Speaking in Tongues

[geometer]

Has anyone here spoken in Tongues?I am particularly interested in hearing from those who have done so prior to converting to Catholicism.All others are welcome too.

I was living in a new house which was built on the finger hills of Piscataway, MD. The Piscataway indians were victims of germ warfare. When the settlers of early America had a scarlet fever outbreak they gave the infected blankets to the Piscataway indians. Most of the indians died of scarlet fever.

While I lived in Piscataway the chief of the tribe gave a talk at the local Universalist Unitarian congregation. I had not known about the talk until late and did not attend. A few days after the lecture, I went out onto the balcony of the back of our house. I heard an indian chanting in the woods, but did not see anyone.

After the chanting stopped I began to chant in the same language, apparently. I had no idea what I was saying and did not have any control over the process. I chanted for maybe one to two minutes, and then stopped.

A few days later I got word that the Piscataway chief had died…

 

[MrsScardinoz]

I believe I have the gift of tongues. However, I am not a person with enough knowledge to speak with authority on the subject. I will only say, that I have never done it in front of people, because there has not been someone that God has pointed out to me that would be translating. I think that if I ever did, it would be by work of the Holy Spirit, and I wouldn’t have much control over the matter. I speak in tongues privately, in a prayer tongue, as many of you have mentioned it. It is a very personal thing, and something that I only find myself doing when I have no words to speak that could possibly describe what I yearn to pray. Moments of desperation, grief, or extreme joy are such times.

Read the WORD and speak to those in leadership in the church for the answers you are seeking. Christ is the true authority.

 

[geometer]

I have another story that I just remembered.

I went to dinner at a restaurant in D.C. with a man and his wife. He was Jewish, his last name was Solomon and his family was from Russia. He said of himself that he was an atheist, and he worked for a publishing company. He said that even though he is an atheist he has reason to believe there may be some spiritual aspect to life yet to be discovered, because there was one occasion that he spoke in tongues.

He had entered a restaurant and was headed toward his table. He noticed a woman who seemed to be lost, and apparently did not speak english. For some reason his heart really went out to her, he approached her and began speaking in Russian. Even though his family had immigrated from Russian to the US, he was born here and had never learned to speak Russian.

As he began to speak to the woman her face lit up she smiled and kept saying da, da, as he went on. When he finnished what he had to say, he had no idea what he had told her, and she exploded back to him happy and excited speaking to him in Russian.

He became very embarassed, because he had to tell her that he did not understand Russian but did not know enough Russian to say that.

There is an important lesson in this story, that it was the love he felt for this stranger that allowed him to do what he did.

Love is the key…

 

[heiscominginthe]

Obviously, we disagree on what Sacred Scripture teaches about Baptism. I therefore went to the earliest Christian sources that we have to show what the earliest Christians believed. What I gave you was merely a representative fragment. Clearly they agree with the view followed by all non-Protestant Christians.

Why don’t you try to find some early sources, outside your personal interpretation of Scripture (which obviously I reject, as do the majority of Christians worldwide and just about every Christian up until the 16th century) supporting your view? Or do you not care about any early witnesses because, in your view, the first generation of Christians all clearly understood the Bible as you understand it (even though it didn’t exist yet), but the second generation of Christians somehow all completely messed everything up?

Why don’t you try to find some early sources, outside your personal interpretation of Scripture (which obviously I reject, as do the majority of Christians worldwide and just about every Christian up until the 16th century) supporting your view?

The reason why any agreed what was pushed by the CC was because of being either cast out of the church, or tortured, or killed. For a very long time, men lived in fear from the CC. There was a multitude of saints over the centuries that were martyred because of disagreeing with the CC. Yet, fear and intimidation was the tools used by the CC to prevent disagreements in their church.

You must understand, that is not the way of the Lord. If someone disagrees with us on our stand in the faith, the matter is to be resolved by one of two ways. Either both parties come to agreement or they don’t. If an agreement is not met, then both were to go their seperate ways and each do according to what they believed was right.

It is not of God to force himself upon the hearts of men. If someone disagrees with my stand in the faith, I am not going to beat him until he submits to my interpretation.

You ask me to find this or find that. Who should I believe more, writting of men or the Holy Spirit of God.

I have stated before, that the gospel was under attack even in the day of the apostles. The scriptures talk of a falling away and that falling away has been occurring for centuries.

