That's not true I'm afraid. MacArthur uses 1 Corinthians 14 and other scriptures extensively to disprove charismatic/pentecostal theology. For example, here is an excerpt from his book where he dispels the theory that Corinthian tongues was a non-human language....
John Macarthur - Strange Fire
In defending nonsensical speech, most charismatics retreat to the book of 1 Corinthians— contending the gift described in 1 Corinthians 12– 14 is categorically different from that of Acts. But once again, this assertion is not permitted by the text. A simple word study effectively makes that point, since both passages use the same terminology to describe the miraculous gift. In Acts, Luke uses laleo (“ to speak”) in combination with glossa (“ tongues”) four different times (Acts 2: 4, 11; 10: 46; 19: 6). In 1 Corinthians 12– 14, Paul uses forms of that same combination thirteen times (1 Cor. 12: 30; 13: 1; 14: 2, 4, 5 [2x], 6, 13, 18, 19, 21, 27, 39).
These linguistic parallels carry added significance when we consider that Luke was Paul’s traveling companion and close associate, even writing under Paul’s apostolic authority. Because he penned the book of Acts around AD 60, roughly five years after Paul wrote his first epistle to the Corinthians, Luke would have been well aware of their confusion regarding the gift of languages. Certainly Luke would not have wanted to add to that confusion. Thus, he would not have used the exact same terminology in Acts as Paul did in 1 Corinthians unless what had happened at Pentecost was identical to the authentic gift Paul described in his epistle.
The fact that Paul noted “various kinds of tongues” in 1 Corinthians 12: 10 (NASB) does not imply that some are real languages and others are merely gibberish. Rather, the Greek word for kinds is genos, from which we derive the word genus. Genos refers to a family, group, race, or nation. Linguists often refer to language “families” or “groups,” and that is precisely Paul’s point: there are various families of languages in the world, and this gift enabled some believers to speak in a variety of them. In Acts 2, Luke emphasized that same idea in verses 9– 11, where he explained that the languages that were spoken came from at least sixteen different regions.
Other parallels between Acts and 1 Corinthians 12– 14 can be established. In both places, the Source of the gift is the same— the Holy Spirit (Acts 2: 4, 18; 10: 44– 46; 19: 6; 1 Cor. 12: 1, 7, 11, et al.). In both places, the reception of the gift is not limited to the apostles, but also involved laypeople in the church (cf. Acts 1: 15; 10: 46; 19: 6; 1 Cor. 12: 30; 14: 18). In both places, the gift is described as a speaking gift (Acts 2: 4, 9– 11; 1 Cor. 12: 30; 14: 2, 5). In both places, the resulting message can be translated and thereby understood, either by those who already know the language (as on the day of Pentecost— Acts 2: 9– 11) or by someone gifted with the ability to translate (1 Cor. 12: 10; 14: 5, 13).
In both places, the gift served as a miraculous sign for unbelieving Jews (Acts 2: 5, 12, 14, 19; 1 Cor. 14: 21– 22; cf. Isa. 28: 11– 12). In both places, the gift of languages was closely associated with the gift of prophecy (Acts 2: 16– 18; 19: 6; 1 Cor. 14). And in both places, unbelievers who did not understand what was being spoken responded with mockery and derision (Acts 2: 13; 1 Cor. 14: 23). Given so many parallels, it is exegetically impossible and irresponsible to claim that the phenomenon described in 1 Corinthians was any different from that of Acts 2. Since the gift of tongues consisted of authentic foreign languages on the day of Pentecost, then the same was true for the believers in Corinth.
Two additional considerations make this understanding absolutely certain. First, by insisting any language spoken in tongues in the church must be translated by someone with the gift of interpretation (1 Cor. 12: 10; 14: 27), Paul indicated that the gift consisted of rational languages. The word for interpretation is hermeneuo (from which we get hermeneutics), which refers to a “translation” or an “accurate unfolding of the meaning.” Obviously, it would be impossible to translate nonsensical gibberish, since translation requires concrete meanings in one language to be rendered correctly into another.
Unless the gift in 1 Corinthians 12– 14 consisted of authentic languages, Paul’s repeated insistence on interpretation would be meaningless. As Norm Geisler explains, “The fact that the tongues of which Paul spoke in 1 Corinthians could be ‘interpreted’ shows that it was a meaningful language. Otherwise it would not be an ‘interpretation’ but a creation of the meaning. So the gift of ‘interpretation’ (1 Cor. 12: 30; 14: 5, 13) supports the fact that tongues were a real language that could be translated for the benefit of all by this special gift of interpretation.” 24
Second, Paul explicitly referenced human languages in 1 Corinthians 14: 10– 11, where he wrote, “There are, it may be, so many kinds of languages in the world, and none of them is without significance. Therefore, if I do not know the meaning of the language, I shall be a foreigner to him who speaks, and he who speaks will be a foreigner to me.” On the day of Pentecost, there was no need for an interpreter because people in the crowd already understood the various languages that were spoken (Acts 2: 5– 11). But in the Corinthian church, where those languages were not known, a translator was required; otherwise, the congregation would not understand the message and, therefore, would not be edified. The apostle’s later reference to Isaiah 28: 11– 12 (a passage in which the “other tongues and other lips” refers to the Assyrian language) confirms that Paul had human foreign languages in mind (1 Cor. 14: 21).
