languages' but unknown to the speaker. They were NEVER the language of angels. And, they were given as a sign to the non-believer. How does this fit in with the current examples we hear of those who 'speak in tongues'?

 

[mutzrein]

Thanks for the reply sehad. I appreciate the length that you have gone to, to explain your position. I also understand and recognise the desire within your heart to serve God. I have no wish to 'knock' that.

From what you have said, I can see a number of folks willing to wade into the debate on tongues itself but I will not.

You ask if I have spoken in tongues. Yes I have – and in different contexts. I was brought up in a very similar environment to you.

And why do I believe they are not necessary? For a number of reasons.
1 Being born again and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (with the so called evidence of speaking in tongues) are not two experiences. They are one.
2 Many who support the view that it is, use scripture but ignore the unique context of the time: Jesus giving instruction to the disciples, Jesus returning to the Father, the Father sending the Holy Spirit.
3 Scripture does not state that it is necessary for salvation.
4 From personal experience and having lived long enough to recognise the Spirit of God in others who know and walk with God but have never spoken in tongues.

May I PM you?

 

[SputnikBoy]

Thanks for the reply sehad. I appreciate the length that you have gone to, to explain your position. I also understand and recognise the desire within your heart to serve God. I have no wish to 'knock' that.

I agree with you, mutz, that sehad's desire to serve God should not be 'knocked'. He (?) did, however, make a pretty bold statement that I felt needed to be challenged.

From what you have said, I can see a number of folks willing to wade into the debate on tongues itself but I will not.

Well, not quite. I certainly will debate (and have debated) this issue on another thread. But, the statement being challenged WAS made on this thread so it needed to be addressed on this thread.

You ask if I have spoken in tongues. Yes I have – and in different contexts. I was brought up in a very similar environment to you.

So, how do we handle this issue on this thread? It DOES kinda fit in with the topic under discussion. So, I need to ask ...just WHAT exactly are or were those 'tongues' that you spoke in? Were they Japanese, Latvian, Botswana ...angel? And, why would the environment that you were brought up in somehow favor you with this 'gift'? I mean, no Baptist speaks 'in tongues' but just about every Pentecostal does. Why so, do you think?

And why do I believe they are not necessary? For a number of reasons.
1 Being born again and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (with the so called evidence of speaking in tongues) are not two experiences. They are one.
2 Many who support the view that it is, use scripture but ignore the unique context of the time: Jesus giving instruction to the disciples, Jesus returning to the Father, the Father sending the Holy Spirit.
3 Scripture does not state that it is necessary for salvation.
4 From personal experience and having lived long enough to recognise the Spirit of God in others who know and walk with God but have never spoken in tongues.

Agreed.

 

[John the Baptist]

A question for you is have you ever spoken in tongues before and why do you believe that they are not necessary?

'Tongues' were 'known languages' but unknown to the speaker. They were NEVER the language of angels. And, they were given as a sign to the non-believer. How does this fit in with the current examples we hear of those who 'speak in tongues'?

******
The question asked has the same answer as all other gifts from God that are used by the devil in counterfeiting. Worship? Look at man's music? The devil requires worship! Holy Ghost? evil spirit! (there is a poster on another site who even posts with the name unholy ghost) The 7th day Sabbath finds sun worship, and the dead? You will not surely die. And on & on he goes.

Yet the gift of the true 'tongue' is not the problem. We will see them used when God finds them within His will & man's need. Such as in N.Y. & their many 'tongues'. (languages) We will no doubt see & hear the true gift on national T.V. 'in this latter rain'.

Still I ask, what is the worse of this doctrine when as done in ignorance more than any of the Babylonian ones? Revelation 17:5 or all of the Daniel 7:25 stuff? Perhaps excitement, and emotion (tongues & music) are one of the devil's best tools of false worship, to obtain his means as seen in Daniels verse??

---John

 

[sehad]

Charismatic churches sure emphasize the gift of tongues way too much. Paul never give as much credit as much as you do. In fact the gift of tongues is the last in the list in the gifts.

