The Analogous Gifts: A New Framework for Cessationists and Continuationists | Dr. Vern Poythress

Most Christians think the debate over spiritual gifts comes down to one question: do they still happen or don't they? Dr. Vern Poythress, 50-year New Testament professor at Westminster Theological Seminary, says both cessationists and continuationists are asking the wrong question. 

ABOUT THIS EPISODE:
Dr. Poythress proposes the term "analogous gifts" — the idea that the gifts of the Spirit are genuine, Spirit-empowered works modeled after Christ's own prophetic, priestly, and kingly ministry, but subordinate to it. Not identical to what the apostles did. Not a lower-tier substitute. Analogous with the same Spirit, the same source, a different level of authority.

This reframing has real stakes for the cessationist/continuationist divide. The tension in the body of Christ right now isn't just academic: it's shaping how whole churches think about prophecy, tongues, healing, and what it means to be filled with the Spirit. Dr. Poythress argues that if Gaffin is right about New Testament prophecy being infallible, that doesn't end the conversation, but just moves it. There's still a genuine, non-inspired, Spirit-empowered gifting that needs to be accounted for. And if Grudem is right, continuationists still need to reckon with what discernment and testing actually look like in practice.

Joshua and Dr. Poythress also discuss the history of cessationism, why it developed as a response to Roman Catholic claims, how the Reformation fought on two fronts (Rome and the enthusiasts), and why figures like Samuel Rutherford and even C.H. Spurgeon complicate the neat cessationist narrative. The episode doesn't try to solve the debate. It tries to widen the table.

0:00 – Introduction
0:44 – Guest: Vern Poythress
3:05 – Analogous Gifts Explained
14:52 – Cessationism vs. Completionism
20:34 – Canon and Prophecy
30:06 – Puritan Prophesying Language
44:04 – RC Sproul's Voice
53:15 – Pursuing Spiritual Gifts
59:09 – Closing Thoughts

GROW IN THE GIFTS OF THE SPIRIT PLAYLIST: 
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLMsjeViSScFGpsFnIkPFAIzI4BFoAy3zQ

ABOUT THE GUEST:
"What are Spiritual Gifts?" by Dr. Poythress https://frame-poythress.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/PoythressVernWhatAreSpiritualGifts.pdf

Subscribe to The Remnant Radio newsletter and receive our FREE introduction to spiritual gifts eBook. Plus, get access to: discounts, news about upcoming shows, courses and conferences - and more. Subscribe now at TheRemnantRadio.com.

Transcript

0:00

Hey everybody, welcome back to the wonderful world of Remnant Radio. My name is Joshua Lewis, and today I am uh joined with Dr. Vern Poithrus, and we're gonna be talking about the analogous gifts. It's gonna be the exciting program. You guys are dude. Hey guys, thank you so much for joining us here at Remnant Radio. If it's your first time, feel free to like and subscribe to the video because it'll help us in the YouTube algorithms. And if you're interested in getting more up-to-date information on things Remnant Radio, there's a link in the description for our newsletter. It'll let you know when we come out with videos just like this. But it'll also give you updates for our conferences and courses, tons of discounts for those sorts of things, free ebooks, all kinds of really great stuff. Without further ado, I want to introduce to you our guest. He has come back once again, Dr. Vern Poithrus. Uh, before we get started with the conversation today, could you tell us a little about yourself and your ministry? Um I teach New Testament at Westminster Theological Seminary in Philadelphia. I've been, this is my 50th year. So um yeah, and I've you know, one of my interests has been this area of spiritual gifts. Excellent. Okay. Uh what was what was your interest in that? How did how did you get started? I had encounters firsthand with charismatic groups. Uh even before I knew much theology as an undergraduate. I had grown up in a Baptist church uh that didn't say anything about tongues and prophecy. And then I encountered so so I had to figure it out, and it took me a while. I I asked the Lord for his help because I read things on both sides and and I thought this is tough. It's not gotten any easier, I don't think. Yeah. Yeah. And then one of my friends uh that I met when he was still an undergraduate was Wayne Grutem. And so uh we together have discussed some things about spiritual gifts. Yeah, we've had Wayne on the show back in 2017 when the show first got off the ground. I don't know how we got a hold of him, but we were able to snag a really cool interview with him talking about spiritual gifts. Now, you you use a phrase that is new to me. It's analogous gifts. Uh I I've never heard the phrase before, but reading up on your material, you've got some, and you've got a lot of stuff, that material on your website for people who want to check it out. We'll link it in the description so people can go check out that content. Uh, but but tell us your perspective on spiritual gifts. I I would probably classify you as a continuationist, uh, but by the way that you're kind of you articulate uh the this this position, it would be almost a mediated position between some of the categories used by continuist and the categories dues by cessationist, uh, and saying, hey, I think there's a mediated position here that you seem to hold. Could you uh explain that to our audience? All right. Well, um, I think the easiest way of getting at it is by thinking of Jesus Christ Himself first, because he is uh anointed with the Holy Spirit for his ministry uh when he's baptized by John the Baptist. Now we know that as God the Holy Spirit is one with him and the Father in the mystery of the Trinity, but he also took on full human nature, and so in his human nature he needed to be uh empowered by the Holy Spirit for his public ministry. And and in Luke, um in Luke 4, when he preaches at Nazareth, he taught he quotes from Isaiah 51, The Holy Spirit is upon me because he has anointed me to bring good news to the poor. Well, that is a prophetic ministry, right? Of proclaiming the word of God to the poor. But when Jesus does it, he does it with absolute authority and infallibility because he's God. And and uh like the Old Testament prophets Isaiah and Jeremiah, he speaks with authority of God himself. He brings the word of God. Now that's not uh what every Christian receives, but uh when we're united with Christ, we do receive the Holy Spirit, and that's pictured at Pentecost. Pentecost is a one-time event uh in the history of God's dealings, but it shows what happens to every Christian when he's united with Christ, we receive the Holy Spirit, and according to First Corinthians 12, that makes us part of the body, and we're given gifts of the Spirit. So those are subordinate to Christ, and and we