Snake-handling and Sola Scriptura

[Oldtimer_7]

Lochias, I realized on re-reading my post that it did sound like I might be accusing you of moral superiority, and this was far from my intent. I apologize for this, since my statement was meant to be more general. I think you were answering honestly and without any such intent.

I was focussing on those who do pick and choose Scripture. They also tend to be from groups that are exclusionary in practice, being only open to those they consider holy and sanctified. In Lutheran practice, this was seen in the followers of German Pietism. I have been castigated as supporting sin by remaining in the Evangelical Lutheran Church in America when I do not support some of the policies. I took it as a compliment that I was consorting with sinners, since that is the example that Jesus set for us.

Jim Dandy, I must confess that I am a thief. The term “Cafeteria Catholic” is too good to be left unattended, so I lifted it and changed it a little to apply to all who seek in Scripture (and in the Catholic religion, also Sacred Tradition and Magisterium) to find things that agree with their predetermined positions. The walk of faith is a long one that sometimes leads into dark places, and it requires a strong guide for the walk to be successful. Even the truth is hateful to some (John 6:66). It is the easy path to turn to one person or group that proclaims it has the truth than it is to wrestle with God and come to faith.

I anticipate getting home from my trip and having a good, long discussion about snake handling and Mark Wolford. I will post an update, probably Thursday evening, Deo volens.

 

[Lochias]

Lochias, I realized on re-reading my post that it did sound like I might be accusing you of moral superiority, and this was far from my intent. I apologize for this, since my statement was meant to be more general. I think you were answering honestly and without any such intent.

No big, man. It didn’t feel like an accusation per se, but I did want to clarify my own position. Your words were phrased in such a way that, even though I mistook them a bit, I didn’t get any sense of animosity or anything from 'em.

I anticipate getting home from my trip and having a good, long discussion about snake handling and Mark Wolford. I will post an update, probably Thursday evening, Deo volens.

Safe trip! Pax et Bonum!

 

[mab23]

that is sad

 

[ForeverGrace]

I’m appreciative of those who showed even a tiny bit of compassion for this unfortunate soul, and I just have to shake my head at those who would blame sola scriptura for this.

First… There is much evidence Mark Chapter 16:17-18 isn’t even in most of the Bibles that are translated today using the Alexandrian and Nestle Aland manuscripts. Most translations place this scripture in the footnotes with an explanation of it not being found in the earliest manuscripts. If you compare this account with that in Matthew, it’s clear that they are not the same.

Second, This next excerpt is from a website called ‘Got Questions’. It does not say, “Go out and handle snakes.” It says, “They will pick up snakes with their hands.” It is describing something that will occur, not commanding that something should occur. An example of this is the Apostle Paul in Acts 28:3-5: “Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand … But Paul shook the snake off into the fire and suffered no ill effects.” Notice that Paul did not seek out to handle a snake. The snake bit Paul, but God protected Paul from the effects of the snake bite. Mark 16:17-18 is saying that if you are faithfully serving God in the spread of the gospel, He can protect you from anything that may cross your path.

If the snake-handling churches were consistent, they would also follow the second part of Mark 16:18: “…and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all.” Scripture is consistent that God can and will protect us, according to His will, as we are serving Him. Scripture is also consistent that we are not to put the Lord to the test (Exodus 17:2; Matthew 4:7). Just as Jesus refused to jump off the pinnacle of the temple, even though God would send angels to protect Jesus, so are we to not intentionally put ourselves in situations that require God’s miraculous intervention. First Corinthians 10:9, while not speaking directly of snake handling in churches, says it best: “We should not test the Lord, as some of them did — and were killed by snakes.”

This isn’t the result of sola scriptura, it’s the result of the suspension of common sense. Jesus and Paul both showed the correct action. If this person didn’t read that part, it’s not the fault of scripture.

But just so we can put this issue to rest, would someone be willing to tell me what the OFFICIAL Catholic Church teaching on Mark Chapter 16 is in its entirety, I will read it. I looked at the Vatican site and there was no such teaching. I then called the local Catholic church and asked for the OFFICIAL Catholic church teaching on Matthew 16 and they had no answer. I’m sure there are some very learned Catholic here who can provide me with the answer I’m seeking.

