Prophecy is to be prefered because it builds up others (1 Cor 14:1-3). The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speks in languages because the church is built up (1 Cor 14: 5). Paul says he will be no benefit to them if he comes to them speaking in languages (1 Cor 14:6). Praying in a language is unproductive (1 Cor 14:14) because the listener is not built up (1 Cor 14:17). Five intelligible words are to be prefered to ten thousand words in a language (1 Cor 14:19).
All of the points made above ignore the context of the cited references:
Prophecy is to be prefered because it builds up others (1 Cor 14:1-3). The one who prophesies is greater than the one who speaks in languages because the church is built up (1 Cor 14: 5).
Why leave out the exception that Paul adds—"unless he interprets, so that the church may receive edification" ???? Such an omission seems like an instance of ignoring context in order to make a point that otherwise cannot be convincingly or validly made.
Five intelligible words are to be prefered to ten thousand words in a language (1 Cor 14:19).
One can only make an error this glaring when one is trolling for proof texts instead of reading the author's flow of thought. Was it accidental or deliberate that you omitted Paul's all important phrase,
"yet in the church..." If one would only read the immediate context preceding the "yet," he would see that Paul,
outside the church, speaks in tongues more than they all do. It would take a very poor reader to fail to notice that Paul is contrasting what he believes to be appropriate outside the church with what he believes should happen inside the church. Since you are arguing against the legitimacy of tongue-speaking devotionally (that is, privately) for purposes of self-edification, it would be more helpful if you could find a verse somewhere that has bearing on your thesis, rather than limiting your citations to verses about an entirely different subject—viz., that of
church decorum.
Paul says he will be no benefit to them if he comes to them speaking in languages (1 Cor 14:6). Praying in a language is unproductive (1 Cor 14:14) because the listener is not built up (1 Cor 14:17).
Why leave out Paul's main point in this section, namely, that the speaker in tongues must not speak unless an interpretation can accompany the utterance—even recommending that the speaker pray for the divinely-bestowed ability to interpret his own utterance (v.13)? If it is impossible to make a given point without neglecting key verses that define the author's intentions, it would be better (more honest, at least) to adopt a different position that allows all of Paul's testimony to be heard.
When Paul says "Those who speak in a language build up themselves, but those who prophesy build up the church" (1 Cor 14:4), he is not saying that it is a good thing to build up yourself. Those who speak in a language should be seen as promoting themselves rather than building up the church. All three chapters, 1 Corinthians 12,13 and 14 are warning against self-promotion.
Self-edification is not the same thing as self-promotion.
Homer has made reference to using the word
edify "in a negative sense," giving Luke 6:49 as an example of such a usage. But this verse does not actually give the word
a negative sense. In Luke 6:49, the building of a house is not regarded as a negative thing, which is why the exact same activity is spoken of positively in the previous verse. Jesus does not criticize the activity of building houses (which He seems to treat as if it is something everyone must do). What He criticizes is the failure to first do adequate site preparation—something that is to be done before the building begins. There is no stigma implied in either man's building a house.
Homer has suggested that he finds a case of "negative" edification in 1 Corinthians 14:4. However, if edification can indeed carry a "negative" sense, it would be strange to find such a sense in a verse which uses the same word in a clearly positive sense (in the phrase,
"edifies the church").
Since it is not wrong to do things that edify the church, it cannot be wrong for the church, or any member thereof (including yourself), to be edified. If you spend time reading and meditating on the Bible, you are likely to be edified by your activity. You are edifying yourself. Similarly, if you sing or listen to spiritual songs, or converse with godly mentors, or spend time praying
in your native tongue, you will be in danger of being edified (or "improved") spiritually.
According to Paul, the same is true of speaking in tongues as is true of these other edifying activities. He does not ever suggest that this is to be avoided,
except in the church gatherings, where the triage imposed by limits upon group-time would dictate the desirability of pursuing only activities that can edify more than one person present. Edify yourself on your own time! In the group gathering, edify others!
Apart from church gatherings, we should do all that we can to edify (or build up) ourselves spiritually. Jude specifically commands us to build ourselves up—and even identifies "praying in the Holy Spirit" as the means of doing so. Why any Christian would suggest that this is an unworthy goal I can't imagine. Is it being suggested that we, instead, should do things that we do NOT find personally edifying?