don't claim that we're infallible, we're not Christ, but the gifts we have, we have as empowered by the Holy Spirit, who is the Spirit of Christ, that Christ, you know, uh Acts 2 33, uh being exalted to the right hand of the Father, uh, and having received from the Father the the promised Holy Spirit, he that is Jesus, has poured out that which you see and hear. Right. So the the gifts that any Christian brother or sister has are from Christ and they're after the model of Christ. And that means they're analogous. So uh it is a standard thing, and it's there in the New Testament, that Jesus is our final and supreme prophet and king and priest. And if you want to see all those three together, it's in Hebrews 1, 1 to 3. And we could go there and spend a lot of time there, but uh I'm gonna move on because I think the point is that each of us united with Christ, we receive the benefits of who Christ is into our own lives. Now, people think of that in terms of, let's say, forgiveness of sins and and justification that we're made perfectly righteous according to the righteousness of Christ. Um, and that is true. But it is true also of the gifts of the Spirit, that they are gifts from the ascended Christ. So we are prophets and kings and priests, and I can give you verses that show all three of those. Uh but it's analogous, right? We we're not claiming to be Christ. So that's the fundamental idea, and it's actually derives out of the meaning of what it means to be a Christian who's a disciple of Christ, but not only a disciple who's learning from Christ, but somebody who's filled with the Spirit of Christ. And that means what we do is going to be, I mean, that is, if we're obedient, right? Again, there's this issue of, yeah, we're going to fall flat on our face, we're going to commit sins sometimes, and we're going to have to repent. But nevertheless, we are new creatures in Christ. And that means that we are to be the light to the world. Jesus says that in the Sermon on the Mount. You are the light of the world. Well, he's the light of the world. And that light is one aspect primarily of prophetic ministry. Uh right, so Jesus is a light by teaching the people the way to God. So we are to be subordinate lights, but by analogy, and I think every preacher has some sense of this. Modern preachers, they don't claim, if they know anything at all with sense, they don't claim to be infallible. But what they say, they want to be imitators of Christ and they want to be filled with the Holy Spirit, which is the Spirit of Christ. So actually, though my terms may be a little new, I think the idea is actually there in the Bible. Yeah, no, I don't disagree. I mean, we've got this idea that the Holy Spirit comes upon individuals in the Old Testament for specific purposes and cause. Christ comes on the scene. He's got the spirit without measure. He's he's functioning as his high priest, king, uh, and prophet to the nation of Israel and at his ascension. Uh like the way that Luke phrases it in Acts, he says, these are the things that Jesus began to do and teach, suggesting that the book of Acts is what Jesus is continuing to do and teach. So the ministry of Jesus, it's it's it's the only ministry of anyone. Like we typically when people die if the ministry ends with them, but Jesus, when he dies and ascends on high, he democratizes that ministry to all people. Um, so that we are a royal priesthood, priesthood and a holy nation. That the gift of prophecy is poured out on all flesh, trouble to Acts 2. So uh it's not the great mission, it's the great co-mission, it's partnership with Christ. So I like the analogous language there. Do you do you find any distinction between what you and I would consider uh, okay, a prophetic revelation or tongue speech or praying for the sick as it relates to the apostles? Because I can see that you're making a distinction between us and Jesus in who wouldn't want to do that? No Christian that I can think of would say, hey, uh I'm I'm I'm walking in the exact same uh holiness and authority and all this other stuff as Jesus as it relates to uh his uniqueness as the only begotten son of the Father, right? Uh but what about the apostles? Is there a is there a tier system within Christianity where we have Christ at the top, you know, the the apostles who are the the uber mensches of of Christianity with super glorious power and then the everyday believer underneath? How would you how would you categorize those sorts of things? Yeah, right. Well, we mustn't picture the apostles as faultless. Uh Peter denied the Lord three times. And that was most embarrassing, not only embarrassing, but guilt-filled uh act of his whole life. And yet he was restored. And then later on, the Apostle Paul, this is Galatians 2, had to rebuke him for being inconsistent with what Peter actually believed, his behavior in withdrawing from communion with the Gentiles, eating food there with them, was inconsistent with what Peter himself believed in. And uh from everything that we can tell, Peter admitted, yeah, you're right, Paul. So the apostles are not without sins. But what's unique to them, according to Acts 2, is that Jesus appointed them as special eyewitnesses to his ministry and to his death and resurrection. And they are given his authority, right? So in their official teaching, they are infallible. Now you know you see the way I tell that, right? In their official teaching doesn't mean that they are sinful, uh sinless in every aspect of their lives. And that that uh unique qualification, I would extend it to other New Testament writers, because Jesus clearly endorsed endorses the divine authority of the Old Testament, and the New Testament is to be the expected continuation of it. So that level is a level, you might say, of biblical canon, of the books of the Bible. They are infallible, they are fully trustworthy, and we are not on that level. Now, that doesn't mean that we don't have the Holy Spirit. It simply means that we recognize there's a unique and one-time role for the writers of the Bible. Now, let me ask you some clarifying questions on some of this, because uh we're getting into two separate subjects. One is the continuation of the gifts, and the other is what constitutes the canon. Um, and I know that those two things can have similar overlap, especially when we think about John writing the book of Revelation, right? There is both Revelation and canonized scripture uh kind of connected there. Uh, but we have prophets in the Old Testament who weren't eyewitnesses of Christ. In fact, they longed, they searched out the scriptures longing to see, right, the things that we now have. And it it was a mystery to them. So uh are we to understand that it was because they were eyewitnesses to Jesus that allowed them to write scripture? Because that that gets to that gets real complicated in the fact that we don't know who wrote Hebrews. Mark