What Paul is saying in his letter to Corinth, is that speaking in tongues has its place, not necessarily that is it not important. In 1 Corinthians 14:18 he thanks God that he speaks in tongues more than all of them and in 1 Corinthians 14:5 he says that he would that ALL of them spoke in tongues(edification of the individual) but ABOVE that that they prophesied(edification of the church). Just because Paul is saying that speaking in tongues has its place, doesn't mean it is unimportant. If it was unimportant, why would he spend a lot of the book of 1 Corinthians regarding this matter? And simply because it is listed last, doesn't mean that it's unimportant.

'Tongues' were 'known languages' but unknown to the speaker. They were NEVER the language of angels. And, they were given as a sign to the non-believer. How does this fit in with the current examples we hear of those who 'speak in tongues'?

No offense SputnikBoy, but where is your biblical backing for this statement? Paul, in his letter to Corinth, stated that he spoke in the tongues of men and ANGELS(1 Corinthians 13:1). Now are all tongues angelic? No, I have family that was on a missions trip overseas somewhere(Not exactly sure where at the moment) but heard a woman speak in the English tongue as she received the Holy Ghost, but afterwards could not speak or understand a work of English.

You ask if I have spoken in tongues. Yes I have – and in different contexts. I was brought up in a very similar environment to you.

So, how do we handle this issue on this thread? It DOES kinda fit in with the topic under discussion. So, I need to ask ...just WHAT exactly are or were those 'tongues' that you spoke in? Were they Japanese, Latvian, Botswana ...angel? And, why would the environment that you were brought up in somehow favor you with this 'gift'? I mean, no Baptist speaks 'in tongues' but just about every Pentecostal does. Why so, do you think?

I know several Baptists that speak in tongues. In fact, I live less than a mile from a Baptist church that practices this regularly. As I stated above, I know someone that has heard someone else speak in tongues in English so I'm not exactly sure how "it works" for lack of better wording to come to mind.

And why do I believe they are not necessary? For a number of reasons.
1 Being born again and the baptism of the Holy Spirit (with the so called evidence of speaking in tongues) are not two experiences. They are one.
2 Many who support the view that it is, use scripture but ignore the unique context of the time: Jesus giving instruction to the disciples, Jesus returning to the Father, the Father sending the Holy Spirit.
3 Scripture does not state that it is necessary for salvation.
4 From personal experience and having lived long enough to recognise the Spirit of God in others who know and walk with God but have never spoken in tongues.

Agreed.

1. Depends on your definition of being born again. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."(John 3:5 KJV). It can be speculated that the water birth is baptism and the spirit birth is the infilling of the Holy Ghost(which I personally believe) or it can be that water birth is the birth from the mother's womb and the spirit birth is the "being born again". If you believe the first then both must happen to be "born again", which then the baptism of the Holy Ghost would only be one of the requirements to be "born again". If the second, then they are both the same.


2. What are you saying here? That because that was so long ago that it doesn't apply to us now? I'm just a little confused what you mean here.

3. True that it does not, but, as I stated in an earlier post, speaking in tongues is the physical evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. Do you agree with me that the Holy Ghost is essential to salvation? If you do, then so should speaking in tongues, if not.....I've just started another string of about 10 to 15 more posts from people that disagree with that. Haha.

4. What personal experience are you referring to?

About knowing people that walk with God but have not spoken in tongues, here is what gets most eveyone stirred up about this subject. I haven't spoken in tongues so are you're telling me that I'm going to Hell? Then it turns into a defence and attacking thing instead of a discussion. And by no means am I saying that, this is just what I've gotten out of prayer and studying the bible. I am not the judge.

Anyone can PM me at any time to DISCUSS issues on here. I'm not here to argue and please if you do send a point, have scriptural backing for it. Otherwise it is just your opinion that, honestly, doesn't amount to a hill of beans.

 

[SputnikBoy]

NOWHERE in 1 Corinthians - or anywhere else in the scriptures for that matter - is reference given for 'the tongues of angels' as being a practice for human beings. Indeed - NOWHERE in the Bible does it give reference to an angel even speaking in any other language than that of the recipient to whom their message is given. The text you refer to (1 Corinthians 13:1) is Paul simply using hyperbole to make his point about 'love' being the most important virtue. He is NOT saying or meaning that he ACTUALLY speaks the language of angels. Nor is Paul saying that he can actually move mountains (same text, same line of thought). It's hyperbole or illustrative speech that he uses to drive home a point. Do you not see this?

