One of the problems with cessationism is that it does not conform to what actually happened in history. Why would the gifts like speaking in tongues, healing, and prophesying have continued after the death of the apostles, like reading those who are often called 'church fathers' demonstrates? Why the references to prophesying, to speaking in tongues, healing, raising the dead, and casting out demons.
Justin Martyr argued with the Jew Trypho that his people did not have prophets, but the church did. The Shepherd of Hermas, which was read in 2nd century churches, writes in a bit of detail about prophesying in the churches during that era. No matter what you think of the work, it shows the belief of Christians that the gift of prophecy continued. If you read the critics of Montanism in Eusebius' writings, you see that they affirmed the gift of prophecy for the church, but did not believe that Montanus was the real deal. And after Montanus died, Montanists were cessationists, and the church were continuationists.
B.B. Warfield wrote a book in which he presented a cessationist theory he invented that some cessationists believe today. One of the problems for Warfield was Ireneaus. Ireneaus was a historical champion of orthodoxy. He wrote 'Against Heresies', pointing out the error in the various heresies that had arisen, some of which mimicked Christian practice or doctrine. He was a missionary to what is now France.
Ireneaus wrote of the brethren in his own day who spoke in tongues, cast out demons, had foreknowledge, prophesied, and raised the dead. In one of his works, he wrote how he considered rejecting prophesying to be a characteristic of the heretics. He even wrote how his own church had had success at raising the dead like the apostles did.
Warfield proposed a theory that those one whom the apostles had laid their hands could operate in these spiritual gifts, the supernatural ones, which happened to be the ones that didn't fit with the philosophical thinking of Warfield's error, but that these gifts died out after those the apostles had laid their hands on died. Ireneaus lived in a time when, as a younger man, he knew those on whom the apostles had laid their hands. So, he thought Ireneaus was just mistaken about the idea that these gifts could continue later, and just thought the things he saw as a young man could still continue around 200 AD or so when he was writing.
Of course, there are some problems with this. One is, why would Ireneaus have written about his church raising the dead if it weren't true. Why would write about these things as if they were still going on at about 200 AD?
The biggest problem with Warfield's theory is that the Bible does not teach it. It is not apostolic teaching. It is not part of the 'faith once delivered unto the saints', but rather contradicts it.
It is true that the Bible demonstrates that certain spiritual gifts can be imparted through the laying on of hands, but other scripture shows that gifts can also be imparted without the laying on of hands. Warfield's theory rests on basing doctrine on certain scriptures, going beyond what the text asserts, and ignoring other scripture.
Saul of Tarsus received the Holy Ghost. No apostles laid hands on him. Ananias, a disciple and devout Jew did. Prophets and teachers laid hands on him. He did miracles. Timothy received one spiritual gift through prophecy with the laying on of hands of the elders. The Gentiles in Cornelius' house spoke in tongues when Peter was preaching to them. They hadn't been baptized yet. And Acts 2 and other passages do not teach that the laying on of hands is necessary to receive the Holy Spirit. In Acts 8, the Spirit fall upon the Samaritans when the apostles laid hands on them. But the Bible does not teach that the Spirit is limited to only Act through the apostles hands.
its only a recent resurfacing that has gone as John Macarthur would say 'charismatic chaos' on us.