When the biblical evidence is considered, there is no question the true gift of languages described in 1 Corinthians 12– 14 was precisely the same miraculous rational speech the disciples spoke in Acts 2— namely, the Spirit-given ability to communicate in a foreign language unknown to the speaker. No other explanation is permitted by the text of Scripture. As Thomas Edgar observes:
There are verses in 1 Corinthians 14 where foreign language makes sense but where unintelligible ecstatic utterance does not (e.g. v. 22). However, the reverse cannot be said. A foreign language not understood by the hearer is no different from unintelligible speech in his sight. Therefore, in any passage where such ecstatic speech may be considered possible, it is also possible to substitute a language not familiar to the hearers. In this passage there are no reasons, much less the very strong reasons necessary, to depart from the normal meaning of glossa and to flee to a completely unsupported usage. 25
This conclusion represents a deathblow to the modern charismatic version of glossolalia, which shares nothing in common with the actual New Testament gift, but rather mirrors the frenzied speech of the ancient Greco-Roman mystery religions— pagan practices that Scripture condemns (cf. Matt. 6: 7). 26
…
What Are the “Tongues of Angels”?
Charismatics often point to Paul’s statement in 1 Corinthians 13: 1, where he mentions angelic tongues. Invariably, they want to claim that the gibberish we hear in charismatic glossolalia is an otherworldly tongue— some sort of holy, heavenly language that transcends human conversation and belongs to the discourse of angels.
Beyond being an insult to angels, that interpretation of 1 Corinthians 13: 1 falls flat when one considers the context. Notice, first of all, that Paul’s theme in 1 Corinthians 13 is love, not spiritual gifts. And he introduces the subject this way: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, but have not love, I have become sounding brass or a clanging cymbal.” Paul is describing a hypothetical scenario. (His subsequent examples in verses 2– 3 indicate Paul was using extreme illustrations and hyperbolic language to emphasize the value of love.) 30 He did not lack love; he is asking the Corinthians to imagine if he did. Likewise, he is not claiming he had the ability to speak angelic languages; he is supposing the imaginary case of someone who could do so, but who spoke without love— without concern for the edification of others. His conclusion? The result would be of no more use than mere noise.
Ironically, charismatics often focus so intently on the phrase “tongues of angels” that they miss Paul’s real point: any selfish use of this gift violated its true purpose— namely, that it be exercised as an expression of loving edification for other believers. Others are not edified by the mere spectacle of someone speaking in tongues (1 Cor. 14: 17), nor are they edified by hearing unintelligible gibberish. The practice violates everything Paul is teaching the Corinthians in this epistle.
Of course, even if someone insists on taking the phrase “tongues of angels” literally, it is helpful to note that every time angels spoke in the Bible, they did so in a real language that was understandable to those to whom they spoke. Nothing about the phrase “tongues of angels” in 1 Corinthians 13: 1 justifies the modern practice of irrational babble.
….
What Did Paul Mean When He Said Tongues-Speakers Speak to God, Not to Men?
Charismatics sometimes cling to this phrase in 1 Corinthians 14: 2 as a justification for their unintelligible glossolalia. But once again, the context belies that interpretation. The entirety of verses 1– 3 reads as follows: “Pursue love, and desire spiritual gifts, but especially that you may prophesy. For he who speaks in a tongue does not speak to men but to God, for no one understands him; however, in the spirit he speaks mysteries. But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men.”
In those verses, Paul was not extolling the gift of tongues; rather he was explaining why it was inferior to the gift of prophecy. Whereas prophecy was spoken in words that everyone could understand, the gift of foreign languages had to be interpreted in order for others to be edified. Paul defined exactly what he meant by the phrase “does not speak to men but to God” in the very next line, “for no one understands.” If the language was not translated, only God would know what was being said.
Clearly, Paul was far from commending such a practice. As he had already established (in chapter 12), the purpose of the gifts was the edification of others within the body of Christ. Foreign languages left untranslated did not fulfill that purpose. That is why the apostle put such an emphasis on the necessity of interpretation (vv. 13, 27).