Any chance you can respond to the above, sehad?

 

[John the Baptist]

Do you believe everything in Acts is doctrinally for the church today?
Yes
56% [ 13 ]
No
43% [ 10 ]

Total Votes : 23

***
I guess this scale is only for the believing of the 'Inspiration' of Acts, not that any one, or a church is to live by it? :o We do know that Peters 3 time vision is in Acts 10:11-28, and most of these percentage ones surely eat whatever they want, huh?
---John

 

[mutzrein]

1. Depends on your definition of being born again. "Jesus answered, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born of water and of the Spirit, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God."(John 3:5 KJV). It can be speculated that the water birth is baptism and the spirit birth is the infilling of the Holy Ghost(which I personally believe) or it can be that water birth is the birth from the mother's womb and the spirit birth is the "being born again". If you believe the first then both must happen to be "born again", which then the baptism of the Holy Ghost would only be one of the requirements to be "born again". If the second, then they are both the same.

I disagree that this depends on my definition of being born again. There can only be one definition of being born again. What you think it is or what I think it is, is not relevant.

But just so that we are clear on what I believe. This is it. Being born of the flesh is being born of water. Being born of the Spirit is just that – being born again. And when we are born of the Spirit we are ‘baptised’ in the Holy Spirit. Now a person may receive the gift of tongues at this time or a later time but that doesn’t equate to two experiences – one of being born again and another of the baptism of the Holy Spirit.

Now listen to what Jesus said, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. Flesh gives birth to flesh, but the Spirit gives birth to spirit. You should not be surprised at my saying, 'You must be born again.' The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."

2. What are you saying here? That because that was so long ago that it doesn't apply to us now? I'm just a little confused what you mean here.

I am saying that there has been no other time in history prior to or since, where those who had been chosen by Jesus, would see the son of God return to the Father, knowing that they had to wait until the Holy Spirit was sent by God in order for them to receive it. Once the Spirit had been given everything changed. Up until that time no-one had been born of the Spirit except Christ.

3. True that it does not, but, as I stated in an earlier post, speaking in tongues is the physical evidence of receiving the Holy Ghost. Do you agree with me that the Holy Ghost is essential to salvation? If you do, then so should speaking in tongues, if not.....I've just started another string of about 10 to 15 more posts from people that disagree with that. Haha.

Yes of couse the Holy Spirit is essential to salvation. We are born of the Spirit so it is the Spirit which gives us life. And it is by this same Spirit that all manner of gifts are given to the body of Christ for its edification.

A common teaching among the Pentecostal church of today is that the gift of tongues is a necessity for confirmation of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. What a dilemma this theory delivers as there is no such teaching in the scriptures of this criteria.
Luke records many instances in the book of Acts where those who received the Holy Spirit spoke in other tongues and prophesied as the spirit gave them utterance.
These records are not in question, nor are they up for debate or dispute.
However, would it be right to read of an event, then take the record, establish it as law and inflict it on all for whom it was not meant to be? By doing so is to create a class distinction, and put God to the test, saying, ‘if you have been born of the Spirit, prove it!’ This is dangerous ground and not worthy of consideration.

4. What personal experience are you referring to?

The personal experience I am talking about is my knowledge of, and intimate relationship with, folk who are baptised in the Holy Spirit who I have seen first hand manifest the fruit and gifts of the Holy Spirit in a manner which glorifies God.

As the scripture says, “Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good. To one there is given through the Spirit the message of wisdom, to another the message of knowledge by means of the same Spirit, to another faith by the same Spirit, to another gifts of healing by that one Spirit, to another miraculous powers, to another prophecy, to another distinguishing between spirits, to another speaking in different kinds of tongues, and to still another the interpretation of tongues.†All these are the work of one and the same Spirit, and he gives them to each one, just as he determines.

About knowing people that walk with God but have not spoken in tongues, here is what gets most eveyone stirred up about this subject. I haven't spoken in tongues so are you're telling me that I'm going to Hell? Then it turns into a defence and attacking thing instead of a discussion. And by no means am I saying that, this is just what I've gotten out of prayer and studying the bible. I am not the judge.

