Private Prayer Language

The miracle here was in the hearing not in the speaking.

 

Negative. The Spirit gave the ability to the speakers.

 

My point, tongues is a language and not babling. Also, I can respect when you call it, "supernatural gift given by God". What I didn't agree with is the pastor training you to speak in tongues during bible study with the church as support coaches. That is not a supernatural gift.

 

Yes, I agree with you here. :thumbs:

 

1. "Groanings which can not be uttered" have nothing to do with tongues.

2. "tongues of men and angels" in 1 Cor 13 is hyperbole.

3. "Speaketh not unto men, but unto God", "Edifieth himself", "speaking mysteries" - in using these terms, Paul was discouraging the activity.

4. "To profit withall (everyone else)" is the purpose of the gifts. No self edification, or private gift there.

Unintelligible babling is psychological - it's actually common to all cultures. Ever heard of do-wop or scatting? It's the same thing.

 

That's an assertion, not evidence.

It is possible to interpret it literally or as hyperbole, but the context lends itself well to being a literal interpretation.

Paul was discouraging the misuse of public tongue speaking.

A person who is gifted with a private prayer language can use that gift in prayer for others and for communion with God. The personal empowerment and exercise of the gifts benefits the body.

I don't have the gift of tongues (public or private), but I am gifted in other ways such as discernment and word of wisdom and word of knowledge. Those gifts are often used in private or very small group settings (often when dealing with people in extreme need or in evangelistic encounters), but they are used ultimately to benefit the body. Furthermore, the gifts of word of wisdom and word of knowledge are often used in my prayer life when God reveals personal information and private needs about others so I can take those burdens to God in prayer and look for opportunities to minister to them where appropriate.

 

As far as Rom. 8 goes, it would be very strange to say that verse 26 is about speaking in tongues as nothing in the chapter remotely even talks about tongues.

Also, the word "groanings" is also used in verses 22 and 23. In 22, it is the earth groaning, and in 23, it is believers groaning. Then we have the HS groaning "too deep for words." The context does not give evidence of the topic being tongues but the longing of creation and of believers for final redemption.

By saying "too deep for words," it is also saying that the HS is not using words, so how can this be tongues? Nothing in the context here indicates tongues, imo.

 

If any of you all haven't been to the "General" board, there is a topic called "Baptist and the tongues issue." Someone put on there a link you can click of W.A. Crisswell preaching on this topic. It is very good.

 

My private prayer language is pig latin.
​

 

I haven't gone back read the entire thread but have debated this topic countless of times in the Other Christian Denominations Forum, where the Charismatics frequently post. I can dogmatically say that according to the Scriptures there is no such thing as a private prayer language. All the gifts of the Spirit were given to the local church, to edify the entire church. There was no gift that was given for the edification of any one individual. Gifts were not given for selfish purposes, but for the edification of the whole church.
1. Would the gift of healing be just to heal your self?
2. Would the gift of miracles be given to amuse yourself?
3. Would the gift of helps be to help yourself?

You can go on throughout the list of all the gifts of the Spirit. They were given to the local church, for the edification of the entire church. They were not given for selfish purposes, that is for the edification of just one person. There is no such thing as a private prayer language in the Bible.
DHK

 

BOOM, BOOM, BOOOOOOMMMMMMMM.

 

Very well said DHK. That is the same thing that W.A. Criswell said.

Isn't it strange how the years after the Bible was written and the early 1900's tongues weren't even around?