What do the Pope and his admirers, Joseph Smith and his admirers, and every Christian "continuationist" apologist, have in common?
First, to be clear: it is not denial of the Gospel. In that, one of these things is not like the other.
It is this:
They all have to base their case on the insufficiency of Scripture.
Now, saying this is like saying that Roman Catholics worship dead people. Say it frontally, they'll deny it. Put your ear against the door and listen to their candid conversations, read their writings, and the truth comes out. Tell them their religion has nothing much to do about Christ, and they'll deny it. Read their testimonies, and they're all about Rome, sweet Rome.
So almost any "continuationist" would vehemently deny that their position requires a denial of the sufficiency of Scripture, and they'll insist the contrary. However...
Just a brief listen to Driscoll's latest rant provides Example #47983, as does any candid argument of the case by a "continuationist." Give them time, and if they don't start there, they'll eventually get there. They must deny the sufficiency of the Bible. After all, if Scripture really is all we need to know and serve God (as it asserts of itself), then where is the need for non-authoritative, non-inerrant, non-binding semi-hemi-demi-kinda-revelation which is the "continuationist's" stock-in-trade?
Turns out: you really can't effectively talk-up the imitation unless you effectively talk-down The Real Thing. Since (as Phil and Frank and I have often pointed out) "continuationists" aren't really continuationists, this is exactly what they've got to do.
Of course, my larger case is that this whole issue started in Genesis 3:1b.
Bad start, bad fruit.