Yes I understand what you are saying and the spirit in which it is spoken. I would say that making such a statement about those who have not spoken in tongues is absolutely repugnant. None of us should stand in the place of Christ judging whether or not the gift of life that He has given another is invalidated because they haven’t spoken in tongues.

 

[John the Baptist]

Mutz wrote:
I am saying that there has been no other time in history prior to or since, where those who had been chosen by Jesus, would see the son of God return to the Father, knowing that they had to wait until the Holy Spirit was sent by God in order for them to receive it. Once the Spirit had been given everything changed. Up until that time no-one had been born of the Spirit except Christ.

***
What are [you] saying? 'think'---John

 

[mutzrein]

Mutz wrote:
I am saying that there has been no other time in history prior to or since, where those who had been chosen by Jesus, would see the son of God return to the Father, knowing that they had to wait until the Holy Spirit was sent by God in order for them to receive it. Once the Spirit had been given everything changed. Up until that time no-one had been born of the Spirit except Christ.

***
What are [you] saying? 'think'---John

Hi John - I find following the gist of your posts very difficult. I think it would make it simpler for us to understand you if you didn't use parenthesis, bold, underlined, italic etc the way you do. Because rather than emphasise what you are wanting to say, it detracts and makes it REAL hard to read and understand.

Anyway - I thought it was clear what I was saying. This is what scripture says, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

Jesus was born of the Spirit of God his father.

 

[John the Baptist]

Mutz wrote:
I am saying that there has been no other time in history prior to or since, where those who had been chosen by Jesus, would see the son of God return to the Father, knowing that they had to wait until the Holy Spirit was sent by God in order for them to receive it. Once the Spirit had been given everything changed. Up until that time no-one had been born of the Spirit except Christ.

***
What are [you] saying? 'think'---John

Hi John - I find following the gist of your posts very difficult. I think it would make it simpler for us to understand you if you didn't use parenthesis, bold, underlined, italic etc the way you do. Because rather than emphasise what you are wanting to say, it detracts and makes it REAL hard to read and understand.

Anyway - I thought it was clear what I was saying. This is what scripture says, "Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit."

Jesus was born of the Spirit of God his father.

****
John here: Here are your words..
"Up until that time no-one had been born of the Spirit except Christ"

This is saying that Christ was Born Again at birth. (agreed) But it also states that no one else was ever Born Again before that time. Is that so hard to see what I was asking??? :

 

[sehad]

mutzrein, just to stop this back and forth, we can discuss anything further over PM just so we can move on. Plus I really don't have the time right now to get into the bible like I need to to state an half way decent reply.

Mutz wrote:
I am saying that there has been no other time in history prior to or since, where those who had been chosen by Jesus, would see the son of God return to the Father, knowing that they had to wait until the Holy Spirit was sent by God in order for them to receive it. Once the Spirit had been given everything changed. Up until that time no-one had been born of the Spirit except Christ.

***
What are [you] saying? 'think'---John

The only other person I know about that was born with the Holy Ghost was John the Baptist, but scripture states that his mother (Elisabeth) was not filled with the Holy Ghost until after Mary saluted her. From common teachings and Luke chaper 1, John was close to 6 months older than Christ and Elisabeth was promised that Johh would be filled with the Holy Ghost from her womb, meaning he was born with it. The KJV is not clear if John(seems strange to be talking about a fetus here though) had the Holy Ghost before his mother received it, maybe another translation is clearer. If he did, then John would be the first. Mutzrein, have you considered this? And John, I agree with mutzrein...most of the time it is hard for me to follow your posts as to what you mean.

 

[SputnikBoy]

Sorry to be like the proverbial pit bull dog, sehad, but I need to challenge you on your claim that Paul spoke in the ‘language of angels’. This misinterpreted scripture has spawned a rapidly growing denomination (Pentecostal) that is basing its major tenet (‘tongues’) on a false doctrine. The below is a post that I submitted a couple of days ago. Is there any chance of a response?

