Can an unbeliever speak in tongues?

[D2wing]

Can an unbeliever also speak in tongues?

As I understand it, no. But speaking in tongues doesn't mean you need to be a particularly spiritual Christian either. It is a free gift like salvation, unmerited favor. But not everyone who seeks it always gets it. There are hinderences.

 

[Classik]

As I understand it, no. But speaking in tongues doesn't mean you need to be a particularly spiritual Christian either. It is a free gift like salvation, unmerited favor. But not everyone who seeks it always gets it. There are hinderences.

thanks for your reply. And welcome to CF.net

 

[Classik]

As I understand it, no. But speaking in tongues doesn't mean you need to be a particularly spiritual Christian either. It is a free gift like salvation, unmerited favor. But not everyone who seeks it always gets it. There are hinderences.

This is a little confusing. There tends to be a matter of yes and no here: No, an unbeliever can't speak in tongues and Yes,he may (unmerited favor...free gift like salvation)unno

 

[Obadiah]

...With tongues come other gifts that do not come without tongues such as wisdom and discernment in the spirit...

Please show me the scripture that says the gift of tongues is required in order to have wisdom or discernment.

 

[Sparkey]

Please show me the scripture that says the gift of tongues is required in order to have wisdom or discernment.

We'd first have to agree that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was required for the operation of any of the 9 Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Not all believe this, some believe that the operation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit were used only during the first century to aid in the setting up of the church (Cessationists). Some accept that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is for today (Continual-ism), and that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as the Gift of Faith, the Gift of Miracles, the Gift of Tongues, Interpretation, the Gift of Wisdom, Gift of Knowledge, etc. are given to Spirit-filled (those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit) operation "until the perfect is come" - or "until knowledge is passed away" -- but there is one more hurdle to overcome.

Some believe that there are two aspects of tongues. One aspect is that it is a "sign of the infilling" of the Holy Spirit, that believers will speak in tongues when they are Baptized in the Holy Spirit. Those who believe this equate the prayer language they receive when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit with the baptism itself. There is a Scriptural case for this but there is debate about it. So then the reasoning goes that if tongues are a sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and if one needs to be baptized before the 9 Gifts of the Holy Spirit (like discernment or wisdom) can be manifested then we effectively see tongues first then other gifts.

I personally do not believe that tongues must be spoken (in every case) for a Christian to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, but can support the case that speaking in tongues does demonstrate having been filled with the Holy Ghost, just like Peter who said he knew they were baptized in the Holy Spirit because he heard them speak in tongues. I could go along with the idea that it is the norm for people to speak in tongues when filled, but take exception when others preach that tongues are a required sign of the infilling.

 

[Obadiah]

We'd first have to agree that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit was required for the operation of any of the 9 Gifts of the Holy Spirit. Not all believe this, some believe that the operation of the Gifts of the Holy Spirit were used only during the first century to aid in the setting up of the church (Cessationists). Some accept that the Baptism of the Holy Spirit is for today (Continual-ism), and that the Gifts of the Holy Spirit, such as the Gift of Faith, the Gift of Miracles, the Gift of Tongues, Interpretation, the Gift of Wisdom, Gift of Knowledge, etc. are given to Spirit-filled (those who have been baptized in the Holy Spirit) operation "until the perfect is come" - or "until knowledge is passed away" -- but there is one more hurdle to overcome.

Some believe that there are two aspects of tongues. One aspect is that it is a "sign of the infilling" of the Holy Spirit, that believers will speak in tongues when they are Baptized in the Holy Spirit. Those who believe this equate the prayer language they receive when they were baptized in the Holy Spirit with the baptism itself. There is a Scriptural case for this but there is debate about it. So then the reasoning goes that if tongues are a sign of the Baptism of the Holy Spirit, and if one needs to be baptized before the 9 Gifts of the Holy Spirit (like discernment or wisdom) can be manifested then we effectively see tongues first then other gifts.

