This is such a red herring.<br><br>If you look at the history of the church, there is no question that many Christians before the advent of Pentecostalism have claimed charisms. St. Francis of Asissi, for instance, had undergone the stigmata. And while many people here will be quick to denounce St. Francis as just another beacon of popery, perhaps it is best to simply say that medieval men, although prone to superstition, were often true in their witnesses.<br><br>There is no question that there are excesses within the charismatic movement -- I will be first to denounce the doctrine of sinless perfection and "tongues" as prerequisite for being filled with the Holy Spirit, but isn't this simply an instance of throwing out the baby with the bathwater?<br><br>Indeed, what does the presence of charisms have to do with solo scriptura vs. sola scriptura?