NOWHERE in 1 Corinthians - or anywhere else in the scriptures for that matter - is reference given for 'the tongues of angels' as being a practice for human beings. Indeed - NOWHERE in the Bible does it give reference to an angel even speaking in any other language than that of the recipient to whom their message is given. The text you refer to (1 Corinthians 13:1) is Paul simply using hyperbole to make his point about 'love' being the most important virtue. He is NOT saying or meaning that he ACTUALLY speaks the language of angels. Nor is Paul saying that he can actually move mountains (same text, same line of thought). It's hyperbole or illustrative speech that he uses to drive home a point. Do you not see this?

 

[CarrieY]

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are in the Bible, tongues is there along with healing. You can't pick out what gifts seem most fitting to you for this age.
And if they were only for that age then i'm sure it would say so.
Although i don't speak them to my knowledge.

I believe in tongues and all the gifts of the spirit.

 

[SputnikBoy]

The gifts of the Holy Spirit are in the Bible, tongues is there along with healing. You can't pick out what gifts seem most fitting to you for this age.
And if they were only for that age then i'm sure it would say so.
Although i don't speak them to my knowledge.

I believe in tongues and all the gifts of the spirit.

Please explain to me what 'tongues' are, Carrie. As long as we're to believe in them we need to qualify WHAT they are supposed to be and WHY they are given. I ask questions and I need answers that are not based merely on traditional or unqualified rhetoric. I'm not saying that this is you, by the way. :wink:

I'll just quickly add that the Pentecostal Church does NOT focus on any of the scriptural gifts (except perhaps 'healing' by charlatans) that you mentioned other than 'tongues'. Does this not raise a red flag? They (Pentecostals) have made a dangerous doctrine based on ONE misinterpreted text. That is that 'tongues' is the 'language of angels'. From this fallacy there has sprung a growing belief within the Pentecostal Movement that 'tongues' are evidence of an infilling of the Holy Spirit. AND, since an infilling of the HS is seen to be synonymous with salvation, more and more Pentecostals today believe that those who DON'T 'speak in tongues' are therefore 'lost'.

As long as you don't 'speak in tongues, Carrie (and you claim that you don't), then you are considered to be lost. Just do some homework and consider the ramifications of this ungodly belief before you respond.

 

[CarrieY]

Sputnik boy,

1Corintians 10:17 states If i speak in the tongues of men and of angels, but not have love I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal.

Paul here is speaking of tongues yes.physically.. 18: talks about if i have the gift of prophecy, and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if i have a faith that can move mountains,but not have love, I am nothing..
It speaks of the importance of Love but it also agrees there's another launguage we don't know (unheard of by us).

1Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed noone understand him, He utters mysteries with his spirit
That's your spirit (holy spirit) i've heard talking to God.
I've heard it said that you don't know what your praying for but you know you've prayed perfectly. :-D

I have said a few sounds that i didn't understand a couple times , I don't know if that was tongues and i was supressing it or what..

God gives gifts out to whoever asks for them. I believe he chooses the gift tho.
1 Corinthians 14: 13-17 states that even in church you can sing and praise God in a tongue also. but another person may need to edified.= (To instruct especially so as to encourage intellectual, moral, or spiritual improvement.)
Pray for interpetation at times, or don't speak in tongues for another person so that can they can understand what's being said and be edified.
You can control wether to speak that tongue or not.

Carrie

:smt060

 

[CarrieY]

Indeed noone understands him that was supposed to say.

1Corinthians 14:2 For anyone who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God. Indeed noone understand him, He utters mysteries with his spirit

 

[CarrieY]

Not all pentecostals speak in tongues, but it's clear to them when you have tongues your filled with the spirit.
Billy Graham dosen't speak in tongues either , so i don't feel lost. I may have other gifts. Just not to long ago i was speaking with my Dad, after i spoke i thought to myself was I right? i thought about what i said because it came out like i knew what i was talking about.
But the Bible makes perfect sense to me.

I pray to God that you find the understand your looking for and that he makes the Bible real to you.
I know alot of times i feel the presence of God and i don't deal with it. (i'm kinda shy) :o
There's times i feel God has spoken with me and i don't respond. then later when it comes up i look for him to talk with me and he dosen't .
When i was reading the bible the other day I seen the word Blasphemy in the wording. yet the actual word itself wasn't there. But the section I was reading spoke of disbelief in Jesus.
So i have no reason to feel lost.

Carrie