I'll comment on a few recent remarks by Ed Dingess:
How can we know that Benny Hinn did not receive a legitimate revelation that God has disclosed to him but to no one in Scripture? If we affirm the possibility of extra biblical revelation, I do not see how we can judge the claims these men make, to be false without at the same time engaging in a level of arbitrariness foreign to all rational thought.
If I allow the extra biblical principle in Pentecostal theology, I am indeed in quicksand without any escape from any of the outrageous claims that supposedly come through those revelations. A man may hear that God wants him to divorce his Baptist or Presbyterian wife and marry a fellow Pentecostal who will follow him in his supposed Holy Ghost filled ecstatic utterances. Who are we to say he is wrong. We may say you cannot divorce her because of Paul. He will retort that Paul was speaking of a general situation where the man never heard from God. But I have heard from God and therefore, I must obey! How shall we respond to this person? They have a word from God as sure as any word from God written down in Scripture.
What's strange about Ed's rank skepticism is the way it flies in the face of NT injunctions to test prophets and prophecies (1 Cor 14:29; 1 Thes 5:21; 1 Jn 4:1-3).
That Hays would buy into the manufactured nonsense that modern prophets are different that ancient prophets and that false prophecy today is viewed by God differently than it was in ancient times is most outrageous and egregious.
I notice that Ed didn't actually quote me saying that.
i) To begin with, it's not, first of all, a distinction between OT and NT prophecy. Rather, there's a distinction that goes all the way back to the OT itself, where you have two different kinds of OT prophecy. Here's the locus classicus:
6 And he said, “Hear my words: If there is a prophet among you, I the Lord make myself known to him in a vision; I speak with him in a dream. 7 Not so with my servant Moses. He is faithful in all my house. 8 With him I speak mouth to mouth, clearly, and not in riddles, and he beholds the form of the Lord (Num 12:6-8).
a) This draws a broad distinction between verbal and visionary revelation. God speaks to Moses "face-to-face." It's possible that that's an anthropomorphic way of depicting verbal revelation. However, given the role of revelatory angels in Exodus, I think it alludes to the Angel of the Lord conversing with Moses. God communicates to Moses in words–in contrast to images.
b) Visionary revelation can be further subdivided into representational visions and allegorical visions. Allegorical visions employ figurative imagery. That makes them somewhat enigmatic.
ii) That has a NT counterpart. Acts 2:17 is the locus classicus.
iii) On the face of it, the process Paul outlines in 1 Cor 14:29 is very different from Deut 18:15-22.
iv) If Ed deems NT prophecy to be just as authoritative as OT prophecy, then that makes Ed an egalitarian feminist rather than a complementarian. That would make the oracles of a NT prophetess like the daughters of Philip (Acts 21:9) just as binding as apostolic teaching. So much for male headship.
v) Some commentators (e.g. Darrell Bock, David Peterson, Eckhard Schnabel) defend the veracity of Agabus (Acts 21:10-11). And I think they are right to defend the veracity of his oracle. At the same time, they defend ir by making allowance for the fairly loose relationship between the wording of the oracle and the actual event. And that imprecision would make sense if his oracle was based on a vision, like an allegorical dream. That would make the oracle analogically true.
vi) You don't have to be Pentecostal to think NT prophecy may differ from OT prophecy. For instance:
When one compares prophecy under the old covenant with prophecy under the new, it is apparent that God has not given new covenant prophets the kinds of visions that he gave Daniel, Isaiah, and Jeremiah that led to inscripturated revelation…Prophecy under the new covenant is on a smaller scale and relates directly to the establishment and edification of local churches. C. Arnold, Ephesians (Zondervan 2010), 258.
[Prophets] in Paul's own time were prompted by the Spirit to speak a particularly relevant message to an individual (1 Cor 14:24-25) or to the church (Acts 11:27-30; 15:32; 21:10-11). These messages that prophets communicate seem to come at particularly critical moments in the lives of people or in the history of the church. F. Thielman, Ephesians (Baker 2010), 274.