Some MacArthurites seem to be confused about the relationship between cessationism and the argument from miracles. Of course, Ed Dingess is incapable of honesty. But let's spell out the relationship:
i) From what I've read, MacArthurites classify Biblical miracles as sign-gifts. The function of sign-gifts is to attest the message by attesting the messenger. This is divine validation that the messenger speaks for God.
ii) The identity of Biblical miracles as sign-gifts is a key plank in the cessationist argument. Once the message (i.e. the Bible) was complete, there was no further need of messengers (i.e. prophets, apostles). Once there was no further need of messengers, there was no further need of sign-gifts. So miraculous sign-gifts have an expiration date.
iii) This, in turn, figures in the traditional argument from miracles. According to the structure of the argument, we don't primarily believe in Biblical miracles on the authority of Scripture. Rather, we believe Scripture because miracles authorize the Bible writers. Miraculous sign-gifts are compelling evidence that the Bible writers were divinely commissioned. We believe the reported miracles because miracles certify the reporter.
Having established the bona fides of Bible writers by the argument from miracles, we can now appeal to the authority of Scripture.
iv) This is a classic evidentialist argument. At least some MacArthurites are presuppositionalists. But that generates an unresolved tension between cessationist argument from miracles, which is an evidentialist argument, and presuppositionalism. You can't just graft presuppositionalism onto that preexistent framework.
There is much more we could say here but I think we have effective refuted Hays' attempt to place the context of the cessationist argument within the framework of evidentialism. Moreover, I think we have also demonstrated that no legitimate parallel between Hume's skepticism and our desire to carefully examine all things in light of revealed truth exists. Contrary to Hays, I do think I can be honest about at least this much: Hays' argument is fallacious, borders on being uncharitable, has no exegetical support, and therefore is without warrant.