Snake-handling and Sola Scriptura

[ltwin]

I wonder how exactly they determine this in the first place.

According to the article, “Usually the ‘anointing’ is thought to be present in the midst of a demonstrative worship service that includes loud music, tongues speech, and physical agitations.”

Basically, they bring the snakes out when the excitement or expectation levels get to a point when the worshipers perceive that “this is no longer just an ordinary service.”

 

[JonNC]

Blessings Jon. Jon would you say Lutherans can claim bragging rights to holding to the true definition and understanding of SS? I do not mean it as an insult to other faiths.

And blessings also with you, my friend.

I don’t know. It seems to me, though, that since Father Martin is the one who always gets the blame/credit for it, logically, we probably ought to have the default position on its definition and practice.

What do you think?

Jon

 

[JonNC]

And blessings also with you, my friend.

I don’t know. It seems to me, though, that since Father Martin is the one who always gets the blame/credit for it, logically, we probably ought to have the default position on its definition and practice.

What do you think?

Jon

Nicea,
Just a followup. It isn’t a big concern for me about who gets the place of whose definition is “right”. Well, it is, but its a bigger concern for me here at CAF that folks understand that how Lutherans have always practiced it is different than how latter evangelicals and communions do. Umm, especially snake-handlers.

Jon

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Indeed, Jim, it may even be the one the snake-handlers use. Of course, though, that doesn’t make it the historical one. You know, the one thought up by…what’s his name, its on the tip of my tongue…oh, you know who I mean.

Jon

Hi, Jon. But Calvin’s definition was also “historic,” wouldn’t you say? i.e., it was presented and recorded in history. And so were others thereafter. I think a description is needed other than “historic” – but I can’t think of a word that fits, except “first.” Perhaps you can suggest one? Or tell me why I’m wrong?

I like it that you say SS was “thought up” by Luther, since non-Lutheran Protestants insist it’s in the Bible and quote 2 Tim 3:16-17 to “prove” it, ignoring verses 14 and 15 which “prove” St. Paul was referring to the Greek Septuagint, which were the Scriptures Timothy knew “from childhood.” The Septuagint was, in fact, the Scriptures which St. Paul and the Twelve used to evangelize the entire Mediterranean world. The NT would not exist until the end of the fourth century, when its contents were named by the Catholic Church and added to the Greek Septuagint writings she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles, and the Bible was born.

 

[Nicea325]

And blessings also with you, my friend.

I don’t know. It seems to me, though, that since Father Martin is the one who always gets the blame/credit for it, logically, we probably ought to have the default position on its definition and practice.

What do you think?

Jon

I would say at least from a historical point of view. The Lutheran faith is the oldest unless I am wrong?

 

[Nicea325]

Nicea,
Just a followup. It isn’t a big concern for me about who gets the place of whose definition is “right”. Well, it is, but its a bigger concern for me here at CAF that folks understand that how Lutherans have always practiced it is different than how latter evangelicals and communions do. Umm, especially snake-handlers.

Jon

Oh trust me my friend, I understand the Lutheran position and I can leave it as that and move on. It is those outside your community of faith where my head spins…:whacky:

 

[vz71]

According to the article, “Usually the ‘anointing’ is thought to be present in the midst of a demonstrative worship service that includes loud music, tongues speech, and physical agitations.”

Seems to me the same could be said of playoff hockey.

 

[pablope]

I haven’t read all the posts in this thread since my last comments, so forgive me if I repeat any information that has already been given. This thread made me do some research about serpent handling, so I went to the New International Dictionary of Pentecostal and Charismatic Movements to see what its entry contained.

According to that article, handling serpents only takes place within these churches when participants perceive the direct intervention of God. In other words, they wont do it unless “the anointing” is present. Deaths are explained by these people in the following ways: 1) the anointing was not present, 2) such deaths prove to outsiders that the snakes are poisonous and have not been defanged, 3) God wills their death.

Hi, ITwin…what is meant by "“the anointing”?

What happens in this ritual? (sorry for my curiosity).

 

[JustaServant]

Hi, ITwin…what is meant by "“the anointing”?

What happens in this ritual? (sorry for my curiosity).

I suspect there are other factors involved. Not being a zoologist I would think there are certain times when handling the snakes would be safer than others. My suspicion is that when that ‘window of safety’ arrives the “anointing” arrives at the same time (imagine that).

 

[JonNC]

=Jim Dandy;9432501]Hi, Jon. But Calvin’s definition was also “historic,” wouldn’t you say? i.e., it was presented and recorded in history. And so were others thereafter. I think a description is needed other than “historic” – but I can’t think of a word that fits, except “first.” Perhaps you can suggest one? Or tell me why I’m wrong?

Hi Jim,
It seems to me Calvin was a bit later on the scene,as he was born in 1509.
How about “orthodox”?