Until men break away from their own ways and seek the face of God, there will always be confusion. And it is written, that God is not the god of confusion.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Can’t say I’ve ever heard of anybody “pray to a statue” before.

As St. Thomas More put it, not without a little humor:

“Besides this, take the most simple-minded fool you can choose, and she will tell you that our Lady herself is in heaven. She will also call a statue a statue, and she will tell you a difference between a sculpture of a horse and an actual horse. And then it is quite evident that whatever her words are about her pilgrimage, if by a common manner of speaking she calls the statue of our Lady ‘our Lady,’ as people say, ‘Go to the King’s Head for wine,’ meaning not his actual head but the sign, so she sees in that statue nothing but our Lady’s statue, no matter what she calls it. And if you want clear proof that she takes neither our Lady for that statue nor that statue for our Lady (as both she must take if she takes either one), talk with her about our Lady and she will tell you that our Lady was greeted by Gabriel, and that our Lady fled into Egypt with Joseph, and yet she will not in the telling say that Our Lady of Walsingham or of Ipswich was greeted by Gabriel or fled into Egypt. And if you ask her whether it was Our Lady of Ipswich or Our Lady of Walsingham that stood by the cross during Christ’s Passion, she will, I guarantee you, answer that it was neither” (“Dialogue Concerning Heresies” 266-267).

What do you suppose the idols were that Israel worshipped that brought judgement upon their heads?

 

[heiscominginthe]

guanophore;

The scriptures and the writings have been provided to you, both on this thread, and the one you started on baptism. You have rejected the Apostolic teaching.

I think, though, in your limited concept of "water baptism’, what you are saying is a true statement. You have been taught that “water baptism” is a form of godliness, without power. An empty ritual. So, according to your definition, you have made a true statement.
We are saved by grace, through faith. We are washed clean of our sins by the HS. This is the part of "water baptism’ that you deny. It is clear, however, from the writings of the early fathers, that what they received from the Apsotles is different from what you believe.

If the early church Fathers preach that which is contrary to what the apostles had written, I will not accept them.

For Christians, these two were joined when the Lamb of God entered the waters of baptism, joining the HS to them. It is that HS that applies the precious blood of the lamb to our souls in the baptismal waters, washing us clean, so that we can appeal to God with a clear conscience. We are baptized for the remission of sins.

Nice story, but it is not written. The baptism of water has one reference in scripture where is says it gives us a good conscience towards God. It does not say it saves us. It does not say it acts like the blood of the lamb. Now it does say the water is SYMBOLIC to the grave and when the man comes from the water it is SYMBOLIC of the resurrection.

I have given you this thread what was given me through the HS on the topic of water baptism. When a man is born again, saved, only he himself and God knows what occured in his heart. For his heart was circumcised through the blood of the lamb by way of faith.

Once the man is saved, born again, he receives the baptism of water, for the remission of sin which has already occured with the first baptism, the baptism of blood which saves us. The man, by receiving this baptism is confessing to the world that God has saved him from death, that he is born again, not of the sinful nature of the flesh, but of the nature of Christ. This gives God the glory he so rightfully deserves.

For the Christian, they are not separated.Paul was referring to water baptism, but not the kind that you accept (empty of spiritual power). Titus accepted that apostolic teaching from Paul that you have rejected, that the baptismal waters cause us to be born again.

IT is not myself who is stealing the glory of God. If you are born again, you should know that there is only one baptism that saves us. The baptisms were not all lumped into one, at least not by the apostles. Now, there are times when a man has all three occur close to the same time. Yet, the baptism of blood must occur first so that the man can receive the other two.

For there has been men who when receiving the baptism of water, that going into the water they have the change in heart, and come out of the water speaking in tongues, having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit by God while yet in the water.

This is not a problem for Catholics, whose doctrines do not emanate from Scripture. We received the faith from Jesus Himself, through the Apostles. Scripture, written after the faith was delivered to the Church, reflects what the Church believes and teaches, but is not the Source of that faith. Jesus is our Source.

Look what you are saying. You claim you doctrines do not emanate from scripture. So let me ask you this. Is Jesus Christ, the Word of God? You claim that Jesus is the source which is truth, but yet you reject the Word in regards to doctrine. To reject the Word is to reject Christ. If you doctrines are contrary to the Word of God, then what validity do they serve?