wasn't one of those eyewitnesses, et cetera, et cetera. Um additionally, you've got Thomas and Bartholomew, and you've got you've got you you got a you got a handful of guys who never wrote anything. So it's like if their job was to write scripture, they failed. I mean, I say that tongue in cheek a little bit, that no one failed, it was God's sovereign plan, but like if that was the objective, it didn't seem to flesh out. But that's that is part of the objective that is bound up with the once-for-all witness of the apostles. So Mark was was not an eyewitness to the entire ministry of Jesus, but uh the tradition at least says that he was he followed Peter around, and uh so that he recorded the things that Peter taught. Uh and Luke, of course, was a close companion of Paul. So you're right that the authorship of the books of the Bible is something different, but it too is included in the once-for-all function. We need the whole canon. Now, uh, let's go to the word cessationist. Uh, one of the things that I try to be careful about is how I use words, and different people use words different ways, right? So I call myself a cessationist because I do not think there are people nowadays who are adding more books to the canon. That is complete. The word cease suggests that we're lacking something, but actually what we have is the fullness of the canon. Right? So you might say we are completionists, and that is we think the canon is what we need, and God has provided it for the church for all generations. So uh that's a kind of cessationism, right? But it's actually distinct from the issue of whether prophecy or tongues, as described in the New Testament, continue. Wayne Grudham, uh, who has written extensively on this subject, he too is a cessationist with respect to the canon. And I think he's helped a lot of people in the charismatic movement to understand we actually really, really need to believe that the canon God has given us is sufficient for Christian living. We need that, and the and you know, the people who have claimed to have additions uh more stuff, uh over the centuries have over and over again led the church astray. Greetham knows that, I know that, and we agree. And Gaffin, who's classified as associationists, he agrees this is very important. It is so important that that's the way I use the word cessationist. I'd say, you know, because I think the canon is complete, or completionist, if you will, because that's a positive way of saying it. And it's a way also of appreciating that we don't need anything more than Christ. If you have Christ, you have all the fullness of God. And and the Bible in the New Testament gives you all you need to know about Christ. If we keep that central, that's going to serve the health of the church. If people are going after new things, frequently it's like 2 Timothy, where Paul warns against people who will who will gather teachers who will tickle their ears. They're looking for something new. And what they ought to focus on is what God has already given us. What He's given us in Christ is so tremendous, it's incalculable. And Paul in Ephesians talks about the fact that he prays that the Ephesians would know the breadth and length and height and depth of love of Christ, which exceeds knowledge. There's nothing greater in this life than that. So that's the emphasis. But then, yes, there is the question. Do prophecy in tongues or healing gifts, let's say, add that in, do they continue beyond uh the first century or basically the era of the apostles? That is a more difficult question, but it also depends on what you mean by prophecy in tongues and and what the charismatics call prophecy in tongues. I think I can put into a framework where it makes sense what's happening, and with Grudom cautioning that this is not infallible, but it can be a genuine work of the spirit. So it's that stance, but it's backs away a little bit from saying, what do we call these things? If we call them prophecy in tongues, are we committed to say that they're exactly the same thing that occurs in the New Testament? Maybe they are, maybe they're not, but they're analogous to what the apostles did and what Jesus did without being identical. So that's the framework that I use in order partly not to have to uh answer right away the difficult question of the exact boundaries of these words as they're used in the New Testament. And I do think there's evidence, you've cited it in Acts 2, that prophecy is sometimes used very broadly so that every genuine believer is a prophet because we've got the Holy Spirit in us and we've got the Word of God dwelling in us. It's supposed to abide in us, and so we speak that word of God, not infallibly, but as best the Holy Spirit empowers us to do. And that is the kind of thing that Acts 2 includes in this vision of the spirit being poured out on all flesh, it's not just a tiny group of special gifted people. If we have that group, that's fine, but we all have the Holy Spirit. Let me let me uh drill down into this for some of my audience, uh, because I think you and I know some of the history historical formulation of the words cessationist and maybe more recently continuist, and that regard people would be more familiar with charismatic Pentecostal language. Um, but but let me just kind of back up, rewind the tape a little bit, because some people are asking, what on earth does prophecy have to do with the close of the canon, other than the fact that, like, well, some academicals out there who aren't connected to the head wanting to find about vain imaginations and puffed up about dreams and visions of angels, Colossians 2, and in, you know, they want to add to the Bible, right? Like, so okay, so maybe there are people out there in the charismatic space who virtually want to do that. That's bad. Uh, Dr. Poythers and I would completely agree on that. The argumentation of cessationism that appeared under Calvin, developed under Middleton, and then culminized in B.B. Warfield, like that kind of formulation is a response to Roman Catholicism. So Protestants come on the scene, hey, the scripture's enough. Rome goes, Well, really? Are you guys even in the real church? What miracles are y'all doing? Uh we've got the miracles, and then the cessationist, well, what would become the cessationist? But the Protestant reformers are going, well, let me look at your miracles, and they kind of look into their miracles and they go, All these are bug. You're not healing people with Mary's breast milk. You don't, you're not taking 20 billion pieces of the cross and you know, uh building crosses all Way from here to Rome. And like, there's just no way that you're doing these miracles that you're claiming you're doing. These must have ended. And as time went on, the argumentation of cessationists began to develop, whether it would be the cluster argument that gifts clustered around the time of