The snake pastor dies: raising a big problem

[Asyncritus]

The Snake Pastor Dies

I saw this thread the other day, and it started me thinking.

The end result of this man's folly was death. I understand that over the years, many people who did what he was doing, thinking they were going to be protected by the power of God, also died from snake bite.

Wiki lists the following, and there were presumably others unrecorded:

Some of the leaders in these churches have been bitten numerous times, as indicated by their distorted extremities. Hensley himself, the founder of modern snake handling in the Appalachian Mountains, died from fatal snakebite in 1955.[5] In 1998, snake-handling evangelist John Wayne "Punkin" Brown died after being bitten by a timber rattler at the Rock House Holiness Church in rural northeastern Alabama.[6] Members of his family contend that his death was probably due to a heart attack. However, his wife had died three years previously after being bitten while in Kentucky. Another snake handler died in 2006 at a church in Kentucky.[7] In 2012, Pentecostal pastor and snake handler Mack Wolford died from a rattlesnake bite he had received while performing an outdoor service in West Virginia, as did his father in 1983.

Their justification comes from:

And these signs shall follow them that believe: In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues. They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover. (Mark 16:17-18)
​

Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. (Luke 10:19)
​

Consistency in interpretation is vital. Otherwise we bring ourselves and the Word of God into considerable disrepute.

I note the following items specifically in the commission Jesus gives, every one of which (except the drinking of poisons, and walking on scorpions) was recorded in the Acts:

1 casting out devils (by which I think He means curing lunatics)

2 speaking with new tongues (new to the speakers, I imagine)

3 taking up serpents

4 drinking poisons

5 laying hands on the sick

6 treading on serpents and scorpions

The problem I see is this:

If nos. 3 and 6 above definitely were intended for the first century apostles and disciples (and Acts shows that they were), but clearly ceased since these mistaken people have died as a result, then why should we believe that the other items on the list haven't ceased as well?

What guarantee of certainty is there that modern day tongues, healings, casting out of demons etc are not equally suspect?

Jesus does not mention that exercising these powers depended on the disciples' or the recipients' faith. He simply gave them the power to do these things, which they exercised as we have very clear examples in the Acts. Dorcas and Eutychus were dead. Paul was bitten by a viper. The lame man at the temple was expecting a handout, not healing.

But what of today? How many fake healings have we seen or heard of? How many gibberish-laden tongues do people claim to speak in? How many people have really died of snakebite? Why have newspapers in South Africa refused the advertisements of one evangelist (and maybe others) who instructed people he has healed of AIDS to stop taking their anti-retroviral medicine in faith? And they then either died or became insane?

Jesus said that the disciples would do 'greater things' than these - and that includes raising the dead. Peter and Paul both raised the dead to life (Dorcas and Eutychus being known examples).

Have many evangelists etc raised the dead? And if so, where are the reports which should have made headlines everywhere if true?

And why do all these 'faith-healings' only seem to occur in tents and church buildings? Jesus and the apostles seemed to work mainly out of doors. I imagine that if they were here today, the hospitals would have been their first targets. And they would have been walking the streets of disease-ridden cities cleaning things up and bettering the lot of the poor.

Consistency in interpretation is paramount.

So what think ye of these matters?

 

[Webb]

Excellent!!!

 

[Former Christian]

Asyncritus

Consistency in Christianity is only consistent denominationally and interpretively. Calvinism consistently interprets Scripture according to its own system. Arminianism consistently interprets Scripture according to its own system. So also all Protestant and Protestant influenced denominational isms. So also Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy-ism. All such systems are internally consistent. It’s in that light that consistency must be considered when spoken of in the context of Christianity.

Your own interpretations given above must be considered in the light of the internal consistency of the thinking of your own denomination. Your first point, for example, casting out devils referring to curing lunatics. Why can’t it refer to just what it says? Casting out devils? Why interpret it into something that you can understand according to the thinking of recent secular philosophy or your own denomination? Among many Christians influenced by the thinking of the last couple of centuries, liberal mostly, I only know of a few conservative thinking denominations in this category thus far, either the influence of devils is rejected wholesale or the existence of devils is rejected wholesale.

In order to be consistent with my own understanding of demonology, I must say that demons are both real and active on the earth today. Not to be confused with fleshology. Lunacy could be the result of demonology or fleshology. The former not affecting believers due to Divine protection of being in Christ, the latter affecting believers and non-believers alike conditional on whether or not the believers are walking according to the Holy Spirit.

Snake handling is consistent within the denominational system of the snake handlers.

Does the death of a few snake handlers prove that their religion is false? Only if you also say that the sins of Christians also prove their religion is false. Do you think that Christianity, or your version of it, is false because of the sins of those who hold to it? When priests sin by their actions with the pre-adult, or in some other way, is that a proof to you that Catholicism is a false religion? When Protestants and the Protestant influenced commit a sexual sin, or some other sin, is that a proof that their denomination is a false religion? Does Calvin’s unrepented sin of murder prove that Calvinism is false? Is that your version of consistency? For consistency’s sake, do the sins of its adherents prove the Scripture to be nothing more than a mythological set of writings? I hope you don’t agree with the Atheists on that point. And speaking of Atheists, what can we say about their sins, that are only sins if they say they are? To be consistent, the standard of the person determines what is considered sin or wrong thinking for that person. And only one sixth of the human population follow a Christian standard, which ever one that might be. And how many of those follow the Scriptural standard?

