score:1
I think you have a good point in suggesting how those with a cessationist worldview and skepticism in general have much more common ground with each other than is often expressed.
I find it interesting that the skeptic, Robert Price, once commented:
The zeal and ingenuity of conservative evangelical scholars in dismantling the miracles of rival Christian groups (and exploding rival interpretations of Scripture used to support such miracles), is worthy of the most skeptical gospel critic.
On a positive note, well authenticated testimonial claims of literal signs, wonders and miracles can function in our generation in a reciprocal manner. That's because they provide an antecedent probability argument for taking the New Testament miraculous accounts literally. For example, one writer points out:
The principle of analogy also appears to assume metaphysical naturalism, since it presupposes that miracles do not occur today.
But how is such an assumption justified without arguing in a circle? Another historian may hold that miracles do, in fact, occur today. And '[i]f miracles are presently occurring, then Troeltsch's principle of analogy could be granted and used to support the reality of past miracles' (Beckwith 1997:97. See also Meier 1994:516).
Perhaps this is what was meant when the Christian apologist, Clark Pinnock, wrote in regard to the healing of his eye:
I know from personal experience that one such incident can be worth a bookshelf of academic apologetics for Christianity (including my own books).
From a theological point of view, personal experiences of signs, wonders and miracles from God point to a metaphysical explanation. In that sense, they function in a similar manner to how some archeological research points to the reliability of the New Testament documents.
Indeed, modern authenticated (self or otherwise) signs and miracles from God can remove some of the intellectual obstacles that can quench the Holy Spirit's gift of faith (fides divina), that is worked in the hearts of those who believe.