Not in the Catholic Church they cannot. Perhaps, since the baptism you use is devoid of Power, y’all baptize without faith, but this is not consistent with the Apostolic teaching.

The baptism I received circumcised my heart, making all things new. Was this the baptism that you received.

I later was baptized in the Holy Spirit and later yet, it water in the name of Jesus as written.

 

[BRB1]

The baptism I received circumcised my heart, making all things new.

I later was baptized in the Holy Spirit and later yet, it water in the name of Jesus as written.

You claim you received new heart … yet you had not received H.S. ?

Tell us about this secondary event, baptism in H.S. , which did not coincide with your spiritual adoption.

And finally, a water baptism, in the name of Jesus … as you write. What did this mean / convey to you that U had not received in the earlier two events ?

 

[Ignatius33]

The reason why any agreed what was pushed by the CC was because of being either cast out of the church, or tortured, or killed. For a very long time, men lived in fear from the CC. There was a multitude of saints over the centuries that were martyred because of disagreeing with the CC. Yet, fear and intimidation was the tools used by the CC to prevent disagreements in their church.

You must understand, that is not the way of the Lord. If someone disagrees with us on our stand in the faith, the matter is to be resolved by one of two ways. Either both parties come to agreement or they don’t. If an agreement is not met, then both were to go their seperate ways and each do according to what they believed was right.

It is not of God to force himself upon the hearts of men. If someone disagrees with my stand in the faith, I am not going to beat him until he submits to my interpretation.

You ask me to find this or find that. Who should I believe more, writting of men or the Holy Spirit of God.

I have stated before, that the gospel was under attack even in the day of the apostles. The scriptures talk of a falling away and that falling away has been occurring for centuries.

Until men break away from their own ways and seek the face of God, there will always be confusion. And it is written, that God is not the god of confusion.

Wow, nice history lesson, sounds like you got your info straight out of an anti-Catholic tract. Please provide me with the name of one – just one – “true Christian” who was “tortured,” “killed” or “cast out” by the Catholic Church in the patristic period from, say, the years 100 AD to 500 AD, the very time period of the patristic passages I provided you with.

So, in your view, all the great Christians I quoted – from Justin Martyr to Augustine – had their beliefs “pushed” on them by an aggresive Catholic Church? Please provide one – just one – quotation to support that assertion (and, no, Jack Chick doesn’t count). I would challenge you to read some Augustine (or any other early Christian for that matter). I guarantee that you will find no evidence whatsoever that “fear” or “intimidation” played any role in their beliefs.

Please don’t skip ahead 1500 years either. We are talking about what the earliest Christians believed. They all believed in baptismal regeneration (and the Real Presence in the Eucharist). You assert that they only believed these things because the Catholic Church somehow forced these beliefs on them. Please provide one shred of evidence for this accusation before making such less than careful statements.

I think I’m going to leave this thread – I feel the charity draining out of me as I continue to write. God bless. I pray that, one day, by the grace of God, the scales fall from your eyes, as they did for me.

 

[Ignatius33]

What do you suppose the idols were that Israel worshipped that brought judgement upon their heads?

Honestly, I don’t know what you mean by this. Do you not understand that Catholics do not worship statues? That is the difference. The Israelites worshipped a golden calf. Catholics do not worship statutes; they worship God alone. Please don’t set up straw men. Thanks.

 

[heiscominginthe]

You claim you received new heart … yet you had not received H.S. ?

Tell us about this secondary event, baptism in H.S. , which did not coincide with your spiritual adoption.

And finally, a water baptism, in the name of Jesus … as you write. What did this mean / convey to you that U had not received in the earlier two events ?

Before a man can receive the HS of God the man must first be made clean, holy. It is with the blood the lamb that man is cleansed, made holy. Then the HS can enter the man.

Yet, where your understanding lacks is not with the part of the HS that enters a man at salvation, but with the immersion or infilling of the HS that baptizes a man in the HS as it did to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

Now, when I received the baptism of the HS, I was shown in scripture about this baptism, and then hands were laid upon me and I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the HS. And at that instance, I prayed in an unknown tongues as it says in the bible.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Wow, nice history lesson, sounds like you got your info straight out of an anti-Catholic tract. Please provide me with the name of one – just one – “true Christian” who was “tortured,” “killed” or “cast out” by the Catholic Church in the patristic period from, say, the years 100 AD to 500 AD, the very time period of the patristic passages I provided you with.