Elijah, Moses, and Jesus, or I mean, there's so many various cessationist arguments that closed of the canon, uh, man, the gifts died off in in 300 AD, uh, the gifts of the spirit uh slowly even faded during the life of the apostles, because at the beginning of Paul's ministry, he's doing all this great stuff, but at the end he can't heal Timothy, right? So like he doesn't send him a handkerchief. So there's various arguments on how cessationists articulate it, but it's ultimately tied back to the sufficiency of scripture in the canon because Rome was saying, well, we can decide that there is uh purgatory. We can decide that there is this place of uh or the penance that you can give to the church and we'll give you this treasury of merit. And the Protestants were saying, no, the Bible doesn't tell us that. So ultimately it came back to a position of authority. Who gets to say what is the teaching of the church? So Dr. Poethras is trying to make the argumentation that, hey, um, we are not doing the things that the apostles did uh as a way to authenticate what we're saying as trustworthy messengers, that we can therefore, you know, uh add penance or purgatory just because we're doing signs, wonders, and miracles. I wish, if I'm gonna be honest, I wish that the the historical, the way that it had unfolded in history during the Protestant Reformation had not been the way that it was. Because I do find these as distinctly different doctrines and teachings. Um, because in the Old Testament, you had folks who prophesied and their prophecies are not inscripturated. So it it was understood even in the Old Testament that just because one speaks on behalf of God doesn't make it the canonized scripture for all people everywhere. And I think the same is true in the New Testament. Um for those who are listening, like I believe elders are supposed to be male elders, right? Like that's just kind of my my take on things. And yet Philip had daughters who prophesied, and and it says in Joel 2 that children would prophesy. So are we to understand that prophecy is equal to scripture even in the New Testament, um, the New Testament time, first century time. So like women couldn't uh teach in the uh be elders in the church, that uh children couldn't be elders in the church, but they're able to speak the infallible scriptures, um, you know, as God gives them divine revelation. So I've always understood, probably Old Testament and New Testament, that there are just two different um uh statuses of prophecy. One, like revelation that can be inscripturated for all people, like Isaiah that's inscripturated for all people. And then another kind of prophecy that seems to function in the church that's for edification, exhortation, building up, encouragement. Um, and that seems to be true of both Old and New Testaments, as far as I can see. Now, Dr. Poithras, I know I just spent a lot of time trying to unpack the history of some of this. If there was anything you wanted to add or correct or bring nuance to, you won't you won't upset me or humiliate me if you if you're like Josh, nice try, but that was bad. Um feel free to clean up anything I said. No, that that's useful. That's good, Josh. But uh I would add that the Reformation actually was fighting on two fronts. One was against uh Roman Catholics, and it was really this issue of whether tradition added to the Bible. But the other front was what we call the enthusiasts, and they were people who had new revelations, and they went off the deep end as frequently happens, and and the people claimed to have the same authority as the apostles. Um and uh some of the Anabaptists and some of the Anabaptists were reasonable, but there was a deep end that just went off the off the chart, and then later on the Quakers claimed to have new revelations again on the same level of authority. So I'm uh so that the the Reformation had to deal with, as it were, two extremes, and but also you find in the history there were people who received what do you call them? Do you call them prophecies? Do you call them revelations? Do you call them impressions? And here part of the struggle is exactly what do you call them. But there were people within the mainstream of the revelations who received impressions, strong impressions about the future or about what they were supposed to do. Um, but they didn't lay them on the church as infallible and require other people to follow them. Uh Samuel Rutherford Yeah, I was gonna bring him up if you didn't know. One of the principal authors of the Westminster Standards, which clearly say that there's no additions to the canon, there's no more revelations on that level, but he does talk, interestingly, about other kinds of revelations that he's familiar with in his own day and some of his predecessors, and he cites names and that some of these things we can see from church history. So the the position of the Reformation is not uniform, and these later developments, people have to wrestle with the fact that yeah, sometimes God does give very special impressions to people, but they have to be sifted, and that's what Rain Grudum says too. He says basically, you sift them, you evaluate them on the basis of scripture, which is your infallible basis. Now it sounds as we're having this conversation that you you've said multiple times, well, whether you call it prophecy or not, uh you call it a strong impression, um, you know, you you it seems like you might have an allergy to using the language of prophecy uh even in current day, and I'll let you take time to unpack that. But as you brought up, Samuel Rutherford, he didn't seem to have a problem with calling it prophecy. I mean, he gave a four-stage process of how to test modern day prophecy, his modern day, right? Not ours. But uh, you know, he talks about uh Wishert, Knox, uh uh uh Welsh, uh the Bruce. Uh I mean, he mentions multiple guys in his day who are predicting famines, predicting plagues, who uh, you know, divine revelation is given to spare their lives to avoid uh, you know, conflict and battle. One of the criteria he gives is that, well, we can't elevate this to scripture, we can't elevate this to like a binding on the conscience for all people everywhere, sort of kind of revelation. But but he has multiple categories, one of which was like uh if the prophet who is speaking is an Arminian, you know, well, I can't listen to that. That's that's garbage. Like, I don't necessarily agree with his four standards across the board. But um uh anyway, all that to say that Samuel Rutherford would would seem to use language of prophecy. In fact, he calls one of the, I think it was Knox, he says, you know, one of the greatest prophets of our day. So how how how do you take that? How do you parse that? You know, guys like uh Carson and and Grudom and Sam Storms and Keener, and um, I think Carson in particular is the one who said in every subsequent age of