There are roughly two types of arguments for cessationism. On the one hand, they attempt to defend their position from Scripture. On they other hand, they point to the many quacks, scammers, and heretics in the charismatic movement.
I daresay most cessationists espouse cessationism for the simple reason that they never had a personal experience that falsified their cessationism. But, ironically, that can leave them vulnerable to the quacks, scammers, and heretics in the charismatic movement.
It's like the proverbial bubbleboy who has no resistance to disease. If a cessationist has an experience that falsifies his cessationism, he has no immunity or resistance to the quacks, scammers, and heretics in the charismatic movement because cessationist theology was his immune system. Take that away and he has no antibodies to protect him from airborne pathogens in the charismatic movement.
It's like kids raised in anti-intellectual, fundy churches who lose their hereditary faith the moment that comes in contact with atheism or secular science. They are intellectually defenseless because they never cultivated reasons for their hereditary faith.
Over the years I've run across several credible reports of premonitory dreams. I wasn't investigating the subject. In some cases it's something I happened to read about on an unrelated subject. Or it's something that trusted friends shared with me.
Given that this is confined to my anecdotal and incidental experience, that suggested the phenomenon is more widespread. If a random sampling turns that up, consider what a more systematic investigation would uncover?
Or to take a different, but related example: years ago I was talking to a cardiologist. A relative of mine had been hospitalized for a heart attack. The cardiologist was a graduate of Yale med school. Somehow the conversation turned to the topic of near-death-experiences. He mentioned that as an intern he had a patient who was a mafia don. The patient had a near-death-experience. That caused the patient to reconsider his career in the mafia. He took it as a warning or second chance to clean up his act.
My point is this: a hardline cessationist has no fallback position. There's no flexibility in his position. That can make him a sucker for the quacks, scammers, and heretics in the charismatic movement if he ever has an experience that falsifies his cessationism.
By contrast, if you've developed a qualified noncessationism position, you can exercise critical discrimination. It doesn't leave you wide open to anything and everything–up to and including the New Age. But if you take an all-or-nothing approach, the alternative to nothing is everything. You have no criteria to winnow the wheat from the chaff. You treat it all as wheat or all as chaff.