It’s appreciated.

 

[mark_a]

news.yahoo.com/serpent-handling-west-virginia-pastor-dies-snake-bite-173406645–abc-news-topstories.html

The perils of Sola Scriptura and private interpretation of Scripture.

Didn’t the founder of this sect also die from a snakebite?

 

[mark_a]

But just so we can put this issue to rest, would someone be willing to tell me what the OFFICIAL Catholic Church teaching on Mark Chapter 16 is in its entirety,

Which part? Besides v18-19, I don’t know that there would be an official teaching.

 

[Lochias]

OFFICIAL

Catholic Church teaching on Mark Chapter 16 is in its entirety, I will read it. I looked at the Vatican site and there was no such teaching. I then called the local Catholic church and asked for the OFFICIAL Catholic church teaching on Matthew 16 and they had no answer. I’m sure there are some very learned Catholic here who can provide me with the answer I’m seeking.

It’s appreciated.

Sola scriptura itself IS suspension of common sense.

You also have your sources of God’s word backwards. You have to remember that the Church came first; the Bible is made up of CATHOLIC Church teaching and tradition, and needs to be interpreted in light of the Traditions passed down through thousands of years to our priests, bishops, Cardinals and Pope of today. Nothing the Church teaches can contradict Scripture because the Bible IS a deposit of faith, inspired by God, from and through His Catholic Church. The correct interpretations can vary, giving fruit to each individual, but only as compared to what we know is right and wrong through the Traditions of our Church. When viewed in comparison with Church teaching and Tradition, and in light of the rest of Scripture as a whole, you cannot go wrong, and are free to let the Bible completely and totally fill you up, bring you peace and enlighten your life in terms of God’s gentle and perfect will.

Remember: The Bible came from the Church, inspired by God through the teachings and Traditions of the Catholic Church which our Lord Jesus Christ founded for us all.

God Bless.

 

[Reuben_J]

But just so we can put this issue to rest, would someone be willing to tell me what the OFFICIAL Catholic Church teaching on Mark Chapter 16 is in its entirety, I will read it. I looked at the Vatican site and there was no such teaching. I then called the local Catholic church and asked for the OFFICIAL Catholic church teaching on Matthew 16 and they had no answer. I’m sure there are some very learned Catholic here who can provide me with the answer I’m seeking.

It’s appreciated.

I doubt there is any official teaching on Mark 16. Probably commentaries on the chapters from Catholic Bibles may help you to get the gist of Catholic thought on it which may in some ways reflect on how they believe this passage.

There is no official teaching on each chapter or verse of the Bible except where they help to explain doctrines. That may just as well. We are given freedom to learn and discern the Bible for the most part; it is not like where all Biblical interpretations are shoved down our throat unlike what certain portion of Protestants want to imply.

I like your explanation on Mark 16 which I totally agree with. I said something to that effect in my earlier post but you said it better. Some Catholics here think that Mk 16:18 are merely prophecies which came to pass during the apostles. Can’t blame them; the verse is very daunting as it is. But if we see it as God’s promise of protection to his witnesses then it should encourage us in our service, mission and witnessing for Him. We are not afraid of death as servants of God but if God intervenes to save us from harm maybe that is His plan for us to continue on with his work.

By the way, the Catholic Church has no problem in accepting this chapter as inspired considering that it is being used in a mass reading for the solemnity of St. Luke.

As for Mathew 16, yes, especially Mathew 16:18, the Church uses this as one of the foundations for the seat of Peter and the Church.

God bless.

 

[pnewton]

IThis isn’t the result of sola scriptura, it’s the result of the suspension of common sense.

Common sense is often a matter of opinion. After all, the Gospel is contrary to common sense. What is not a matter of opinion is authority. A body is not a bunch of independent organs, but a connected system. Almost all Christians recognize the need for authority. In the case of Southern Baptists, a church may decide if the the SBC goes to far afield, to withdraw fellowship and go independent. In the case of a local church, the congregation may decide if the pastor goes too far afield to fire him and hire a new guy. Unfortunately, this kind of authority is not authority, but coincidental agreement. True authority is only revealed by following that which we do not agree with, as Abraham did with Isaac.