I personally do not believe that tongues must be spoken (in every case) for a Christian to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, but can support the case that speaking in tongues does demonstrate having been filled with the Holy Ghost, just like Peter who said he knew they were baptized in the Holy Spirit because he heard them speak in tongues. I could go along with the idea that it is the norm for people to speak in tongues when filled, but take exception when others preach that tongues are a required sign of the infilling.

Great summary of the different ideas on this. Thanks! I personally agree with you in your conclusion that tongues (real tongues given from God, not an instance of fakery or given by some demonic influence to trick and decieve believers...) is a sign of the filling of the Holy Spirit WHEN a believer is given this gift. I also agree with you that it is NOT a requirement of every Spirit filled believer to speak in tongues to show that they are indeed Spirit filled.

However, since D2Wing specifically said tongues IS a prerequisite to other gifts, I am challenging him (or anyone else with this belief) to show me the scripture that backs this up because I'm ignorant of it if it exists. If there is no scripture, for now at least I have to contend that this is false teaching. But D2Wing has stated he has been a Christian for 40 years, so he is not a novice. If I am wrong in disagreeing with his statement, I would like to be shown this from scripture so I can change my stance and my testimony to come more in line with what God has actually said. If there is no scripture stating this, than I will be reassured of my stance by that lack of scripture so I can continue to have confidence in my current understanding of God's word.

 

[D2wing]

Yes, l Corinthians 2:all. This chapter speaks of the deep things revealed in the spirit, not of human wisdom, but the things of God. Many claim they have wisdom but there is a difference between carnal wisdom and that which is revealed in the spirit.
Many claim to have spirit gifts without the gift of tongue and in some ways they do. But not in the fullness that is promised in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as on Pentecost. I understand that you have doubts and all must be according to scripture.
By all means seek the scripture in all things, and pray for God to reveal the truth to you. I would not expect you to know much about the gifts of the spirit unless you have them, have teaching about them, and have experience and guidance from leaders of good reputation. Much of what some say is speculation like a child discussing truck driving.
I came here to fellowship with fellow Christians. This is not what I expected. I am willing to shake the dust off my shoes.
So is it judgement or sharing.

 

[D2wing]

After a second review, I do agree with Sparrowhawke. Thanks for a well written and accurate summation. I also agree a little reluctantly with your last point as well. Nearly always when someone tells me they do not need the baptism of the Holy Spirit they say it is because they have the gift of wisdom. Then they sometimes go on to some embarrassing blunder. One in particular is a pastor of a large church that began a series of sermons on the book "The Shack". Two sermons in it was cancelled due to the book being exposed as heresy. He missed the part where it claims all religions lead to salvation.

 

[Obadiah]

Yes, l Corinthians 2:all. This chapter speaks of the deep things revealed in the spirit, not of human wisdom, but the things of God. Many claim they have wisdom but there is a difference between carnal wisdom and that which is revealed in the spirit.
Many claim to have spirit gifts without the gift of tongue and in some ways they do. But not in the fullness that is promised in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as on Pentecost...

There is nothing that I can see in 1 Cor 2 that says or even seems to imply that the gift of tongues is required in order to have wisdom or discernment (or any of the other gifts, for that matter). Not even when you qualify your statement by adding "...not in the fullness that is promised in the baptism of the Holy Spirit as on Pentecost".

...I came here to fellowship with fellow Christians. This is not what I expected. I am willing to shake the dust off my shoes.
So is it judgement or sharing.

I hope you're not saying this because I challenged you to back your statement with scripture or that you mean it as a guilt trip on those of us who don't walk in lock step with your particular view on everything. That was a reasonable request on my part so I could learn where you are coming from and check my own beliefs, and there is nothing wrong with asking someone to back up what they say regarding God with scripture. If you want to leave the forum because of this, I'm sorry to hear it. I've always found it beneficial to hear the ideas of others that I don't necessarily see eye to eye with. Either I end up learning I am in error, or it causes me to question why I believe I am not in error and strengthen my knowledge. These are always good things no matter what the subject may be.

...I would not expect you to know much about the gifts of the spirit unless you have them, have teaching about them, and have experience and guidance from leaders of good reputation...

