Sacerdotal cessationism

Cessationism takes the position that the charismata were sign-gifts designed to validate the divine mission and message of the apostles. As such, they had a built-in expiration date.

One obvious problem with that argument is that NT miracles aren't confined to apostles. However, cessationists have a fallback argument. They say the charismata were transmitted by the apostles through the imposition of hands. Therefore, even if the charismata weren't the unique possession of the apostles, they were uniquely linked to the apostles.

If sound, this argument has an additional advantage of giving an approximate cutoff date for the charismata. The charismata passed away when the apostles or their immediate disciples passed away. 

Cessationists like to cite Acts 8 as a prooftext for transmission of the charismata through the apostolic imposition of hands. But there are several problems with appeal. I've dealt with some of them before, now I'll mention a few more:

i) If the case of the Samaritans (Acts 8:14-17) demonstrates that possession of the charismata was contingent on the apostolic imposition of hands, then the case of Cornelius (Acts 10:44-47) demonstrates that possession of the charismata was not contigent on the apostolic imposition of hands. There is no standardized pattern in Acts.

ii) But there's a deeper problem. Acts is concerned, not with the reception of the spiritual gifts, but reception of the Spirit himself. Not gifts of the Spirit, but the gift of the Spirit. Not the gifts, but the Giver. For the gifts are contained in the Giver. 

If, however, reception of the Spirit is contingent on the apostolic imposition of hands, then no Christian in the last 1900 years has the Holy Spirit. 

Cessationists try to split the difference by saying the spiritual gifts are contingent on the apostolic imposition of hands. But in Luke, the spiritual gifts are conferred indirectly by the gift of the Spirit. In Lukan theology, you can't say reception of the Spirit is independent of the apostles while reception of the spiritual gifts is dependent on the apostles. 

iii) The only alternative would be for cessationists to adopt sacerdotalism, where reception of the Spirit is mediated through the priesthood, who, as lineal successors to the apostles, transmit the gift. And, of course, you have variations on that model in Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. The apostles laid hands on their disciples, who, in turn, laid hands on their disciples, all down the line (or so goes the argument).

iv) There's yet another problem. As one arch cessationist contends:

Using narrative literature as a basis for doctrine is precarious for a variety of reasons.  

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj14k.pdf

If, however, the genre if Acts is unsuitable to prooftext continationism, then by the same token, that's equally unsuitable to prooftext cessationism. It's a double-edged sword, slicing away Acts 8 as well as Acts 2.

v) His argument is worth considering in its own right. In fairness to Thomas, it's true that you must be careful about deriving doctrine from historical narratives. You can't simply convert descriptions into prescriptions or proscriptions. 

However, his argument is overstated. There's such a thing as narrative theology. Most Biblical teaching is narratival. It teaches more by way of showing rather than saying. The teaching method is oblique. But I hope Thomas doesn't take the position that the Gospels are a poor source of Christology. We can learn a lot about the person and work of Christ from the Gospels. Indeed, they were written with that express purpose. Scholars like Leland Ryken and Meir Sternberg present sophisticated guidelines for interpreting narrative theology. 

Moreover, Acts isn't simply a description of events. It includes speeches, prophecies, commands, &c. 

vi) Finally, as long as we're on the subject of contradictory arguments, here are two more:

On the one hand, Sam Waldron (in his debate with Michael Brown) defines a spiritual gift as "the ongoing possession of a miraculous ability with repeated manifestations." 

This is a convenient weapon in the cessationist arsenal. It enables the cessationist to summarily discredit a healer unless the healer cures everyone who comes to him. Doesn't matter how often he succeeds. One failure nixes his credentials as a bona fide healer. 

On the other hand, a fellow cessationist has said:

For instance, Paul healed multitudes (Acts 19:11-12), but couldn’t heal himself (Gal 4:13), Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25-30), or Trophimus (2 Tim 4:20). That would also explain why Paul did not direct Timothy (1 Tim 5:23) to a person with this gift. Someone who had exercised it on one occasion would have no reason to suspect that it would be manifested again. 

http://www.tms.edu/tmsj/tmsj14j.pdf

But these two positions can't both be true. You can't simultaneously say a true healer has the ability to heal everyone at will and then cite Paul's inability to heal everyone, even though Paul was certainly a healer, as evidence that the gift of healing was fading away. 

This is a problem when people begin with their conclusion, then cast about for supporting arguments. They use opposing arguments to support the same conclusion. As long as both arguments support a common conclusion, even though they contradict each other, the proponent ignores the incoherence.