church history, we see uh active the the present working of spiritual gifts. And we've got a whole ebook on that. If people sign up for the newsletter, look at that for free. But um, trying to walk through the history of these things in every subsequent age. So help help help me make sense of that uh as you see it. Why what kind of allergy is there to calling what we see today as revelation prophecy? Yeah. Well, the Puritans themselves had meetings that they called prophesyings. It was groups of preachers who got together to preach one and to one another. So they called it prophesying. So it's clear that for them the word had a flexibility. And I do think that Acts 2 shows that there's a degree of flexibility in the New Testament, right? The prophet is one who brings the word of God. Well, does he do that infallibly like Isaiah, or does he do it like a modern preacher or something, you know, something still third? But the reason why I uh want to be careful for myself personally is that I don't want people who hear me to misunderstand. And in our day, different people have different conceptions. What is that word prophesy or prophet? You know, what does it mean? I don't think it means quite the same thing to everybody, even that would be listening to uh our conversation. So I want to respect that, but I want to be as clear a communicator as I can. So that's a little awkward because it means that I have to use many words, right? Rather than to say, oh, this is prophecy. But I want to use many words so that we sort out what are we talking about. And I also want to avoid something that actually two times in the New Testament it's mentioned. A thing called fights about words. Twice for once in First Timothy, once in 2 Timothy, the Apostle Paul advises Timothy to avoid fights about words. Well, we don't know exactly what that was, but I suspect it was something like this, right? That the people were fighting. Are we gonna use the word prophecy in a narrow sense only for the old, you know, the infallible prophets? Or are we gonna use it in a broad sense, maybe to include the Puritans and their uh prophesying to one another, uh the preachers preaching to one another? How are we gonna use that? Uh and I don't think uh it is um biblical to fight about words. Paul condemns it. No, so so I think that's fair. Yeah, that's fair. I also I I also think that like we should try to allow our language to reflect the language of scripture. So I'm in charismatic circles all the time, and people want to talk about portals, and I'm like, guys, you should stop doing that. There's not a portal in the Bible that's weird. Uh, and they're talking like, I'm talking about an open heaven. Like, oh, okay, I still think your category is probably wrong. Um, but but you should at least try to use a biblical word if if there's a biblical world that word that suffices. I think uh we create unnecessary hurdles for people and interpretive clues and keys. Like, so when someone asks me, like, hey, what is prophecy? Well, I go, I go to the scripture and I say, Well, Paul says, or Paul, God says to Moses, he speaks to Moses face to face, but to Miriam and Aaron, he speaks to riddles and dark sayings. And and Job says, God speaks your way and their way, though man does not perceive it. And and then I go over here, and no man has ever prophesied of his own will. He's carried along by the Holy Spirit as he prophesies. And so I can I can begin to, through the text of scripture, define what a word prophecy is because the the scriptures reveal it. It's the same reason that I tend to not use the word pastor. Like when people are like, hey, pastor Josh, I'm like, nope, just Josh. I'm an elder. That's uh that's my position in the church. But the word pastor comes up in the New Testament one time, whereas elder shows up a lot. And I would rather use a biblically defined word that people can understand and conceptualize rather than nuanced words that I can invent that have no biblical root. So, like, okay, what's the qualifications of a youth pastor? Well, nobody's like, I don't see a youth pastor in the Bible. It's like that's kind of a problem. You could call him a deacon, that could be helpful, you know, those are qualifications. So my only, again, I'm not going to quibble with you over words. Feel feel free to call it whatever you want. But I would say for the listener, I would encourage biblical language for the sake of precision, because it's easier to define a word that is found in the scripture and how the scripture then defines that word, opposed to trying to use newer words in order to kind of craft and shape culture and try to. I don't know. It's just, it's just a difficult thing. And I I know you're speaking to cessationist groups and continuationist groups, and it can be it can be a very difficult thing to navigate those waters. So I commend you for attempting it, but I'll I'll I'll give my two cents to my my viewing audience for however they want to engage with that. Uh feel free to respond. Yeah, I think that's good advice. I I I think we have to be rooted in the Bible. And but one of the things I would observe, which I think you've observed about the language of prophesying, is that there is a range of use. And many times in systematic theology, there is value in creating a technical term which is much more precise than the full range of ordinary language uh used in the Bible. Yeah, the Trinity is one example. Uh but then the conflict comes if if the word like prophecy is used both in a with a range uh of use in the Bible, and then you want to use it as a technical term uh later on in systematic theology. So uh I agree this is these are waters that are difficult to negotiate. The other thing that I have observed is that I think we've now got pretty well established in the scholarly literature two distinct positions about the range of use of the words for prophecy in the New Testament. Uh the one position by Richard B. Gaffin is that it applies only to uh infallible prophecy that potentially could become part of the canon. It's true that not everything did. And Grudom, on the other hand, argues that it's fallible and that it needs to be sifted. So those are the two main positions. And it's difficult, you can read the arguments both ways, but it's very fine-tuned when you come down to look at individual texts, and the texts can the temptation is to push the text in the way that you want it to go or you think it needs to go. And uh, but but I think it is a difficult question. And I have my own opinion, but it varies from text to text because I think of this you know, range of views. Uh I have my own opinion, but because it's difficult, I do not think that that should be the main basis that the life of the church is founded on. It's because the things that are important are also clear. Uh Alistair Begg tended to say in his sermons the plain things are the main things, and