My personal experience and gifts have little to do with this but since it seems important to you, I have spoken and prayed in tongues. But I do not brag about it because as Paul (a reputable leader and teacher in my opinion) said, it is the least of the gifts. I've also found very little use for the gift of tongues in the situations God has placed me, and very rarely use it. I have other proven gifts that are much more useful and powerful, such as healing, knowledge, and wisdom.

 

[D2wing]

Your response puzzles me, you say you speak in tongues but don't need them. You response seems insincere. As Sparrow said, Paul said it was a sign that believers had the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is evident you have already judged me and wish to contend with me.
I am disappointed in this forum. No fellowship here.

 

[Obadiah]

<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <wunctuationKerning/> <w:ValidateAgainstSchemas/> <w:SaveIfXMLInvalid>false</w:SaveIfXMLInvalid> <w:IgnoreMixedContent>false</w:IgnoreMixedContent> <w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText>false</w:AlwaysShowPlaceholderText> <w:Compatibility> <w:BreakWrappedTables/> <w:SnapToGridInCell/> <w:WrapTextWithPunct/> <w:UseAsianBreakRules/> <wontGrowAutofit/> </w:Compatibility> <w:BrowserLevel>MicrosoftInternetExplorer4</w:BrowserLevel> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->

Your response puzzles me, you say you speak in tongues but don't need them. You response seems insincere. As Sparrow said, Paul said it was a sign that believers had the baptism of the Holy Spirit. It is evident you have already judged me and wish to contend with me.
I am disappointed in this forum. No fellowship here.

Let me try to clear up your puzzlement. First, you have misquoted me. I said I have had "very little use for the gift of tongues in the situations God has placed me". That's quite different from what you misquoted me as saying.

Despite your disappointment at being asked to back your position with scripture, that is not sinful judging. In fact up until now I have not judged you at all. I even truthfully explained to you that I wish to correct my own viewpoint if you can show me where God's word says that tongues are a prerequisite of wisdom and discernment, and I acknowledged with respect your four decades as a Christian and refrained from pointing out the fact that I have been in the faith even more years than you. I have truthfully tried to be respectful to you and open to your point of view.

However, now per the instructions of Jesus himself (John 7:24) I have looked beyond surface appearances and asked you to show me where the Bible shows us what you are teaching. You have so far failed to do this, as the scripture you cited (1 Cor. 2) doesn't even come close. So at this point I have to judge (allowed by God’s word to us in John 7:24) that there is no scripture to support your position. This wasn't intended to be contentious on my part at all, but it was you who failed to show related scripture then accused me of being insincere, contentious, and judgmental. I'm sorry that you're disappointed I didn't blindly and silently go along with that. It’s probably time for us to quit discussing this now.
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml> <w:LatentStyles DefLockedState="false" LatentStyleCount="156"> </w:LatentStyles> </xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 10]> <style> /* Style Definitions */ table.MsoNormalTable {mso-style-name:"Table Normal"; mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0; mso-tstyle-colband-size:0; mso-style-noshow; mso-style-parent:""; mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt; mso-para-margin:0in; mso-para-margin-bottom:.0001pt; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:10.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ansi-language:#0400; mso-fareast-language:#0400; mso-bidi-language:#0400;} </style> <![endif]-->

 

[D2wing]

I agree there is no specific Scripture saying exactly that. I pondered this. My answer is that the Pentecost experience has not changed, tongues is the outward gift then and that's how Paul knew in the passage Sparrow hawke mentioned that a group of believers had the baptism of the Holy Spirit. There is a difference between spiritual gifts and natural gifts. Tongues is a sign of the spiritual gifts. I think what I said is true but if you have a different opinion I have nothing for you. This is more of an observation than a doctrine.

 

[Sparkey]

Re Original Post: Can an unbeliever speak in tongues?

I am guilty of having sidetracked down a different issue, namely "Can anybody (Christians and unbelievers alike) speak in tongues without first being filled with the Holy Spirit? If we simplify that to what the OP asked, "Can an unbeliever speak in tongues?" -the answer seem more clear: "Nope, I don't think so."

