Group avatar

Theology Forum

Theology, in Christianity, the systematic study of the nature of God and God's relationship with humanity and with the world. Although other religions may be said to have theologies, this is a matter of controversy within, for instance, Judaism, which holds that God is unknowable. This forum will therefore confine itself to Christian...more »

« more discussions

  • How do you interpret 1 Corinthians 14:26?

    'When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a rebvelation, a tongue or an interpretatation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church' (NIV). Some read the first lines as how it should be in a meeting: all have the chance (the obligation even) to participate. Others see it as a description of a problem in the church of Corinth: too many crowd the stage wanting to contribute someting resulting in disorder and confusion. The solution is more order. How do you read this verse?
    deactivated member started this discussion 4 months ago. ( reply )

12

replies
expand replies 
Sign in to participate in this discussion.
  • Stephen M

    Stephen M 

    I see this passage to be Paul talking about correction. The context of this is Paul correcting things that we going wrong. After this he even says that only a few should bring things to say. "If anyone speaks in a tongue, two—or at the most three— should speak, one at a time, and someone must interpret" I Corinthians 14:27. Paul is dealing with confusion in the church, and how unhelpful that is to people who are new. Those in the church are going to church simply to lift themselves us, rather than God. Anyway, that's how I see it.
    posted 4 months ago. ( reply )
    show 9 replies
    • alvin v

      alvin v 

      1Co 14,26. “What is it then, brethren? When ye come together, each one hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a tongue, hath a revelation, hath an interpretation. Let all things be done unto edifying.”

      Seest thou the foundation and the rule of Christianity? how, as it is the artificer’s work to build, so it is the Christian’s to profit his neighbors in all things.

      But since he had vehemently run down the gift; lest it might seem to be superfluous, for with a view to pull down their pride and no more, he did this:—again he reckons it with the other gifts, saying, “hath a psalm, hath a teaching, hath a tongue.” For of old they used also to make psalms by a gift and to teach by a gift. Nevertheless, “let all these look to one thing,” saith he, “the correction of their neighbor: let nothing be done at random. For if thou comest not to edify thy brother, why dost thou come here at all? In fact, I do not make much account of the difference of the gifts. One thing concerns me, one thing is my desire, to do all things “unto edifying.” Thus also he that hath the lesser gift will outrun him that hath the greater, if this be not wanting. Yea, therefore are the gifts bestowed, that each might be edified; since unless this take place, the gift will rather turn to the condemnation of the receiver. For what, tell me, is the use of prophesying? What is the use of raising the dead, when there is none who profits by it? But if this be the end of the gifts, and if it be possible to effect it in another way without gifts, boast not thyself on the score of the signs, nor do thou bewail thyself to whom the gifts are denied.

      1Co 14,27. “And if any man speaketh in a tongue, let it be by two, or at the most by three, and that in turn; and let one interpret.”

      1Co 14,28. “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence in the Church; and let him speak to himself, and to God.”
      What sayest thou, tell me? Having spoken so much of tongues, that the gift is a thing unprofitable, a thing superfluous, if it have no interpreter, dost thou command again to speak with tongues? I do not command, saith he, neither do I forbid; as when he saith, “if any of them that believe not bid you to a feast and ye be disposed to go,” he saith it not laying down a law for them to go, but not hindering them: so likewise here. “And let him speak. to himself and to God.” If he endure not to be silent, saith he, but is so ambitious and vain-glorious, “let him speak by himself. “And thus, by the very fact of so permitting, he greatly checked and put them to shame. Whichhe doth also elsewhere, discoursing of converse with a wife and saying, “But this I say because of your incontinency.” But not so did he speak, when he was discoursing of prophecy. How then? In a tone of command and legislation: “Let the prophets speak, two or three.” And he no where here seeks the interpreter, nor doth he stop the mouth of him that prophesies as under the formerhead, saying, “If there be no interpreter, let him keep silence;” because in fact he who speaks in a tongue is not sufficient of himself. Wherefore if any hath both gifts, let him speak. But if he hath not, yet wish to speak, let him do so with the interpreter’s aid. For the prophet is an interpreter, but of God; whereas thou art of man. “But if there be no interpreter, let him keep silence:” for nothing ought to be done superfluously, nothing for ambition. Only “let him speak to himself and to God;” i.e., mentally, or quietly and without noise: at least, if he will speak. For this is surely not the tone of one making a law, but it may be of one who shames them more even by his permission; as when he saith, “but if any hunger, let him eat at home:” and seeming to give permission, he touches them hereby the more sharply. “For ye come not together for this purpose,” saith he, “that ye may show that ye have a gift, but that ye may edify the hearers;” which also he before said, “Let all things be done unto edifying.”
      posted 4 months ago. ( reply )
    • Stephen M