the main things are the plain things. And I think that's fundamentally right, that God knows what he was doing, and that there are resources in the Bible that can enable us to live in peace, even if we find ourselves unable fully to come to an agreement on a difficult question like the exact range of use of a particular word in the New Testament. So, my use of analogy is to say, let's suppose that Dr. Gaffin is right, and that in the New Testament all the instances of this use are about infallible prophecies and that we no longer have that level of thing in our own time, which Graedham would agree with that last point. Let's suppose Gaffin is right, can we still find an explanation of spiritual gifting on a lower level, an analogous level, and so affirm what is going on in what the charismatics call prophecy in tongues? And I think the answer is yes. Grudem, on the other hand, I want to say to the people who agree with him, understand that some people in the church use the word prophecy in a restricted sense. So I at one time I was participating in an assembly of God in Stelbas, South Africa. Um I was I was there every Sunday and I asked if they would give me permission to teach through the book of Ephesians, and they did, uh, the Saturday night teaching. I was there and and I struggled with, well, what do I tell them? But I told them, look, don't get into an argument about baptism of the Holy Spirit about prophecy. Because there are people there who are cessationists and who would strongly come back. And I said, don't get into an argument. Show them the Holy Spirit. I think that made sense to them, right? It's not about an argument, it's about the reality of the life of the spirit. Yeah, I'm a I'm a former Pentecostal myself, and I'll tell you that uh uh not arguing but showing uh was one of the staples that fit within our ecosystem of uh of belief. It was like, hey, I can't do all the fancy book learning and explain to you exegetically why this is the case, but I can pray for a sick person and you can watch me do it. Um that was uh it was a that that was that was a very default apologetic within that circle. So I I think that that's probably banged on all cylinders. I I think we can do um both, like in in that Paul would want to reason um and and and demonstrate. I think that both of those should be within our purview and and ethos. Um when we talk about this, you know, you you mentioned, hey, you you remind me a lot of Spurgeon, uh, because Spurge has got these accounts where he tells these stories and you're familiar with them, where he's like, uh you stole those uh those uh gloves and uh you know you you left the the the shoe shop open on Sunday and you you nine pence was your profit and uh you've got a gin bottle in your pocket. And he said 12 different times he can recall just having supernatural knowledge of a person. Uh how he knew it, he doesn't know. He wouldn't call it prophecy, but I'm over here like it looks like a duck, it quacks like a duck. Call that a duck. Uh, but but Spurgeon, uh, he's a cessationist. And I'll tell you, I like Spurgeon's version of cessationism. I think that there is a version of cessationism that says God cannot speak, he would not speak. If he did, it would open the canon. I I think we're putting words into a theological system that are unnecessary. I I think that uh the vast majority of cessationists that I know um are like the RC sprawl cessationists who are like, yeah, uh, I don't believe that God speaks anymore. But also one time I got a call about going to the school when I was praying, about going to the school, and a buddy called me up in the middle of the night and told me, yeah, I should take this job instead of that job. And and how he knew that, I don't know. But God is providentially ordering my steps. And so that's that's my kind of cessationism. I I find more commonality with the Spurgeon-like, the R.C. Spro-like cessationist who believes we live in this mystical world that God is in control of everything and can break in whenever he wants. It's not this deist world where God has spun the world into existence, is no longer involved. Um I have more commonality with that version of cessationism than I do with the hyper charismatic counterparts that are in my camp. Um, just like you guys, you guys are on another planet. Like I don't even know what y'all are talking about. Um talking about portals and uh trips to heaven and all kinds of wack-a-doodle stuff. So I'm I'm I'm I'm with you in trying to be careful. Um when when you're talking about uh some kind of divine communication or revelation, uh acknowledging that you have a difficulty with maybe the language of prophecy because you're trying to bridge the gap with people who use different vocabulary. Uh, what have you found is helpful language to use when when talking about that sort of thing? Yeah. Well, yeah, I'm I'm Mention there is uh on my website, if you're aware, one story that actually comes from R. C. Sprole. And there was one time in his life when he heard a voice telling him what to do. So that illustrates it, doesn't it? But uh one thing I would add is you say that they believe God does not speak. I think that is a very unfortunate way of talking. For me, God speaks vitally and powerfully and wonderfully every time we read the Bible. And and I I sometimes think, you know, the people who are looking for new revelations, do they realize they've got the Bible and how wonderful the Bible is, and that God speaks to them personally. You know, they they feel, you know, if if somebody says, oh, there's somebody in the congregation that that has a back problem and that God wants to heal it, they feel that personally, but when they read the Bible, God is just as personal. He's talking to them as individuals. And the way in which they hear it by the Holy Spirit is not going to be absolutely identical to anybody else in the whole history of the world. So uh one of my points of zeal is that people feel it's personal only when it's outside the Bible, and that's absolutely mistaken. Yeah, and God is speaking all the time in the Bible, and we we need open ears and to hear it. And and the other side of that is the feeling of the sufficiency of Christ. Are are you hankering after it's not that God can't give dreams and visions and uh and okay, so somebody gets a a dream where um uh they see uh their Aunt Mabel has gotten into a car accident and they wake up and they say, What? You know, what am I supposed to do with that? Well, pray that it that God will protect Aunt Mabel and she won't get into an accident, right? Let's do the obvious thing. You don't need to figure out is this some infallible new thing? It is something that God has given because he in his providence he's control of all dreams, special dreams and weird and meaningless dreams as well. So I think sometimes the problem with both, as it were, the right and the