"angelic tongues" is a language known by angels, but still a language. Not the random syllables without meaning spoken by most "tongue talkers" today. But referring to 1 Cor. 13, Paul is using the term as a hyperbole - that is, as an exaggerative example, the same as he uses other illustrations, such as body being burned, etc. It's all exaggerative language for the purpose of proving the point that love is above everything, including what men think is great. He is not suggesting that anyone speaking tongues could actually speak an angelic language, as that is an interpretation imposed on the text.
Regarding Rom. 8:26, it says "cannot be uttered," therefore it is not talking about tongues-speaking. Incidentally, "tongues" in the NT means "language" in that context.
Those having the gifts are considered superior only by those who are yet carnal, according to Paul in the context of 1 Cor. The one who is spiritually superior is the one who loves, who bears the fruit of the Spirit. Paul wrote in that context that the Corinthians who were speaking tongues out of order were carnal, therefore that gift is not an indicator of spiritual superiority.
I read your link. I fully agree with you that the hearing miracle theory in Acts 2 is incorrect. It is unfortunate that most of those who hold to that theory get very angry when I try to correct them on it.
I think you are confused between the kind of gift that tongues is, and its purpose or agenda. In the context of the NT, we can see various agendas for the gift, although it is the same gift. In Acts 2, it was for proving to the unbelieving crowd that the disciples of Christ had received the Spirit. In other places of Acts, it was for proving to the apostles that various people groups had received the Spirit the same as they had, Samaritans and gentiles alike. In 1 Cor. 14, Paul mentions praying or singing to God in tongues (a language unknown to the speaker), or speaking a message to the church (via interpretation). That would be different agendas, but there is no indication that the kind of gift it is has changed from the beginning, according to the wider context of the NT. I disagree that different purposes for tongues necessitates it being different kinds.
I fully agree that this statement in the video was incorrect.
Paul wrote that if an unbeliever enters and sees you all speaking in tongues, will he not think you mad? This is a clear indicator that tongues without interpretation is not to be spoken in the congregation, for
any reason whatsoever. The unbeliever, or unlearned, can't tell the difference between a time of "worship" and a time of "addressing the congregation," since they are unlearned and will not be able to discern the segregation of times, that is, reasons why people are doing what they are doing. It is confusion as the apostle said it was.
This is a false judgment, and is slanderous of the video author. The author is trying to clarify what the Bible says about the subject, but here you are judging him to have an evil motive "to prevent tongues from being expressed." You further judge it by saying it "is tragic and divisive." Your prejudice in this matter is evident.
Also, your interpretation of scripture is obviously based on personal subjective experience imposed on the text, and not on correctly extracting the original meaning from the text. I suggest you do a lot more study before you try to teach others.
We are not forbidding Biblical tongues being spoken. We are writing against modern glossolalia which is a human phenomenon and not Biblical tongues, as well as against the violations of scriptural commands and advice done by many of these groups.
TD