You did make an argument above, stating the universality of accepting the apostolic era has ceased, which I don't disagree with obviously, but you had already assumed that spiritual gifts and miracles are included in that. Or, if you really want to be specific, those miracles and spiritual gifts associated with the apostolic era, in which case you would be allowing non-apostolic miracles and spiritual gifts to continue. In which case, what we are debating about?
I didn't make an argument so much as trying to connect some ideas that you seem terribly confused about. The reason why this discussion is proving to be unfruitful is that, when I back up to make some clarfications, you don't seem to recognize that I'm trying to focus the conversation.
I think the DeYoung article is helpful so I'll start there. Since you don't seem willing to interact, I'll just lay out where I think you are both being imprecise and confused. This is leading to accusations about proof for a position (in some cases) that is not entailed by the WCF.
I'll repost the link to this article for others:
https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/...-cessationism-and-the-westminster-confession/
The two excertps I posted from the WCF are 1.1 concerning the fact (which we both agree) that God's ways of revealing Himself from the time of the Apostles have now ceased along with an excerpt that God acts in ways that are not ordinary.
So, to lay aside an implicit charge, the Confessional cessationist position is not to deny the existence of miracles or healings or even "prophesy" if one makes the qualifications that the Puritans and Scottish Presbyterians did.
Getting to the issue of the contiuation of spiritual gifts in the Church, the reason I wrote a very long initial post about the nature of the Church was to set the stage upon which the Church oeprates. I wanted to describe what the Church looks like. What Paul and the other Apostles hoped for the Church. I even spoke to the spiritual gifts by pointing out that the main discussion on things like tongues and prophecy at that time come when the Church is not being edified so that the discussion describes the presence of those gifts but it's not even at the "center" of Paul's concern with Corinth to teach them about the importance of these gifts. The broader focus in the Scriptures then isn't to focus on gifts so much as the Church being established for ordinary life. Charismatic gifts (fi they are operating the same in eery Church or not) sort of disappear into the background for almost every Epistle.
The issue, then, is what it looks like now that the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets has been laid. It's not as if there is a single list of spiritual gifts presented every time they come up. Paul mentions teaching, prophsey, and tongues in one context but he mentions apostles, prophets, and teachers in another context. Deacons are never mentioned as a "gift" but GNC would teach us that their existence in the Church is from Christ Who gave gifts to the Church.
The way I have approached this argument is obliquely. It appears that I'm accusing people of disagreeing with what the Church is aobut but what I'm really trying to address is that if we agree that the Church is the Bride of Christ and as Her Prophet, Priest, and King He is ruling and providing for her with gifts then what are those ongoing gifts that are needful. He provided artisans at the tim of the Tabernacle and there is no Scriptual "proof" that this "gift" has ceased and I cannot defintively (by Scripture proof) demonstrate that God doesn't provide the spiritual gift of working with gold and precious jewels in an extrordinary spirutal gifiting. What we would be right in asking is why would Chiist "gift" the Church regularly now with something it doesn't seem to continue to need ordinarily. If someone showed up to my Church and said he had the spiritual gift of artisanship immediately from God then it would be odd. How is that building up and encouraging the Saints?
The argument for the cessation of spiritual gifts is similar to the argument for the notion that the Scriptures alone are the sole, infallible rule of faith.
How so? My Roman Catholic brother follows a typical Roman Catholic trope that the Scriptures nowhere teach that they are the sole, infallible fule of faith and that it's logically contradictory. I point out that the Scirptures teach they are God-breathed and they are, alone, God-breathed. If someone has another rule of faith that they want to argue is akin to Scripture then it's not up to me to prove that I don't accept that additonal authority.
Likewise, the argument for the idea that someone does not still have the office of apostle or prophet or the spiritual gift of healing has to do with what the nature of the Church is at this point in redemptive history. Since they are "gifts" then we ask ourselves what function they served the Church as they were given at the time of the Apostles. We then ask ourselves whether or not the Church still "needs" them and, if She does, then we do not doubt that Christ will provide them. So, it's right for me to ask someone who insists that a person who has been immediately gifed as an apostle, prophet, or healer then what need is this fulfilling that the Church lacks? It's not up to me to prove that Paul said that certain gifts would cease (in fact some believe the office of Apostle continues for that reason), but to poitn out what the nature of the Churh is under Christ and question why the person thinks the Church still needs those who have the spritual gift of healing, apostleship, prophecy, toungues, etc are edifying the Church. If they continue to exist as spiritual gifts that edify the Church then it is not an ureasonable demand to udnerstand what ongoing need exists that God has immediately gifted them with this continuing gift.
Now, to be claer, this has nothing to do with the idea that Elders will still annoint the sick. It has nothing to do with the idea that God may perform things we might call miracles. It has to do with the idea that "gifts" as such are inexorably connected to a "purpose". This is why I asked the question of others as to how it operates on the ground in some Churches. It's not enough to see pockets of people in a Charismatic commuion claiming to be prophets and tongue-spekers where the Church is otherwise a theological and eccleiological train wreck. I want to know, as an Elder, what it looks like to have all the gifts in operation (Pastors, Elders, Deacons, helps, etc) in a healthy Church teaching the whole counsel of God where no-kidding, bona-fide "gifts" of prophecy and tongues are in operation. What does that look like?
I suppose, in the end, I guess I believe that Christ is taking care of the Church I'm in. I'm in a good (fi sometimes contentious) denomination of the Reformed faith. I've gorwn in grace with my family. I've been supported through medical issues in my own family and prayed for throughout. I've never thought: "If only we had someone speaking in tonuges then this Church would be healthier." "If only we had a person with the gift of healing then we would grow in grace". "If only someone with the gift of prophecy...."
But, perhaps, I don't know what I need and they would be good for me and for the Church but then why isn't our Prophet, Priestt, and King gifiting us with them? Is it because the Reformed Churches are apostate and He's only giving them to the fruitful Charsimatic Churches? If that's the case, then where are these fruitful and mature Churches and what am I missing out on?