left, with both some of the associationists and some of the continuationists, is the same problem, namely that they do not have an operative concept of God's sovereignty over all things, including the details, including all the dreams, including every response that their heart is giving to every word of scripture. And then also to realize, you know, if you're to live the Christian life, do you need to decide to have extra information that is infallible information beyond the Bible? And the answer is no. Psalm 119, verse 1. Blessed are those whose way is blameless, who walk in the law of the Lord. You want to be blameless? Absolutely blameless. Absolutely. How do you get blameless? The answer is right there. Walk in the law of the Lord. That's it. That's all you need. Of course, that's impossible to do. Yeah, but my sin is dragging me back. Well, that's the problem. The problem is sin. It's not that you don't have enough information. So I think sometimes we need to reorient and say, what's the Christian life really about? It's about Christ, it's about knowing Christ and the fullness of his law. That's what the Christian life is about. And it's not about going every which way, right? Seeking things to tickle our ears, nor is it protecting ourselves with a feeling we the Bible is there only in the past as a kind of historical record, and now, you know, I've got to make the best I can of it with my own intellectual equipment. Well, your intellectual equipment is supposed to be penetrated by the Holy Spirit. So I don't want to polarize, you see, between the rish the reasoning and I do the reasoning myself, primarily with the sensationists, to show them that you can create, or really, the space has been there all along for analogical gifts. Yeah. So um, but to me, the whole dispute is secondary because the chief thing is the glory of Christ. Well, okay, let me push back on something because I want to agree, I want to lock arm on a couple things, right? One is gonna be uh I I want to make a hyperemphasis on the normative means of grace, uh, in like the Lutheran sort of way, to say God meets us in the table, God meets us in the word, God meets us in our worship, God meets us in fellowship, and in and he is present with us. And as a body of believers, continuationist or cessationist for that matter, our focus uh should be to uh, you know, I love this Lutheran phrase because it comes up against all of my upbringing in the kind of evangelical church, which says, you didn't come to church to be served, you came to church to serve. And uh the Lutheran pastor says, No, you do come to church to receive, you come to receive the good gifts of God in the table, in the word, in the fellowship of the saints, in in in worship. He inhabits the praise of his people. And I go, yes, that's it. And in my church, if you go to any charismatic church, they'll say I'm a high church guy. If you go to any high church guy, they'll say I'm a very low church guy. But we do creeds, we do confessions, we do communion every week, we you know, we we're we're I want to center around those essential things that form us and fashion us. Spiritual gifts are not the end-all-be-all to the Christian life. You and I can agree on that. However, one might also argue that to be obedient to the word, as you said, is to practice spiritual gifts. Um, I must contend that it's the reason I care about the continuation of cessationist argument, is because Paul says pursue love and earnestly desire spiritual gifts, especially that you prophesy. That is in an inerrant um command of scripture to pursue love and desire spiritual gifts. And to your point, you're like, well, what was what was the point? To glorify God and to build up his people. That's the whole point of 1 Corinthians 12, 13, and 14, is that the unbeliever would fall on their face and say, Surely God is among them, that glorifies God. And secondly, it builds up the body of Christ. So I I agree with your conclusion that our aim should be the main thing. I would just say, amongst the main thing, amongst the how do we glorify God living as holy witnesses? How do we glorify God uh proclaiming the truth of his word, being ready in season and out of season? How do we glorify God? One of those things is the demonstration or the manifestation of the Holy Spirit in our lives seen in spiritual gifts, according to what I see in the scripture. And feel free to push back on that. I I just think that uh I think we can say, oh, it's all about Jesus, not about all this other stuff. But then I go, well, all that other stuff makes it about Jesus. So I just say yes and um rather than maybe either or on that one. And and and please push back, because again, I I think you're right. There are people who are separated from the head Colossians too, who just want to go on in vain imaginations. However, I think the opposite is true. If you if you completely walk away from those spiritual gifts, I think that you're being disobedient to what is seen in scripture. I say that as a guy who's got, you know, very egalitarian friends, very close associationist friends. You know, we agree to disagree on many a church doctrine. Um, and I think that those things all matter. But um, for the viewer who's like, oh, therefore we shouldn't care, I go, ah, I'm not I'm not quite there. I I think this is a very important issue for the body of Christ. So okay, feel free to push back and engage. I know, I know I'm not doing very good at asking questions. This is more of a conversation, but but feel free to uh uh to engage with that. Well, I actually appreciate your emphasis, and I'm glad you said it, because I think you're right that what I said about the sufficiency of Christ could be understood as meaning, well, we can just not worry at all. Right? But you're right that those gifts, it's not only that that's the command of Christ to seek earnestly spiritual gifts, but that those gifts are gifts from the Spirit of Christ, and therefore they will, in their proper exercise, magnify the glory of Christ. And so I have to push at this point for a genuine seeking after what I call analogical gifts, including prophecy in tongues. Praise God. Yeah. Okay, Dr. Poithers, I think this is a good place uh uh to land the plane. I think there's a lot of really great material covered. Um tell me, okay, closing thoughts. Uh, you want somebody walking away thinking about meditating on? Um tell me kind of a kind of give me a closing thought for where this program is as people are walking away from the episode. Yes. Well, I think we should be grateful, first of all. Um that God in his wisdom has given us fellowship with the Father and the Son by the power of the Holy Spirit. I mean, that's at the center of what it means to be Christian, and it is so incredibly marvelous that we can't take it in. It's the point of Ephesians 3 of knowing the love of Christ, the point of 1 Peter 1, when it