So, in your view, all the great Christians I quoted – from Justin Martyr to Augustine – had their beliefs “pushed” on them by an aggresive Catholic Church? Please provide one – just one – quotation to support that assertion (and, no, Jack Chick doesn’t count). I would challenge you to read some Augustine (or any other early Christian for that matter). I guarantee that you will find no evidence whatsoever that “fear” or “intimidation” played any role in their beliefs.

Please don’t skip ahead 1500 years either. We are talking about what the earliest Christians believed. They all believed in baptismal regeneration (and the Real Presence in the Eucharist). You assert that they only believed these things because the Catholic Church somehow forced these beliefs on them. Please provide one shred of evidence for this accusation before making such less than careful statements.

I think I’m going to leave this thread – I feel the charity draining out of me as I continue to write. God bless. I pray that, one day, by the grace of God, the scales fall from your eyes, as they did for me.

I don’t want to offend you, but it is written that the truth often offends.

Now, as for some of the earliest church leaders, I am not saying these were forced into the faith or forced to believe as they did. Yet, as time elapsed, the further time passed, the more men began moving further from the Word of God. If even one word is changed, it can cause a ripple that affects much.

And you yourself cannot deny that the further the years elapsed from the death of the last apostle, the more the CC did things that were not of God.

So should the CC use the excuse that there was a few bad popes and possibly some other popes who gave interpretation that was just not up to par?

I hope the church is like a believer in that he struggles at first because of immaturity, but the more he matures in Christ, the more he becomes the reflection of Christ.

And let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

 

[heiscominginthe]

Honestly, I don’t know what you mean by this. Do you not understand that Catholics do not worship statues? That is the difference. The Israelites worshipped a golden calf. Catholics do not worship statutes; they worship God alone. Please don’t set up straw men. Thanks.

Are we talking about the same group of people here? What about a leaf that looks like Mary or any of the other multitudes of foolishness that occur.

What about the shroud? Do you believe it reveals the image of Jesus or is man silly to wish it so?

 

[BRB1]

Before a man can receive the HS of God the man must first be made clean, holy. It is with the blood the lamb that man is cleansed, made holy. Then the HS can enter the man.

Yet, where your understanding lacks is not with the part of the HS that enters a man at salvation, but with the immersion or infilling of the HS that baptizes a man in the HS as it did to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

Now, when I received the baptism of the HS, I was shown in scripture about this baptism, and then hands were laid upon me and I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the HS. And at that instance, I prayed in an unknown tongues as it says in the bible.

You seem to be saying there are at least two forms (manifestations) of H.S.

If you are saying this … please expound further. Otherwise, make your point more clearly.

 

[Rachel_Malloy]

Please remain on topic or I will have to close the thread.

God Bless-

Rachel

 

[guanophore]

Whoa, are you anti-Trinitarian? Jesus specifically said: “Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” (Matt. 28:19).

I have recently learned that heiscoming does not embrace the Christian Teaching on the Trinity.

You must understand, that is not the way of the Lord. If someone disagrees with us on our stand in the faith, the matter is to be resolved by one of two ways. Either both parties come to agreement or they don't. If an agreement is not met, then both were to go their seperate ways and each do according to what they believed was right.

No, heis, this is not correct. While I agree that it is wrong to use fear and intimidation as forms of evangelism , what you have proposed is not Jesus’ method for resolving disputes. I think if you are willing to read the scriptures, you will see for yourself what is to be done in the case of disagreement.Separation is not part of it.

On the contrary, we are to submit to the authority He appointed over us.

 It is not of God to force himself upon the hearts of men. If someone disagrees with my stand in the faith, I am not going to beat him until he submits to my interpretation.

Physically not, perhaps, but in your threads, you have beat many a dead horse, trying to pursuade Catholics to espouse the gospel you have embraced. You have not given up this goal, even though you have been advised that we will be anathema if we accept it. We are bound to the gospel committed to the Church by the Apostles, and cannot abandon it for one that was created 1900 years after the facts.

You ask me to find this or find that. Who should I believe more, writting of men or the Holy Spirit of God.

The problem is that it is not the writing you believe. You are believing what you perceive that it says, or what some other lost soul perceives. What you have embraced as truth is not consistent with what the Apostles believed and taught.