      Stephen M 

      Alvin - Are you giving your opinion here? And if so, what exactly is it?
      posted 4 months ago. ( reply )
    • alvin v

      alvin v 

      No, Stephen its not my opinion, it is a Catholic interpretation of the verses above. As msomaji requested of this topic. Please pardon my question, Is there something wrong with it?
      posted 4 months ago. ( reply )
    • Stephen M

      Stephen M 

      No, nothing wrong with it as I see. There might be some items I disagree with, but nothing major. I was just curious as to your opinion on the topic. It looked like you were disagreeing with my interpretation, and I wanted to know why. I've usually just read from people who would agree roughly with what I said, and it looked like you didn't. Just wanting some clarification really. Sorry if my question came off wrong.

      posted 4 months ago. ( reply )
    • Stephen M

      Stephen M (edited)

      Alvin - I'm currently reading "Christianity's Dangerous Idea" about the Reformation. It's by Alister McGrath. I'm enjoying it a lot. It's helping me understand a little more about the aversion Catholics have to the whole idea of Protestantism. The "dangerous idea" is that we, as individuals, have the right and ability to interpret Scripture for ourselves, which is why you often place longer quotes by other authors.

      McGrath believes that Martin Luther didn't really intend for this idea of individual interpretation to go as far as it did. I am curious as to what you think about this. I'm not sure if that's a dumb question. "What do you think about personal opinion concerning Scripture?" Anyway, this book is really helping me to grasp your strong beliefs concerning opinions. I'm sorry if I come across as ignorant or accusatory in any of my posts. Just trying to clear some things up.
      posted 4 months ago. ( reply )
    • alvin v

      alvin v 

      When i was younger, at one time i used to be addicted in gambling, and im good at it. no matter how high is at stake it can surely be compromise " winning or losing the game". But what if your soul is at stake?
      We either believe in God or not. If we believe in God's existence and turn out to be wrong, we lose little or nothing. But if we don't and are proven wrong, the consequences are disastrous. If we use our reason we must think as the former; because it makes more sense to believe in God even if God does not exist.

      Now, to believe in God is to believe in His Son our Lord Jesus Christ...to believe in Christ is to believe in His Church whom he instituted for our salvation. To believe in His Church is to believe in all its teachings,doctrines, and interpretation of the scriptures from which is called the " deposit of Faith". Reaching this stage you will realize that all that is written in the Gospel and scriptures has long been interpreted and expounded by The Fathers and Doctors of the Church. Read them and you will be free from errors and not relying in your own interpretation. The Church is a living institution, like Christ it has human and divine aspect thats why its called the Mystical Body of Christ, which is the created soul of the Church and The Holy Spirit as its uncreated soul who inspire this people who interpret the scriptures.people who live in the same era but not necessarily in the same place or know each other at anytime when they wrote the interpretation and came with the same thing. Stephen, i hope you understand what im trying to put up here, its the best that i can do if i would put it in my own words.
      posted 4 months ago. ( reply )
    • Stephen M

      Stephen M 

      Alvin - Just a couple of questions. By the way, before I jump into them, I'm enjoying this conversation. It's exceptionally intriguing to me.

      First, what about disagreement about Church Fathers? Tertullian disagreed with the others concerning infant baptism, saying we shouldn't practice it. I fall in line with the other Fathers because I disagree with some of Tertullian's thoughts on baptism as a whole, and therefore feel comfortable rejecting his further interpretations.

