The Highway Forums General Discussion Theology Discussion Forum Solo scriptura, or Sola Scriptura?

<blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]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.</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>In my experience within Pentecostalism, the stigmata were never once mentioned among the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, so I fail to see the relevance of Francis. The stigmata seem to me more a superstitious invention than much else.<br><br><blockquote><font size=1>In reply to:</font><hr>[color:"blue"]Indeed, what does the presence of charisms have to do with solo scriptura vs. sola scriptura?</font><hr></blockquote><p><br><br>It hasn't got so much to do with the presence of the charismata so much as it has got to do with historical roots of Pentecostalism, which very much stemmed from this "solo scriptura" attitude. Charles Parham, credited as Pentecostalism's first proponent in the U.S., had an interpretation of Scripture very much his own.