I have stated before, that the gospel was under attack even in the day of the apostles. The scriptures talk of a falling away and that falling away has been occurring for centuries.

Yes, I agree. Your own posts have made it clear what the fruit of abandoning the gospel can do.

Until men break away from their own ways and seek the face of God, there will always be confusion. And it is written, that God is not the god of confusion.

It is very Cathololic of you to say this!

 

[guanophore]

If the early church Fathers preach that which is contrary to what the apostles had written, I will not accept them.

That is the point, heis. We are talking about perceptions here. The Early Fathers believed differently than you because their faith was taken from what the Apostles believed and taught. Your perceptions are different, because you have departed from what the Apostles believed and taught. It is not what they wrote that is at odds, it is your perception of it.

 The baptism of water has one reference in scripture where is says it gives us a good conscience towards God. It does not say it saves us. It does not say it acts like the blood of the lamb. Now it does say the water is SYMBOLIC to the grave and when the man comes from the water it is SYMBOLIC of the resurrection.

Well, we read it differently, don’t we?

We read that “baptism…now saves you”. Those who have accepted the Apostolic faith know that it is impossible for mankind to have a clear conscience before God without the intervention of the HS. We read that we are actually joined with Christ in His death and resurrction. A sacrament is a symbol that effects what it symbolizes.

I have given you what was given me through the HS on the topic of water baptism. When a man is born again, saved, only he himself and God knows what occured in his heart. For his heart was circumcised through the blood of the lamb by way of faith.

I am sure you believe that what you were given is from the HS. I find it interested that the HS has told you something different than what was given to the Apostles.

Why remit sins that are already remitted? It really does not make any logical sense.

Baptism has nothing to do with “confessing to the world”. You will not find this anywhere in scripture. On the contrary, baptism in the first 300 years was done privately and secretly with only believers, since it was illegal, and could result in getting killed by the Roman Empire.

IT is not myself who is stealing the glory of God. If you are born again, you should know that there is only one baptism that saves us. The baptisms were not all lumped into one, at least not by the apostles. Now, there are times when a man has all three occur close to the same time. Yet, the baptism of blood must occur first so that the man can receive the other two.

Yes, one baptism saves. It is the one that Jesus commanded. In it, we are sealed by the promised HS, transferred from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of light, and cleansed of our sins through the water by the HS. We are not dipped in His blood,but in water, through which we are washed in His blood. Our robes are made white.

For there has been men who when receiving the baptism of water, that going into the water they have the change in heart, and come out of the water speaking in tongues, having received the baptism of the Holy Spirit by God while yet in the water.

Yes, this has happened since Pentecost. However, the Catholic Church does not administer baptism apart from a profession of faith. Those without faith are not invited to approach the waters of baptism.

Look what you are saying. You claim you doctrines do not emanate from scripture. So let me ask you this. Is Jesus Christ, the Word of God? You claim that Jesus is the source which is truth, but yet you reject the Word in regards to doctrine. To reject the Word is to reject Christ. If you doctrines are contrary to the Word of God, then what validity do they serve?

Correct. Catholic doctrine does not originate in Scripture, but from Christ. The NT is the reflection of what the Church believes, having been written after the faith was committed to the Apostles by Jesus. Yes, Jesus is the eternal Word of God. I do not reject His Scripture with regard to doctrine. I reject your interpretation of the Scripture as different from what Jesus gave to the Apsotles.

There are no Catholic doctrines that are contrary to scripture. The NT was written by, for, and about Catholics. There is nothing in it that is not Catholic. The only “contrary” is how you perceive the words.

I don’t want to offend you, but it is written that the truth often offends.

Now, as for some of the earliest church leaders, I am not saying these were forced into the faith or forced to believe as they did.

Actually, you did say that.

Yet, as time elapsed, the further time passed, the more men began moving further from the Word of God. If even one word is changed, it can cause a ripple that affects much.

You are avoiding the question, heis. Please produce evidence from the period from which the quotes were taken, from the year 100-500, that these people were coerced into believing Catholic doctrine.

 

[guanophore]

And you yourself cannot deny that the further the years elapsed from the death of the last apostle, the more the CC did things that were not of God.

So should the CC use the excuse that there was a few bad popes and possibly some other popes who gave interpretation that was just not up to par?

You are dodging, heis. Using the early fathers provided above in the thread, please demonstrate where they were forced to believe something different than what the Apostles believed and taught.