The question is whether Jesus actually did establish any authority to carry on after His ascension, and what authority did he leave. I have found no evidence for sola scriptura in the Bible. I can also find no logical reason why outcomes like this story are not the logical consequence of sola scriptura.

It is not lack of sympathy for this man that you see here. It is a greater concern for the eternal soul, a logical application of Matthew 10:28. If he were my immediate neighbor, of course I would be more than willing to tend the needs of the family.

 

[Reuben_J]

Reuben J:

By the way, the Catholic Church has no problem in accepting this chapter (and the longer ending) as inspired considering that it is being used in a mass reading for the solemnity of St. Luke.

God bless.

Correction: that should be solemnity of St. Mark.

 

[ForeverGrace]

Sola scriptura itself IS suspension of common sense.

You also have your sources of God’s word backwards. You have to remember that the Church came first; the Bible is made up of CATHOLIC Church teaching and tradition, and needs to be interpreted in light of the Traditions passed down through thousands of years to our priests, bishops, Cardinals and Pope of today. Nothing the Church teaches can contradict Scripture because the Bible IS a deposit of faith, inspired by God, from and through His Catholic Church. The correct interpretations can vary, giving fruit to each individual, but only as compared to what we know is right and wrong through the Traditions of our Church. When viewed in comparison with Church teaching and Tradition, and in light of the rest of Scripture as a whole, you cannot go wrong, and are free to let the Bible completely and totally fill you up, bring you peace and enlighten your life in terms of God’s gentle and perfect will.

Remember: The Bible came from the Church, inspired by God through the teachings and Traditions of the Catholic Church which our Lord Jesus Christ founded for us all.

God Bless.

Really??? There is always someone who has to be hostile. I’m quite used to it. I do however appreciate other Catholics who are welcoming and generous. So, I’ve read your response, yet you did not answer the question. Pleases tell me the official Catholic teaching. Sans that, you have an opinion, and from what I can see, in the big picture, catholics can disagree just as much as protestants on these things. Since there is no official teaching, then it seems fair to say, that this is the result of people going too far, leaving the context of the scripture. We all know that there have been catholic groups who have done things such as this. It’s not God’s fault, it’s the fault of people not taking their faith seriously on both sides. To say anything else is simply dishonest. There are factions and divisions within Catholicism. Ever been to the Philippines during the Easter season?

God Bless.

 

[tarboy]

Common sense is often a matter of opinion. After all, the Gospel is contrary to common sense. What is not a matter of opinion is authority.
.

I think the point many Catholics are missing here is **the ‘Authority’ has not spoken clearly on the meaning of many scriptures. **On these points, both Catholic and non-catholic must apply common sense and personal interpretation.

The boundaries that contain personal interpetation are similar. Both must work within explicit teachings in scripture (10 commandments, etc). Plus Catholics have another layer of boundaries as expressed in the Catechism.

With that said I change any Catholic to deny there are many parts in the Catechism that are unclear or seem to contradict other teachings. YES even reading the Catechism requires common sense and personal interpretation.

At the end of the day, Catholics just have boundaries that better defined than non-Catholics

 

[pnewton]

I think the point many Catholics are missing here is **the ‘Authority’ has not spoken clearly on the meaning of many scriptures. **…
At the end of the day, Catholics just have boundaries that better defined than non-Catholics

The Church sets boundries that are not only clearer, but more true and more narrow. We can not, as Pentacostals do, deny the Trinity. We can not, as Mormons do, add to Scripture. No, we do not have a verse by verse authority. Rather Catholic theology is systematic, drawing from an orderly system and using Scripture as a support. As to spirituality, there is a vast amount of accepted practice, from the very traditional to the more charismatic. Yet with authority, it is not a free-for-all. Within each acceptable spirituality, there are still rules and one is not free to start off on tangents base on personal opinion, as in, picking up snakes.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Really??? There is always someone who has to be hostile. I’m quite used to it. I do however appreciate other Catholics who are welcoming and generous. So, I’ve read your response, yet you did not answer the question. Pleases tell me the official Catholic teaching. Sans that, you have an opinion, and from what I can see, in the big picture, catholics can disagree just as much as protestants on these things. Since there is no official teaching, then it seems fair to say, that this is the result of people going too far, leaving the context of the scripture. We all know that there have been catholic groups who have done things such as this. It’s not God’s fault, it’s the fault of people not taking their faith seriously on both sides. To say anything else is simply dishonest. There are factions and divisions within Catholicism. Ever been to the Philippines during the Easter season?