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

I am guilty of having sidetracked down a different issue, namely "Can anybody (Christians and unbelievers alike) speak in tongues without first being filled with the Holy Spirit? If we simplify that to what the OP asked, "Can an unbeliever speak in tongues?" -the answer seem more clear: "Nope, I don't think so."

That tongues can be and are counterfeited by demon spirits is evidenced by the fact that spiritist mediums, Muslim dervishes, and Indian fakirs speak in tongues. It must be remembered by those who try to make tongues a badge of spirituality or a status symbol of saints who have attained the height of spiritual experience, that speaking in tongues and their interpretation are not peculiar to the Christian church but are common in ancient pagan religions and in spiritism both ancient and modern. We make a great deal of fuss about whether we should celebrate Christ's birthday, or Resurrection Sunday, because the names and practices have roots in paganism, but we think nothing of adopting a highly questionable practice with bare biblical support, such as tongues.

The very phrase "to speak with tongues" (Greek glosais lalein, Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19-6; 1st Cor. 12-14; cf. Mark 16:17) was not invented by New Testament writers, but borrowed from the ordinary speech of pagans. Plato's attitude toward the enthusiastic ecstasies of the ancient soothsayer (mantis, diviner) recalls the Apostle Paul's attitude toward glossolalia among the Corinthian believers.

Virgil graphically describes the ancient pagan prophetess "speaking with tongues." He depicts her disheveled hair, her panting breast, her change of color, and her apparent increase in stature at the god (demon) came upon her and filled her with this supernatural afflatus. Then her voice loses its mortal ring as the god (demon) speaks through her, as in ancient and modern spiritism.

Phenomena of this type are common among savages and pagan peoples of lower culture. Ecstatic utterances interpreted by a person in a sane state of mind have been verified, In the Sandwich Islands, for example, the god Oro gave his oracles through a priest who "ceased to act or speak as a voluntary agent, but with his limbs convulsed, his features distorted and terrific, his eyes wild and strained, would roll on the ground foaming at the moth, and reveal the will of the god in shrill cries and sounds violent and indistinct, which the attending priests duly interpreted to the people." The god Oro is still worshiped today in the South Pacific, in the same fashion.

I posted this information, though not as detailed, very early on in the thread. Apparently many missed it.

 

[Sparkey]

Classic already clarified that.

Actually I was talking about the true Holy-Ghost-filled speaking in tongues. Can God make someone speak in tongues? I know some may fake it.

So the question is sidetracked no matter what path I choose.

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Classic already clarified that.

So the question is sidetracked no matter what path I choose.

Got it: It's all your fault. I'll remember that. Thanks. :toofunny

 

[Sparkey]

The very phrase "to speak with tongues" (Greek glosais lalein, Acts 2:4; 10:46; 19-6; 1st Cor. 12-14; cf. Mark 16:17) was not invented by New Testament writers, but borrowed from the ordinary speech of pagans. Plato's attitude toward the enthusiastic ecstasies of the ancient soothsayer (mantis, diviner) recalls the Apostle Paul's attitude toward glossolalia among the Corinthian believers.

Point of Order, Mr. Chairman. Point of Order. (I feel like such a doofus when I make observations like this).
My Observation(s):

1. You've stated that Plato's attitude... recalls the Apostle Paul's attitude.
2. You've also stated that word "Glossolalia" was not "invented" (coined?) by Net Testament writers.

First point of order: Although I agree, Plato and Paul were not contemporaries, Plato predates Paul by some 400 years. Hence, Plato was unaware of Paul and therefore his attitude can not recall what he was ignorant of. I believe that Paul relied on the Holy Spirit for his "attitude" more than he did the writings of Plato. I also think that Paul would have quoted his source had that not been the case.

The 2nd observation here isn't so much a point of order, but rather just a question: "What's your point?" Sorry to be so blunt but no language in the NT is of original origin (utterly set aside from sinful Man's prior use) and it seems almost silly to me to start trying to make distinctions about the origin of various word and phrases inspired by the Holy Spirit in these works.

