When you read I Corinthians 14:22, you find that tongues are a sign not for believers, but for unbelievers; prophecy is exactly opposite. One’s initial reaction would be that tongues are “for” in a positive sense — that is, they are to the advantage of the unbeliever, or they are to produce faith in the unbeliever. However, if this is the case, we have two glaring contradictions: Paul says here that tongues is not for the believer, but elsewhere he says precisely the opposite (e.g. vs. 4). Even more pointedly, he says prophecy is not for the unbeliever — but immediately goes on to explain how prophecy convicts and admonishes the unbeliever, and even causes him to worship. How can this not be an obvious contradiction in the very same passage?

My point is that it must be a contradiction if we take believer/unbeliever as two groups upon which the signs initially act for edification of faith. If we see these signs acting upon only unbelievers in this passage, but one of them acting so as to produce more unbelief, and one of them acting so as to produce genuine faith, then you can account for Paul’s example of prophecy benefiting an unbeliever, after he had just said prophecy is not for an unbeliever, you can account for other places where Paul says tongues are edifying for the believer, and so on.

I’m not sure if my explanation made any more sense than the original. But that’s all I can say right now.

Pitchford