1) Does Tim Challies adhere to Sola Scriptura by any chance? 2) Can Tim Challies' arguments be used to argue against 2 Cor 12:1-10?

@SpiritRealmInvestigator 2) How could his arguments be used against 2 Cor 12:1-10? In fact his position is consistent with Paul's teaching as interpreted in my answer.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator 1) According to wikipedia he is Reformed and endorsed by Albert Mohler (prominent leader in SBC), so yes, at least externally he has to subscribe to sola scriptura. By the way, sola scriptura does not say that these experiences cannot happen nor that these cannot be valuable to the people experiencing them. They simply say that these cannot be certified as authoritative or as a source of theology, and for these 2 reasons the experiences are of no value to teach others.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator I added details from Orthodox and Catholics to complete my mainstream survey of denomination, as well as added 3 Catholic apparitions that fit your criteria.

In the first place, we have no reason to believe or expect that God will work in this way–that he will call one of us to the afterlife and then send us back to our old bodies. - I mean, can't this be used to argue against Paul's experience in 2 Cor 12:1-10 or, for that matter, any Biblical & extra-Biblical case of resurrection? I remember that you defended the legitimacy of some documented instances in your previous answer here.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator I think I'm being consistent that these experiences do happen, but everything depends on how to "frame" this, esp. if our horizon is all world religions, new age stance, cross culture, etc. The institute I mentioned has that extra wide horizon, and they frame them as theologically agnostic, trying to describe scientifically. But this question is about doctrine, how a Christian group "frame" this experience, hence the term "recognized" and "endorse". Even Paul doesn't endorse his own experience to be a norm! which is the doctrinal basis of Protestants.

Catholics are more flexible, but as you can see, they are highly selective. Only 3 approved in 100 years ! Can't this be used to argue against Paul's experience in 2 Cor 12:1-10 or, for that matter, any Biblical & extra-Biblical case of resurrection? No, because what Paul experienced is not resurrection, but a glimpse of heaven, similar to a mystical experience with some of the saints listed in that Catholic "private revelation" list. Resurrection is taught in 1 Cor 15.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator Remember the context of 2 Cor 12 by consulting an outline in a Study Bible: In ESV Study Bible, 2 Cor 12 is within Section III. Paul's Appeal to the Rebellious Minority in Corinth (10:1-13:10) where he defended his apostleship characterized by humility (10:1-11), "foolish" in not accepting payment (11:1-11:15), suffering (11:16-33), against super apostles who claimed to have more knowledge (including visions) and authority.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator He's basically saying that he's forced to "boast" to exceed the credentials of super apostles that have seduced the church, but instead of revealing the content of what that "knowledge of heaven" is, he said "you don't need to know", similar to how in 1 Cor he said love is more important than lesser spiritual gifts such as tongues, prophecies, word of knowledge, etc. which were made into central things by heretical Pentecostals (original Pentecostals emphasize love, just like Paul).

I agree that Paul is correcting them for their arrogant attitude toward extraordinary experiences. But that's it. The problem was their attitude. The boasting. Not the experiences themselves. If you read verses 1 & 2 carefully, Paul is saying that there is nothing to be gained by boasting. Boasting is the problem. Extraordinary experiences, in and of themselves, are not a problem. If a person remains humble, the power of God can flow more freely through that person, and that person can experience many extraordinary experiences, without developing conceit or arrogance because of them.

That said, I agree that those experiences are more likely to fall into the "private revelation" category if God doesn't provide additional supernatural authentication to have such revelations canonized.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator I think in the context of 2 Cor 10 to 13, the boaster is the super apostles, different than in 1 Cor where the boaster is the Corinthians themselves (who speak in tongues, etc.). Paul emphasizes his authority as "apostle in weakness" as opposed to "super apostles in knowledge" although actually Paul possesses more knowledge (and visions) than them. I highly recommend you read the whole letter in one sitting, so the context becomes clear.

But, then, again, we are on the same page. The problem is boasting. There is nothing wrong with having knowledge, or spiritual gifts, or heavenly visitations. Boasting is the problem. There is nothing in the text that should make us think that those kinds of experiences will cease because "the canon is closed".

@SpiritRealmInvestigator I think whether it's wrong or not depend s on how you use them. My Pentecostal friend is drawn to preachers who claim to have the "gift" of sensing / seeing the "spiritual realm", such as when ministering to the dying she claims to know whether the person is going to heaven or to hell depending on the presence of the spirit that will take the person away, or when ministering to someone who keeps having business failures to receive word of knowledge on what he needs to do, etc.

As a result my friend trusts her teaching more than your run-of-the-mill Reformed seminary graduate who never claim to have any "sign gift". My friend says that that kind of Christianity"with no power" ( her phrase, not mine) is useless. The problem is that those preachers are prosperity gospel teacher so mu friend basically got duped. I think this is similar to the 2 Cor situation with these prosperity gospel being today's "super apostles".

@GratefulDisciple - how does your friend discern genuine gifts from counterfeit ones?

I would also prefer a sincere run-of-the-mill Reformed seminary graduate over a fake, money-hungry, prosperity gospel teacher.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator for her own gifts, she said she just know which one is her own thinking and which one is "word of knowledge". So it's completely subjective criteria. For a preacher/pastor gift it's a combination of her instinct plus how "successful" the church is (growing in numbers, attended by high ranking people, etc) plus testimonies of people within the church who have been helped by that "seeing" pastor, similar to the success of televangelist.

What's significant to me is the lack of measuring how Biblical is the message, and rarely talk about truth,love, and fruit. Always about power, gifts, success, presence of God, healing, etc.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator Outsider see them as "money hungry" but insider see them as success stories to emulate, so if he said he pray in tongue 2 hours a day, she would do it too, if he says do water fasting 1 day per week on Sunday she will do it too, if he says to cast out spirit of poverty she will do it too.

@GratefulDisciple - If in a church there is no emphasis on repentance, salvation, holiness, prayer, fasting, consecration, fruits of the spirit, crucifying the flesh, walking in the spirit, then that would raise many red flags for me too.

They rarely bluntly ask for money, but prescribing some extra biblical ritual that should help you in smoothing out your health and financial success, with the hope that through confirmation bias when you perceive that the ritual is helpful you will feel generous and donate. Or you would buy his books or tapes before you reach that point, or do tithing to that church.

@SpiritRealmInvestigator Good for you👍.

@GratefulDisciple - I fully sympathize with the aversion toward hyper-charismatic, prosperity gospel churches. That said, I also think it would be a terrible idea to also throw the baby with the bathwater. As I've said several times in the past, my position is that you can have the best of both worlds: fruits of the spirit + gifts of the spirit. They are not mutually exclusive. The best proof of concept is the apostolic church. They had both. So we know it is possible -- we can have both.