I happen to believe that the Spiritual “gifts” should still be functional today. Including Apostles. Not in the sense of Chosen by Christ, but in the sense of chosen by the “church” and the Holy Spirit. The latter are “church” starters, the human version of that Spiritual “gift” in Christianity being called missionaries. The only reason the Spiritual “gifts” are not seen in their pure form today is because they are being practiced according to man-made principles and power. Insufficient to practice Spiritual “gifts” that are something of the supernatural, not of the natural. Thus today you have Christian denominations that practice snake handling, and some that practice speaking in tongues, and some that practice healing or prophecy. But they are a far cry from the reality that the Scripture records.

The matter of snake handling is a case in point. These snake handlers are handling snakes on purpose. As a proof of personal faith. The mention in Scripture of snakes not hurting believers is in the context of accidental or demonic situations. Christian snake handlers have created a human version of what is Scripturally true. A common result of the common practice of biblical interpretation. They suffer for it and sometimes they die.

Not all die. Not even all secular snake handlers, for the purpose of collecting venom, die. In the name of consistency, what does those who don’t die prove? Does it prove the strength of their own faith, whether in God or not? Or is there a natural explanation, like their ability to build up immunity to snake bites?

I used to be a beekeeper. When I first started, one sting would make me sick. After a time, I built up immunity to honey bee stings to the point that I could be stung hundreds of times with no affect whatsoever. Not even any swelling. It was as though I was never stung. Consistently, what does that prove? Was it my faith, or the special protection of God, or just my own body’s ability to build up immunity (whether one considers the human body a creation of God or not) that was the answer?

Scripture records that these things will happen. It also records instances in which they did happen and how they happened. Scriptural interpretation does not change the record. Only the thinking about what the record says. So the real question is.....is it possible to understand what the record says apart from interpretation? Many on this forum say no. I am one who says yes. But what I understand to be what the record says is just an interpretation, both to those who say it’s impossible to understand the record apart from interpretation, and most of those who think the record can be understood apart from interpretation.

The only consistency in Christianity is that Christians, and interestingly, I’m included among the Christians at least in this regard, will understand the Scripture according to the generally accepted, and thus common practice of, Scriptural interpretation. Which consistently proves nothing at all.

FC

 

[John O]

Come on guys stop over complicating it. Jesus relied on direction from His Father God as did the Apostles. It is presumption and foolishness to put yourself in front of danger without His leading. Example of Paul he did not seek the snake but because God was with him it had no effect on him.

God calls us to obey not tempt. The act of the snake handler or any other presumptive act is to demand that God take care of us in our foolishness. Out of His grace He might but He is under no obligation to do so. Q: Is God asking me to do this or am I presuming? is a question we need to ask ourselves all the time.

 

[John 8:32]

Mat 4:5 Then the devil taketh him up into the holy city, and setteth him on a pinnacle of the temple,
Mat 4:6 And saith unto him, If thou be the Son of God, cast thyself down: for it is written, He shall give his angels charge concerning thee: and in their hands they shall bear thee up, lest at any time thou dash thy foot against a stone.
Mat 4:7 Jesus said unto him, It is written again, Thou shalt not tempt the Lord thy God.

Act 28:3 And when Paul had gathered a bundle of sticks, and laid them on the fire, there came a viper out of the heat, and fastened on his hand.
Act 28:4 And when the barbarians saw the venomous beast hang on his hand, they said among themselves, No doubt this man is a murderer, whom, though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance suffereth not to live.
Act 28:5 And he shook off the beast into the fire, and felt no harm.
Act 28:6 Howbeit they looked when he should have swollen, or fallen down dead suddenly: but after they had looked a great while, and saw no harm come to him, they changed their minds, and said that he was a god.

An accidental case, this is the true meaning of the verse.

 

[Ernest T. Bass]

The snake handlers have a misunderstanding of the passage in Mk 16.

Beginning in verse 17, Mark uses the plural pronouns "them" and "they". The nearest plural antecendant of these plural pronouns is 'the eleven' in v14 [not the singular 'he' in v16] as "they' and 'them' in v14 refers to 'the eleven'.

So when Mark wrote in v17 "And these signs shall follow them that believe", the 'them' refers to the 11 apostles. In this context is was the apostles who were in unbelief so much so Jesus "upbraided them with their unbelief and hardness of heart", v14. So them of the apostles that would believe would be given these signs. Verse 20 bears this out "And they (apostles) went forth, and preached every where, the Lord working with [them](apostles), and confirming the word with signs following."


Also in 2 Cor 12:12 Paul refers to "signs of an apostle" NOT "signs of a believer". Pentecostals/Charismatics would have me think that the plural "them" in v17 refers back to the singular 'he' in v16. That would imply ALL who believe would have ALL these signs but this cannot be the case either for in 1 Cor 12:29,30 Paul said that not all who believe are workers of miracles.