Analogous Spiritual Gifts

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

I just read Vern Poythress's booklet "What are Spiritual Gifts". His concept of spiritual gifts functioning today in a way that is of lesser authority but analogous (fitting, for a Van Tillian!) to the spiritual gifts of the apostles and prophets of the OT and NT was very interesting. It seemed to provide a very helpful way to think about the continuing occurrence of the spiritual gifts of the NT in a way that does not infringe upon the authority or finality of the canon of Scripture. I was surprised to see him come down on cautious continuationist viewpoint, but it made a lot of sense.

Has there been any interaction with his position from others on either side? This is the first time I've heard this line of argumentation relating to spiritual gifts.

 

[RamistThomist]

Has there been any interaction with his position from others on either side? This is the first time I've heard this line of argumentation relating to spiritual gifts.

Not really. I plan to read Dr Duguid's essay soon, and I think he might have interacted with it. On the popular/lay level, it's much easier to parrot cliches (from both sides) than to engage Poythress. And I think continuationists like Michael Brown are just as guilty. Sure, it is easy to refute MacArthur. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I think that guys like Brown have done so well in debate that they think they don't need to engage beyond the immediate sphere.

My view is basically Poythress's view.

 

[Blood-Bought Pilgrim]

Not really. I plan to read Dr Duguid's essay soon, and I think he might have interacted with it. On the popular/lay level, it's much easier to parrot cliches (from both sides) than to engage Poythress. And I think continuationists like Michael Brown are just as guilty. Sure, it is easy to refute MacArthur. I'm not saying we shouldn't, but I think that guys like Brown have done so well in debate that they think they don't need to engage beyond the immediate sphere.

My view is basically Poythress's view.

I'm not very familiar with Brown's view, but I'm curious: from a practical perspective does Poythress's view end up looking significantly different from guys like Storms, Grudem, or Piper?

Also as far as terminology, reading Poythress is almost convincing me that "cessationism" and "continuationism" are just not helpful labels.

 

[RamistThomist]

I'm not very familiar with Brown's view, but I'm curious: from a practical perspective does Poythress's view end up looking significantly different from guys like Storms, Grudem, or Piper?

Also as far as terminology, reading Poythress is almost convincing me that "cessationism" and "continuationism" are just not helpful labels.

Poythress is far more cautious than Piper and Grudem, both in theory and in practice. But some of his talks on spiritual warfare do show how attuned he is to the supernatural.

You are correct that the terms aren't helpful. Even the most hard-lined cessationist will concede that God could heal today if he wanted to. Continuationism does distinguish itself from the earlier and wackier forms of Pentecostalism. Beyond that, both sides, not unlike the theonomy debate, start dying the death of a thousand qualifications. It's one of the reasons I gave up the label "continuationist."

 

[Semper Fidelis]

Methodologically, I have a problem with Poythress as he adopts Frame's perspectivalism as sort of theological imperative that we're like the Trinity when we do theology. It sort of extends into other conclusions he draws. I'm to saying that he's not brilliant but I just can't get on board with a method I see pervading his work.