I hope the church is like a believer in that he struggles at first because of immaturity, but the more he matures in Christ, the more he becomes the reflection of Christ.

And let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

It is your stone, heis. You are alleging that the Catholic Church departed from the Apostolic teachings. Therefore, it is incumbent upon you to show how this happened.

Are we talking about the same group of people here? What about a leaf that looks like Mary or any of the other multitudes of foolishness that occur.

No. You are talking about private revelations and perceptions, and we are talking about what God revealed to the Church. Two separate groups of people.

And you yourself cannot deny that the further the years elapsed from the death of the last apostle, the more the CC did things that were not of God.

So should the CC use the excuse that there was a few bad popes and possibly some other popes who gave interpretation that was just not up to par?

You are dodgnint, heis. Using the early fathers provided above in the thread, please demonstrate where they were forced to believe something different than what the Apostles believed and taught.

I hope the church is like a believer in that he struggles at first because of immaturity, but the more he matures in Christ, the more he becomes the reflection of Christ.

And let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

Do you believe it reveals the image of Jesus or is man silly to wish it so?

Honestly, I don’t know what to believe. However, it is irrelevant, because the Shroud is not part of the Catholic Teaching.

I don’t think it is “silly” to wish it so, though. It is only natural for people to want evidence. For example, we want you to provide evidence, from the early fathers that your perception is part of what God revealed to the Church. It is only natural for us to want this, since you seem to make up your ideas about Christianity as you go along, then tell us that your ideas are revealed to you by the HS.

 

[BRB1]

where your understanding lacks is not with the part of the HS that enters a man at salvation, but with the immersion or infilling of the HS that baptizes a man in the HS as it did to the apostles on the day of Pentecost.

Now, when I received the baptism of the HS, I was shown in scripture about this baptism, and then hands were laid upon me and I was baptized in the name of the Father, the Son, and the HS. And at that instance, I prayed in an unknown tongues as it says in the bible.

So … you have spoken in tongues. Only on this one occasion, or do you have the gift ?
Do you believe the gift of tongues is proof of the indwelling 3rd person of the trinity ?

 

[heiscominginthe]

You seem to be saying there are at least two forms (manifestations) of H.S.

If you are saying this … please expound further. Otherwise, make your point more clearly.

Just as a man comes to salvation through faith, to receive the baptism of the Holy Spirit is itself a step in faith.

When a man is born again, his sinful nature is destroyed and he aquires a new nature in Christ. Christ lives in the heart of the man. To have Christ in your heart is to have the HS in the heart.

Now we come to the promise of our Lord where he promised the baptism of the HS would be given as on the day of Pentecost.

We must ask ourselves, were the apostles born again prior to the day of Pentecost? Certainly they were. How could they not be? So here are the apostles awaiting the promise of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The apostles have already been made clean/holy by Christ washing away their sins. So they have been made clean through the Holy Spirit, through Christ. Now comes the baptism when they are filled, overfilled with the Holy Spirit of God.

So please understand that the HS of God cannot enter a man that is unclean. That is why a man must be made clean first.

For new wine cannot be put into an old wine sack, for it will burst. New wine must be put in a new wine sack so both will be preserved.

 

[heiscominginthe]

So … you have spoken in tongues. Only on this one occasion, or do you have the gift ?
Do you believe the gift of tongues is proof of the indwelling 3rd person of the trinity ?

Certainly I have prayed in tongues, unknown tougues. This tongue is aquired when a man is baptized in the HS. This is not to be mistaken with the gift of tongues for the edification of the church. This tongue is for the personal prayer life of the believer.

1 Cor. 14:2 For he that speaketh in an unknown tongue speaketh not unto men, but unto God: for no man understandeth him; howbeit in the spirit he speaketh mysteries.

Romans 8:26 Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.
27 And he that searcheth the hearts knoweth what is the mind of the Spirit, because he maketh intercession for the saints according to the will of God.

Jude1:20 But ye, beloved, building up yourselves on your most holy faith, praying in the Holy Ghost,

The major difference in praying in an unknown tongue and the gift of tongue is this.

When we pray in tongues in our personal prayer life, the HS prays through us to God, doing what we cannot do, pray the perfect prayer.

The gift of tongues is God speaking through the HS to the church. This tongue is always followed by interpretation.