In the debate on the ending of Mark, my opponent (aka James White) seemed surprised by the idea that anyone might argue that Mark 16:9-20 actually provides one of the key passages in the NT supporting cessationism. To reject the Traditional Ending (TE) of Mark would, in fact, mean surrendering one of the key passages that refutes continuationism. Guess he didn't remember (read?) this footnote from my article "The Ending of Mark as a Canonical Crisis" (p. 52, n. 54):
It has been suggested that MacArthur’s rejection of Mark 16:9–20 might be particularly related to his discomfort with the references within it to extraordinary “signs” (vv. 18–20) given his commitment to cessationism. See John MacArthur, Strange Fire: The Danger of Offending the Holy Spirit with Counterfeit Worship (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2013). Edward F. Hills in The King James Version Defended (Des Moines, Iowa: Christian Research Press, 1956, 1984), 168, however, suggests that, far from afﬁrming continuationism, Mark 16:20 is actually a key text in afﬁrming cessationism: "For Mark 16:9–20 is the only passage in the Gospels which refers speciﬁcally to the subject which is attracting so much attention today, namely tongues, healings, and other spiritual gifts. The last verse of this passage is particularly decisive (Mark 16:20). Here we see that the purpose of the miracles promised by our Lord was to conﬁrm the preaching of the divine Word by the Apostles. Of course, then, these signs ceased after the Apostles’ death."
Rather than come to terms with what is actually significant and essential about Mark's treatment in the TE of the apostolic sign gifts, JW, like many who reject the Traditional Ending, seemed more content to dismiss it by making jokes about snake handling and drinking poison.