God Bless.

Lochias is not being hostile. He is merely stating the Truth. It’s a fact of history that the Catholic Church selected 27 of her own writings and named them the New Testament when she compiled and canonized the Bible at the end of the fourth century. It is also true that the Church is the only God-given interpreter of the Bible. The NT is based on the teaching of the Catholic Church, not the other way around. One must read the NT in the heart of the living, teaching Church to understand it correctly.

Baptists and thousands of other post-16th century entities have imposed their own interpretations upon the Scriptures. That includes the snake-handling sects. The Church does not have an interpretation of each verse of the Bible, but if an interpretation or practice conflicts with her teaching, it’s wrong.

Christianity isn’t based on the Bible, in spite of the effort of Protestants to make it so. It is based on the teaching of Christ and His Apostles to and through His Church, founded for the salvation of the world in A.D. 33 in Jerusalem.

Just as you as a Baptist personally interpret the Scriptures to support your “distinctives,” so do the other Sola Scriptura and private interpretation denominations, including snake-handers.

We are not blaming the Bible – it’s those who wrongly appoint themselves as its interpreter, in this case the snake-handlers, who are wrong. All Protestant denominations are wrong in their interpretation, but in this case the error can be fatal.

As for the wacko’s in the Philippines (and elsewhere), the Catholic Church is responsible for what she teaches, not for what she doesn’t teach.

Peace be with you,

Jim Dandy
Ex-Southern Baptist, ex-agnostic, ex-atheist, ecstatic to be Catholic!

 

[ForeverGrace]

We are not blaming the Bible – it’s those who wrongly appoint themselves as its interpreter, in this case the snake-handlers, who are wrong. All Protestant denominations are wrong in their interpretation, but in this case the error can be fatal.

Okay then… would you be so helpful as to tell me whether or not anyone can be saved outside of the Catholic Church? You have millenium of data to choose from. After all St. Cyrian, was indeed a Saint.

Thanks.

 

[pnewton]

Okay then… would you be so helpful as to tell me whether or not anyone can be saved outside of the Catholic Church? You have millenium of data to choose from. After all St. Cyrian, was indeed a Saint.

Thanks.

I think that would need to be addressed in its own thread. It is pretty far afield here.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Okay then… would you be so helpful as to tell me whether or not anyone can be saved outside of the Catholic Church? You have millenium of data to choose from. After all St. Cyrian, was indeed a Saint.

Thanks.

Catechism of the Catholic Church -

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 - How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church, which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council [Vatican II] teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 - This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their action to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 - “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” Ad gentes 7; Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Catechism of the Catholic Church -

“Outside the Church there is no salvation”

846 - How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation comes from Christ the Head through the Church, which is his Body:

Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council [Vatican II] teaches that the Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the necessity of faith and baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse either to enter it or to remain in it.

847 - This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of their own, do not know Christ and his Church:

Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere heart, and, moved by grace, try in their action to do his will as they know it through the dictates of their conscience – those too may achieve eternal salvation.

848 - “Although in ways known to himself God can lead those who, through no fault of their own, are ignorant of the Gospel, to that faith without which it is impossible to please him, the Church still has the obligation and also the sacred right to evangelize all men.” Ad gentes 7; Heb 11:6; 1 Cor 9:16.

Since this is off-topic for this thread, I’ll be glad to discuss this further with you if you’ll PM me. Thanks, Jim

 

[Jimmygill88]

I can’t help but feel that as a nod towards modernity they should dispense with the snakes and just shove their fingers into a live electrical socket. What nonsense

 

[tabycat]

:twocents:I One person’s nonsense is another person’s faith, though shoving one’s finger into a live electrical socket to show ones faith makes about much sense as picking up a rattlesnake to show ones faith.