Originally posted by Pastork:
1. I respectfully disagree with your understanding of 1Cor. 14:14. When Paul says "my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful" he is not saying it isn't fruitful for me at all. Rather, he is making a contrast between the spirit and the mind, specifying that, although my spirit prays, my "mind" is unfruitful. The implication is that the spirit gains something, albeit in a way the mind does not comprehend. After all, if my spirit is praying even though my mind does not comprehend, am I not still communing with God? And if I am still praying to God, how can I not gain something from it, even if in a way beyond my comprehension? I think the answer is that I do benefit and am therefore edified, even if not as completely edified as I might be if I could interpret. I think this idea is reenforced by Paul's statement in verse 28. There he assumes that there may be those who can speak in tongues, but who do not have the gift of interpretation (hence, "if there is no interpreter, let him keep silent in the church," which he would not say if the person with tongues was assumed always to be able to interpret), but he still says "let him speak to himself and to God", thus assuming that, even if he cannot interpret (and thus his mind is "unfruitful"), he is nonetheless still speaking to God (recall "my spirit prays" vs.14). Now, if the person is indeed praying to God, even if he does not understand what he is praying, is he not still edified in some way? Yes, Paul does say "my mind is unfruitful" if I pray without interpretation, but he says this in contrast to "my spirit prays", which seems to imply that my spirit does recieve dome benefit (i.e. is "fruitful").
That's a lot of explanation for a single verse. You can think all this if you want, the text is clear. Interpretation is the context. Verse 13 says we
should intepret, verse 14 tell us the situation without interpretation, and verse 15 says we can avoid the situation in verse 14 by
interpreting. Hence the words
"So what shall I do?"
13For this reason anyone who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret what he says. 14For if I pray in a tongue, my spirit prays, but my mind is unfruitful. 15So what shall I do? I will pray with my spirit, but I will also pray with my mind; I will sing with my spirit, but I will also sing with my mind.
Originally posted by Pastork:
2. You have said that the above interpretation attributes words to Paul that he never uttered, but I say that I have done no such thing. I am doing nothing more than giving my interpretation of what I believe Paul means,
You said that "Paul already said in verse 13", as if Paul said this, not that it was your interpretation of what he meant.
Originally posted by Pastork:
Thus Paul has already said in verse 13 that one who speaks in a tongue should pray that he may interpret, not only so that he may build up the body, but so that he may be more completely edified himself.
Originally posted by Pastork:
1)I believe I have offered a defensible interpretation of Paul's meaning, an interpretation that is held by many other Christians, including prominent conservative Biblical scholars, none of whom think it is "nonsense",
I think it is nonsense and thankfully I have the Word of God to judge these so called christian scholars by so I can indeed discern nonsense from solid doctrine. The Lord warned us that there would be many false teachers and he didn't tell us to use thier christian title and Biblical scholarship as evidence to prove them right or wrong.
Originally posted by Pastork:
2)You haven't the slightest clue what I have been taught on this subject, so perhaps you should not jump to conclusions about what you think is driving my approach and simply deal with my arguments.
Apparantly, according to your first point, you have read a lot of so called "christian biblical scholars."
Your arguments are pure speculation based upon your belief, not the texts of the scriptures. When one reads the text wihtout having already heard about the tongues (as they are heretically taught about today), you would have no such basis for a private in home prayer language to be used outside of the church with no need for interpretation or understanding. The only basis for such a belief is experience.
How can I deal with arguments that continue to focus on the same scriptures over and over again while ignoring the other 35+ verses in the chapter? Your only argument is repeating yourself over and over again because you can't offer but a few scriptures and when the context of them is revealed you repeat yourself and say but this verse means this, no matter what the rest of the chapter says.
Originally posted by Pastork:
3. I cannot think of any of the gifts that doesn't edify the recipient of that gift along with others. For example, I have the gift of teaching, which I use as a pastor to edify the body, but I am always myself edified as well.
Excellent Point! And just
how does that gift edify the person possessing the gift as well? Do you sit at home and teach yourself? No! It is the fact that you
shared your gift of teaching and
used your gift to teach
others as was the purpose of that gift, that in turn edified yourself!
Does a person with the gift of healing only use it on themselves at home when they are sick? Does a person with the gift of interpretation sit at home interpreting his own tongue that he already speaks? How can he use it at home for self edification? HE CAN'T!
This is EXACTLY my point! The gifts were intended for the body.
1 Corinthians 12:7Now to each one the manifestation of the Spirit is given for the common good.
Read the rest of this chapter and see how each part of the body was important, and how their can be no division and that all parts should have equal concern for
each other.
Originally posted by Pastork:
4. You again misunderstand me when you remark in response to my arguments that "No where in any of the context does Paul say that the person speaking a tongue is 'more completely edified' by keeping it to himself." I never even implied such a thing. My argument was simply that a person who spoke in tongues could not only edify the body if he could interpret (which we both think Paul teaches as best), but that that person would himself be more completely edified if he could interpret.
And my point was that Paul never said you would be "more completely edified" if you did interpret. This
more complete edification is NOT in the text. You are either edified, or not edified. You either edify the body of Christ, or you don't. There is no teaching here that edification becomes "more complete" if you do what you were supposed to do in the first place.
Originally posted by Pastork:
5. You claim that Paul "nowhere teaches or seems to assume that someone will not be able to interpret, since interpretation is the only way that the gift can be used to edify the body." I disagree. I think Paul clearly does assume this in verse 28, e.g.
Again, no new evidence just the repeating of verse 28 and verse 14 without regards to the rest of the chapter. Well I disagree because of the entire chapter.
Originally posted by Pastork:
1)Paul never says that the only reason we should ever speak in tongues is for the edification of the body, if by that you mean that there could be no private use of the gift in one's relationship with God.
I repeat my question above. What gifts were given for the purpose of one's private relationship with God? We you given the gift to serve yourself, or to serve the body?
Originally posted by Pastork:
In fact, when Paul says to keep silent in church when there is no one to interpret but "let him speak to himself and to God," he very clearly assumes that there is an appropriate private use of the gift. Otherwise, he could have said, "if there is no one to interpret, don't speak in tongues at all, not even if it is to yourself and to God, for this gift is never to be used in a way that you might be edified but others will not." Yet this seems to be your understanding of the gift. Have I misunderstood your view?
What does verse 26 say?
26What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church.
Originally posted by Pastork:
2)I agree that it would be wrong to take this verse out of context, but I do not think I have done this.
The fact that it took you this many words to explain one simple verse should cause at least one caution flag to be thrown. Instead of addressing the rest of the context you keep making excuses why this one verse can mean what
you want it to.
Originally posted by Pastork:
3)You have implied that my interpretation is "ridiculous" (earlier you said it was "nonsense") and that I am simply 'picking' and 'choosing' which of these verse I want to live by, but I believe that I have offered a solid interpretaion of Paul's thinking on the matter. I would also reply that I think such accusatory and insulting rhetoric on your part does nothing to edify those who are taking part in this discussion, and, since edifying others is clearly so important to you, I would suggest that a more respectful approach by you would better accomplish this.
When I see a false doctrine being taught, I call it what it is. To say that Paul was stating that you will be "more completely edified" if you interpret
is nonsense. It is definately NOT scriptural. If you read the entire chapter together no where does he insinuate such a doctrine, let alone say it.
Paul called the Galatians "foolish" was he not being respectful?
We are told to edify the body, not let corrupt doctrine have a foothold in it.
~Lorelei