      Also, there was a little disagreement over books in the NT, and so on.

      Now I would like to give you a quote, and see if you agree. Talking of Church authority, she said the writers "range through the first centuries. We give precedence to those beliefs that were agreed to over the broadest geographic range, from the earliest times, and were attested to by the greatest number of writers. The summary test is 'everywhere, always, and by all.'" She is, by the way, Eastern Orthodox.

      Since they claim a different authority than you, why aren't they the "true" Church?

      posted 4 months ago. ( reply )
    • Stephen M

      Stephen M 

      Alvin - Had this quote in an email, and it dealt with what we're talking about, so I thought I'd post it.

      "Let us, therefore, foresake the vanity of the crowd and their false teachings, and turn back to the word delivered to us from the beginning." - Polycarp of Smyrna
      posted 4 months ago. ( reply )
    • alvin v

      alvin v 

      Stephen,
      Sorry for the delayed response, i could have forgot this conversation completely if i had notaccidentally click on this thread. Its the title of the thread that i couldnt find this conversation took place.

      I havent read Tertullian regarding infants baptism I cannot refute it for now.Talking about Church authority, the Easthern Orthodox Church is considered as the left lung of the Catholic Church and its claim as you quote is true in regards to their existence and origin as they are One in Faith and in lineage of the Apostolic chain from Christ not until "The Great Schism"broke. The fault was long gone soon enough it would be united again formally with the Catholic Church. Recently, Bartholomew I the Ecumenical Patriarch of the Orthodox Church was in Vatican joining Pope Benedict XVI in celebrating Pauline Year.Orthodox and Catholics celebrate it together, it was a wonderful scene.

      Only one thing remained to be solved. God's Church—Where amidst the vast galaxy of the world's churches was God's true Church to be found? Then I recalled something Christ said: "Seek and ye shall find...know and it will be opened unto you." Inspired by these words of divine wisdom, I embarked on the search I undertook an extensive study of comparative religion, concentrating on the Christian religions. Since the other religions rejected the divinity of Christ, they naturally were in default.

      "With painstaking impartiality I held every Christian church up to the light of Scripture, logic and history, checking and double-checking lest I overlook some small but significant piece of evidence. Three years of this meticulous checking, then I found the object of my search. I finished with one name superimposed in great bold letters on my conscience—'Catholic.'

      "On every ground I found the claims of the Catholic religion valid and altogether irresistible. The Catholic Church is the oldest Christian church, I determined; therefore, she is the original Christian Church, the one Church founded, constituted and sanctioned by Jesus Christ Himself.

      "I had no other recourse in conscience but to embrace the Catholic Faith. And now I must testify that it satisfies my mind, solaces my heart and gratifies my soul. My blessed Catholic Faith fills my soul with a peace and a sense of security I had never before thought possible.

      "Now that I am in the Catholic Church I have a much clearer picture of its true image. I see in all her vitals the Image of Christ. In the reception of her sacraments I feel His comforting hand; in her pronouncements I hear His authoritative, cogent voice; in her manifold world-wide charities I see His love and compassion; in the way she is harassed and vilified I see His agony and humility on Calvary; in her worship I feel His Spirit girding my soul.

      "This compels my obedience. All else is shifting sand
      posted 3 months ago. ( reply )
  • dtbrents

    dtbrents 

    I think Paul was correcting the problem of disorder in the church. Too many were doing too many things. Paul was giving them guidelines on how to conduct themselves.
    posted 3 months ago. ( reply )
  • Karen P

    Karen P 

    I believe God likes orde. He said in scripture that He is not the author of confusion. Satan loves to confuse, distract, call attention to self...pride.
    I agree that the verse was to correct what was going on in that church.
    posted 3 months ago. ( reply )
  • To reply to this discussion, please sign in or join now.

Return to top
© 2008 Tastemakers, Inc. | Portions of Shelfari.com are Copyright © 1996-2008 Amazon.com, Inc. or its affiliates. Terms & Conditions | Privacy Policy | Copyright Policy