talks about a joy inexpressible and full of glory. That ought to stir us up, just seek to grow in our knowledge of God the Father through Christ the Son. And the spiritual gifts, rightly understood, contribute to that. Right? Uh, particularly you see in Ephesians, he gave apostles, prophets, evangelists, pastors, and teachers in order to equip the body of Christ, in order that we grow up to the full stature of Christ. Now, that endpoint you see is an incomprehensible fullness. And the uh teaching gifts in particular have a role, right? And those teachers are going to teach about Christ centrally, but then also included in the whole body of people teaching about gifts of the Spirit. So we should seek to be filled with the Spirit and to exercise whatever gifts he gives to us. And uh that may be surprising to some people. I I know one woman moving in reform circles, and God gives her dreams, and they're special dreams very often, and she hardly knew what to do with them, because the reformed circles in which she was moving would say, or just ignore them, but she understood that they were special gifts from God. So she didn't ask for this, but there it is lying on her lap, right? What does she do with it? Well, it's not all the time that those things have to be told to anybody else besides herself, but sometimes she does, and she asks for wisdom when and how to share them. So that's an example of somebody uh quietly doing things. And I've I had uh uh uh one um a phone call from a Westminster graduate who who had been charismatic background and then has sort of given it all up when he was a Westminster student, and then he was out in a reformed church, but things were happening, movement of the spirit that he could not account for, that he was not responsible for. And it stirred him up, and so he phoned me and he said, you know, I want to for the first time since way back, I felt like uh maybe I should speak in tongues privately, he thought. And I said, Go ahead. That's not a typical reformed answer, I know. And it's qualified around, right? We're not talking about a gift which is superior to any other gift. We're not talking about a gift that is infallible, but it is one of the gifts of the spirit. So my my little diagram with the analogy is attempts to show that that kind of gift has a role in the body of Christ, uh, even though some of the things from the apostolic era have ceased because the canon has come to a completion. Uh, I want to say, above all, though, that we have to appreciate God is in charge. It's God who gives gifts, and they're always genuine gifts, always in line with who Christ is. Amen. Yeah, I love that. And I mean, I I would charge people, you know, people who listen to my show a lot, most of them are are in the continuationist camp as it is, some of them are in the cessationist camp. But I would just if there are any of those watching today, because uh again, Dr. Poithras um is reaching that group of people, um, I would just say, listen, um, I believe that the scripture, 2 Timothy 3.16, all scripture is God breathed and it's profit, correcting, training in righteousness of the man of God to be complete for every good work. And I'm paraphrasing in the Josh Lewis version, right? So it it it is it is going to do the thing that it was intended to do. Uh, and and people would say, if I have the scriptures and the scriptures are sufficient, why would I need the gift of prophecy? And I would just ask that person in the first century that was written by the hand of the apostle Paul. Was prophecy taking place in the first century when he penned that? And if you can say yes, then that means that prophecy existed in the first century when the scriptures were sufficient. And if prophecy existed when the scriptures were sufficient, it means that prophecy then didn't necessarily undermine scripture now, which would mean that prophecy necessarily could exist now and not undermine the scriptures now. Uh there's an understanding, I believe, that takes place even in the first century that Paul says the writings that I'm writing are the very words of God. So in 1 Corinthians 14, it's saying, look at all this stuff. Prophecy, prophecy, this is how you do it, this is how you don't do it, this is the good, the bad, and the ugly. But then he says, But let the one who is spiritual recognize that the words I'm speaking are the very words of God. Right before he says that, he says, Well, if one of the prophets speak, let the others test and weigh and judge what's being said. He recognizes, even in the first century, there's two different calibers, qualities. Uh, one to say, you need to test and weigh prophecy because it might not be right. And then over here say, I'm speaking the infallible words. Take heed if you think you're spiritual. So I would encourage the cessationist brother out there and sister who's wrestling through the scriptures, you've got to wrestle through all of the scriptures. You you and I can lock arms on the fact that the scriptures are inerrant and they're infallible and they're sufficient. If they're inerrant and they tell us to pursue spiritual gifts, and they're sufficient, which means if the gifts ceased and God didn't want us to keep pursuing those, where's the Bible verse that says stop pursuing them? In which case you have to argue that the Bible's not sufficient because it it's not good enough. It's it's not sufficient to tell us not to do the thing it told us somewhere else to do. So I think I think there's a lot of really good arguments for continuation. And I don't think that if you are a continuist, it means that you have to have a version of prophecy or my version of tongues or my version of the gift of healing. But I think that if you can wrestle with what the scriptures are saying, it leads you into Narnia's wardrobe in some sense to kind of explore these sorts of things for yourself. But I ultimately believe this is not an argumentation on experience. It's not built on uh, man, people's personal private revelations. I'm passionate about this because I actually think it has to do with the sufficiency and inerrancy of scripture. And if we give this up, I think it actually undermines those things pretty significantly. So I know that was a bunch of very strong language at a very chill episode, but I would encourage people to grapple with these ideas and think deeply about them because I think it really matters. Okay, Dr. Poithrus, hey, thank you again so much for coming on the program. Uh I really enjoyed our time today and look forward to having you back on in the near future, my friend. Uh, for those of you watching, make sure to subscribe to the channel. And uh, if you want to check out that ebook, man, subscribe to the newsletter. You get an ebook on uh the history of spiritual gifts. It'll be a fun program for you. So thank you so much for tuning into this, guys, and we'll see you next time.