Cessationism and selective standards

Dan Phillips and Fred Butler like to use Acts 4:16 as their paradigm-case of what a modern miracle has to be like to qualify as a genuine miracle. But there are obvious problems with their criterion.

i) The Bible contains many types of miracles. It's arbitrary to single out this particular miracle as the paradigm. 

ii) Apropos (i), not only is that arbitrary as a standard of comparison for modern miracles, it's arbitrary in reference to Biblical miracles, given the variety of Biblical miracles.

iii) Apropos (ii), Biblical miracles are not all of a kind. Even Warfield, a classic cessationist, distinguishes between miracles of healing, miracles of speech, miracles of knowledge, and miracles of power. For instance, Acts contains revelatory dreams and visions. But those aren't directly comparable to a miracle of healing–are they? 

iv) Apropos (i-iii), in their effort to screen out modern miracles, Fred and Dan have a criterion that screens out many Biblical miracles. For there are Biblical miracles which don't "measure up" (as it were) to their chosen yardstick. For instance:

a) Philip was an exorcist (Acts 8:6-13). But is that an "Acts 4:16-level miracle"? 

b) What about the burning bush (Exod 3)? Surely that's a paradigmatic miracle. It involves both a nature miracle and an angelic apparition. Yet it's an essentially private miracle, for Moses is the only witness to this event. Likewise, the fate of Lot's wife was only witnessed by Lot and his daughters. And we don't have their testimony. We only have the testimony of the narrator. 

What about the talking donkey (Num 22)? Surely that's a remarkable miracle. That involves both a nature miracle and an angelic apparition. Yet it's an essentially private miracle, for Balaam is the only witness to this event. And we don't even have his own testimony. We only have the testimony of the narrator. 

Other examples include the rod of Moses changing into a snake (Exod 4), Elijah fed by ravens (1 Kgs 17), the widow's food replenished (1 Kgs 17), her son revived (1 Kgs 17), and the Translation of Elijah (2 Kgs 2). We could add the bears that attack Elijah's hecklers (2 Kgs 2), Naaman's cure (2 Kgs 5), and the blinding of Elymas (Acts 13). There are very few eyewitnesses to these events. In many cases we're dependent on the secondhand report of the omniscient narrator.  

c) Keep in mind, too, that many of these are miracles of power. But how is a miracle of power directly analogous to a miracle of knowledge? Take Joseph's premonitory dream (Gen 37), or Pharaoh's premonitory dreams (Gen 41). Are those "Acts 4:16-level" miracles? How do you measure a miracle of knowledge by a miracle of healing? What's the common denominator? 

d) Or take glossolalia. Fred and Dan construe all cases of glossolalia in Acts and 1 Corinthians as xenoglossy. But even if we accept their disputatious identification, is xenoglossy an "Acts 4:16-level miracle"? In what respect is xenoglossy analogous to healing? 

e) Or take the apparitions of Moses and Elijah at the Transfiguration. Is that an "Acts 4:16-level miracle"? If so, in what respect? 

Fred and Dan aren't really using a Scriptural standard, for their singular example from Acts filters out many other Biblical examples. If they were really using the Bible as their template, they'd say that modern supernatural claims must generally correspond to Biblical supernatural examples. Their sample would include all types of Biblical miracles as a reference class.