Yes, lots of sense Virgil, but also leaving key questions open. How are the nations to be healed, for instance, if it is not primarily by the preaching of the gospel? How are we to preach the gospel without the Spirit’s help? But are all the ‘spiritual gifts’ (of a miraculous nature) exclusively to assist in this task - and withdrawn after AD 70? (So we have less help now to preach the gospel than before - or to ‘heal the nations’ without the gospel - however that may be intended to happen).

We will have to part company over the meaning or prophecy, but I do think you are making Dueteronomy 18:22 very narrowly paradigmatic when there is ample evidence elsewhere that prophecy was very much more than prediction (like most OT prophecy, for instance).

Also with regard to the gifts, Pentecost was the only occasion in the NT, as far as I can see, when the phenomenon of ‘speaking in tongues’ had an evangelistic dimension - but even there, it wasn’t strictly an evangelistic tool - as the ‘tongues’ were the declaration of the mighty works of God in other languages. Elsewhere in Acts and 1 Corinthians, speaking in tongues is a means of personal edification, and Paul enjoins the church at Corinth expressly not to speak publicly in tongues - unless there is interpretation. In other words, it is presented, in the main, as a tool for private devotional use.

I can see that from your point of view, it is helpful to interpret the use of supernatural gifts as having ceased with the parousia, since that fits in with your eschatological grid. The main problem is that there is too much evidence that supernatural gifts did not cease then, or at any other time. Leaving aside their artificial manufacture by charlatans, you would have to have your eyes firmly shut to church history to believe that. But I will grant that a considerable section of the church does indeed believe in the cessation of the gifts - even those who are not preterists!

I’m still left puzzled as to what the church has to offer the world today if it is not the gospel. What kind of healing are we to give the nations, if it is not access to the Father by the Son through the Spirit? Is that not the heart of the gospel? Does that not depend on the same willing response now as it did 2000 years ago, through the presentation of the same means - the death of Jesus on the cross, his resurrection, and the conferring of the Spirit on those who believe?