In conclusion, the words that Paul used are inspired by God to instruct re the various Gifts of the Holy Spirit and were all "God-Breathed", and consequently not "inspired" by pagan teaching(s). Brother TND, I don't think that's what you tried to suggest, but some may read it that way.

PS I liked your observation about it all being my fault. My only question, "Why does everybody insist on stating the obvious?" Anticipated answer: "Why not?" ;)
PPS Needless-to-say but said anyway: My use of the term "Net Testament" (above) is an uncorrected typo and should have been written "New Testament".

 

[thisnumbersdisconnected]

Although I agree, Plato and Paul were not contemporaries, Plato predates Paul by some 400 years. Hence, Plato was unaware of Paul and therefore his attitude can not recall what he was ignorant of.

The methodology is that of laying the two writers side by side, ignoring their time frame of reference. It simply states that they agree.

I believe that Paul relied on the Holy Spirit for his "attitude" more than he did the writings of Plato.

And yet they agree, 400 years intervening between them not withstanding.

The 2nd observation here isn't so much a point of order, but rather just a question: "What's your point?" Sorry to be so blunt but no language in the NT is of original origin (utterly set aside from sinful Man's prior use) and it seems almost silly to me to start trying to make distinctions about the origin of various word and phrases inspired by the Holy Spirit in these works.

Seems to me that might be a willing blindness to the point, on your part. It is obvious Paul didn't invent Koine Greek, and I did not say he did. He did not coin the phrase "speaking in tongues" either, however, which means that unbelievers were speaking in tongues before he wrote of them. The question of whether unbelievers can speak in tongues is quite valid, even to Classik's original question, because the fact they can indeed speak in tongues is indicative of the questioned validity of the "gift" in this day and age when, as I've repeatedly pointed out, Paul indicated in 1 Corinthians 13 that that gift as well as prophecy and personal knowledge of God's word -- that is, new revelation given directly to the speaker -- was dying out even then.

In conclusion, the words that Paul used are inspired by God to instruct re the various Gifts of the Holy Spirit and were all "God-Breathed", and consequently not "inspired" by pagan teaching(s). Brother TND, I don't think that's what you tried to suggest, but some may read it that way.

I made no reference to the inspiration of Paul's words. I made reference to the fact that contemporaries and predecessors alike wrote of unbelievers speaking in tongues, and that they are still speaking in tongues today, which calls into question the validity of the gift as indeed active and alive today. Would God allow His believers to mimic a pagan ritual? I think not. It calls into question the very nature of the understanding of tongues by the churches who like to call themselves "spirit-filled" today. It appears to be the only real example we have of what speaking in tongues is, exhibited in Acts on the day of Pentecost, bears absolutely no resemblance to what is practiced in those churches today. Not only that they violate Paul's directive in 1 Corinthians, but that they may not even know how to practice them according to what Luke reported in Acts.

 

[Sparkey]

No, they don't agree. They're talking about two different things. One being the Holy Spirit inspired manifestation of the Gift of Tongues (which by definition is holy, and can not be tainted by sin) and the other would be termed "fake tongues". In no way was Paul talking about stuff that may have gone on in the temples of false gods. Can you give biblical support that he was? Certainly we can agree on that part. He was writing to believers (and addressing their underlying attitudes).

Submitted for your consideration "Do not forbid to speak in tongues." and "I thank God I speak in tongues more than you all".

 

[Deborah13]

I personally do not believe that tongues must be spoken (in every case) for a Christian to be baptized in the Holy Spirit, but can support the case that speaking in tongues does demonstrate having been filled with the Holy Ghost, just like Peter who said he knew they were baptized in the Holy Spirit because he heard them speak in tongues. I could go along with the idea that it is the norm for people to speak in tongues when filled, but take exception when others preach that tongues are a required sign of the infilling.

I would agree with this. In fact, from some of the wonderful Christians that I have met, powerful prayer warriors if you will, are baptized in the Spirit and they don't even know it.