Point 4:
"Love never fails. But whether there are prophecies, they will fail; whether there are tongues, they will cease; whether there is knowledge, it will vanish away. For we know in part and we prophesy in part. But when that which is perfect has come, then that which is in part will be done away." 1 Corinthians 13:8-10
There are a couple of things to think about in this passage.
First, tongues is sandwiched between prophecy and knowledge. This seems to indicate that the intended purpose of tongues is to impart knowledge.
The really weak thing about using such a loose argument is that Paul gets rather specific in the following chapter, and this sort of thing should not be a question because Paul makes it clear. At the least in the context of the church, when one speaks in tongues, others do not understand. He is not even speaking with his own mind, so it is unlikely he understands. But the way it can be understood is through interpretation. According to chapter 12, interpretation of tongues is a gift of the Spirit. Interpretation can be understood by the congregation.
The imparting of knowledge does not come through speaking in tongues, but rather the interpretation thereof in the context of I Corinthians 14.
Now if God wasn't to sovereignly arrange that those present understand the tongue or enable the individual speaking in tongues to speak in the language of someone present who understands it, an Acts 2 type situation, then He may do so.
It's not a private prayer language but a gift for imparting knowledge to those present.
I would agree that the definition of speaking in tongues is not a 'private prayer language.' Tongues may be used for individual prayer, but Paul treats that as the same type of tongue that is interpreted
We do not have to make arguments based on loose reasoning when we have more specific scriptures.
I Corinthians 14
2 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. 3 But he who prophesies speaks edification and exhortation and comfort to men. 4 He who speaks in a tongue edifies himself, but he who prophesies edifies the church. 5 I wish you all spoke with tongues, but even more that you prophesied; [
a]for he who prophesies
is greater than he who speaks with tongues, unless indeed he interprets, that the church may receive edification.
(NKJV)
If someone speaks to God in tongues, he is ___praying___ right? Paul wished they would all do that. But even more than praying in tongues, he would prefer they either prophesy. He also speaks positively of interpreting tongues. Both prophesying and interpreting tongues edify the congregation.
In verses 16 and 17, we see that it is possible to give thanks well in tongues. It does not edify others. If you look in verse 28, if there is no interpreter the speaker in tongues is to 'speak to Himself and to God.' So prayer in tongues is again allowed in the proper context. But speech in church assemblies is for mutual edification of the church, hence the instructions about tongues being interpreted.
Praying in tongues is a good thing that Paul wished his readers would do. Speech that edifies the congregation is better. In church 'let all things be done unto edifying.'
Let me ask you, does your church allow members of the congregation to edify the assembly by teaching, prophesying, speaking in tongues, or interpreting? Isn't it consistent with this passage to allow that?
Secondly, it says tongues will cease. If tongues is an actual language of angels, why should we think it would ever cease? Will angels cease? Will they get a new language at some point? But tongues, like prophecy and knowledge, will cease because it's a temporary spiritual gift.
This interpretation, of yours and the guy in the video, is rather odd. Do you know any other interpreter in the world who takes 'tongues will cease' to mean that human languages will be no more? If we read the New Jerusalem passage in Revelation, the names of apostles are written on the city. People who enter are people whose names are written in the book of life. How can these things be written if there are no languages to be written in?
If human languages exist now and will cease in the age to come, is that any more strange than angelic language existing now and ceasing in the age to come? We know as humans it is hard to conceptualize communicating without spoken language, but none of us have been angelic beings and we do not know whether the absence of language would be a big issue for them. I don't see how you have any kind of argument against the possibility of angelic languages from this passage. If 'tongues will cease' is an argument that there must not be any angelic languages now, then it should be just as much of a strong argument that there must not be any human languages now either. We should just stick with what the Bible says.
One interpretation of the passage is that tongues as a gift will cease. I suppose one could interpret it to mean that an individual manifestation of speaking in tongues will cease wherever it appears. You don't keep speaking in tongues forever. Maybe that comment was compelling to Corinthians who thought it was spiritual to go on and on in tongues in church without interpretation.