You are wrong.
1 Cor 14:14 For if I pray in an unknown tongue, my spirit prayeth, but my understanding is unfruitful.
1 Cor. 14:14-15 –
This one could easily take a few pages to explain properly, but I'll try and sum it up as briefly as possible.....
Again, you have to go to the Greek. This passage hinges on the Greek word “akarpos” – which can be used in two different ways: in an active sense and in a passive sense. Yes, it's an adjective, but most people do not realize that an adjective has something similar to grammatical voice like verbs. Adjectives can be used with a passive sense/meaning, or with an active sense/meaning.
Many people subscribe to a passive usage, i.e. my understanding is unfruitful (
to me ), or my understanding produces no fruit
in/for me . In short, what I'm saying doesn't benefit me as I have no idea what I'm saying even though I am praying “in the spirit” (as defined in my original post).
Given that Paul, in his letter, calls for
clarity and understanding at a public worship such that
everyone there can benefit , an
active understanding of ‘akarpos’ makes considerable more sense in light of what Paul is trying to convey: that is, my understanding is unfruitful
for others , or my understanding produces no fruit
for/in others .
In other words, the fact
I, myself understand what I’m saying does not benefit anyone else as they don’t speak my language.
This is not just my view, but also the view of a number of Biblical commentators.
Now, before you think using this passage with an active meaning is something far-fetched, or a new concept, or a recent ‘theory’, consider Luther’s Bible of 1534 - written almost 500 years ago.
This same passage is rendered (in English) “...my understanding
brings no one fruit ”.
Even almost 500 years ago, the idea of this passage having an active usage was nothing new. Indeed, an active understanding/reading fits better with Paul’s intent of clarity so
all may benefit. Further, it's clear here the speaker is praying in a particular (known) language; specifically, his native language (which none in his audience speaks/understands - it kind if hinges back to 1 Cor. 14:2).
It seems that those Christian denominations that adhere to the modern understanding of tongues, as redefined by the Pentecostal church in the early 1900’s, will
only entertain the passive passive usage of the phrase. Again, it's the only possible way for the passage to work to fit their concept of "tongues".
There’s just no evidence whatsoever of modern tongues-speech here. The speaker understands perfectly well what he’s saying; again, like 1 Cor. 14:2, it’s the
audience who doesn’t understand, and thus does not benefit.
Verse 15 - In this verse, the speaker will 'pray/sing in the Spirit' (as defined in my original post), and will pray with his mind/understanding. The context requires that praying/singing with 'his mind' is understood to mean with his mind bearing fruit or being fruitful to others. Again, the active sense as already defined in verse 14. It's all about real, rational language. One the speaker knows, one the audience does not.