I like it that you say SS was “thought up” by Luther, since non-Lutheran Protestants insist it’s in the Bible and quote 2 Tim 3:16-17 to “prove” it, ignoring verses 14 and 15 which “prove” St. Paul was referring to the Greek Septuagint, which were the Scriptures Timothy knew “from childhood.” The Septuagint was, in fact, the Scriptures which St. Paul and the Twelve used to evangelize the entire Mediterranean world. The NT would not exist until the end of the fourth century, when its contents were named by the Catholic Church and added to the Greek Septuagint writings she inherited from Jesus and the Apostles, and the Bible was born.

Well, I meant it more tongue-in-cheek" than literally. The Lutherans, perhaps more than any other reformers other than Anglicans, used Tradition in support of doctrine. As regards the D-C’s, which is what I think you are referring to, even in that area I believe the Lutheran reformers and Lutherans today, for that matter, show greater deference to their position than other and later reformers, though cetainly not the same as was demonstrated at Trent.

Jon

 

[ltwin]

Seems to me the same could be said of playoff hockey.

Haha. Well my preacher always says we are on the winning side . . .

Hi, ITwin…what is meant by "“the anointing”?

What happens in this ritual? (sorry for my curiosity).

Hi, pablope. When it comes to snake handling, I’m no authority. There are millions of Pentecostals in the world and only about 3 thousand snake handlers.

Generally, when Pentecostals speak of the anointing they are referring to God’s empowering presence. If you’ve ever listened to a preacher or teacher whose ministry seemed to be extraordinarily effective then the reason was that the “anointing” was present. While there are different definitions depending on the context, it could be said to be “That which comes upon you to enable you to stand in the office or ministry to which God has called you.”

Sometimes, Pentecostals speak of a worship service as being “anointed”. Meaning that the Holy Spirit was doing a special work in people’s lives during that service. His power was not simply being sung about or preached about. It was demonstrated, whether that be through many people coming to Christ or people being set free from sin or some other struggle in their life or some miraculous healing or other spiritual gift being in operation. While “the anointing” should never simply be reduced to “enthusiasm,” there are some people who do think that.

So I would guess that what happens in snake handling churches is that someone perceives the unction or anointing, and therefore feels that God has empowered them to handle the snake. I’ve watched documentaries on snake handling and I noticed that many people are dancing in the Spirit when it happens. The documentary I saw was black and white and looked like it was produced in the 50s or 60s.

The people interviewed spoke of the Spirit’s “quickening power,” and while I never heard that term growing up, I knew what they meant by it. Having danced in the Spirit before I can only describe it as like a warmth or electricity running through your body . . . . hence the song “It feels like fire shut up in my bones I got that Holy Ghost fire shut up in my bones.” In the moments when I feel this “fire” shut up in me, I have to move. I can’t contain what is inside me or it feels like I will bust so I move out of my seat and into the aisle and just move in praise to God. I can imagine that many people are inspired to take up the snake when they feel this “quickening” take place within themselves. Very likely, they feel as if every cell in their body is calling out to them to handle the snake and to move. In that moment, what seems crazy to some people just seems right and natural.

Though it is rare these days, I have seen ministers during preaching run off the platform and leap onto the tops of pews and begin to run on top of the pews as they preach their message. I’m sure that the same kind of physical and mental process is at work when someone handles a snake.

I suspect there are other factors involved. Not being a zoologist I would think there are certain times when handling the snakes would be safer than others. My suspicion is that when that ‘window of safety’ arrives the “anointing” arrives at the same time (imagine that).

You could be right. However, most pious Pentecostals would see it as an affront to the Holy Spirit to “manufacture” the anointing. Of course, there is a lot of things that go into this. Group dynamics, how the church in question understands biblical guidelines on public worship, and what spiritual manifestations the group believes are appropriate and in order.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

Hi Jim,
It seems to me Calvin was a bit later on the scene,as he was born in 1509.
How about “orthodox”?

:nope: orthodox = right belief - SS doesn’t qualify.

Well, I meant it more tongue-in-cheek" than literally. The Lutherans, perhaps more than any other reformers other than Anglicans, used Tradition in support of doctrine. As regards the D-C’s, which is what I think you are referring to, even in that area I believe the Lutheran reformers and Lutherans today, for that matter, show greater deference to their position than other and later reformers, though cetainly not the same as was demonstrated at Trent.

Luther declared the D-Cs to be “Apocrypha, that are books which are not considered equal to the Holy Scriptures, but are useful and good to read.” He removed them from their traditional places in the Scriptures and put them in an appendix between the Old and New Testaments in his German translation of the Bible. He left the pages unnumbered, to make sure readers knew that the D-Cs were not part of his canon. The original KJV did the same – the D-Cs were put in an appendix. Had Luther not done all of this, the D-Cs would still be in Protestant Bibles. The British and Foreign Bible Society, in 1847, jettisoned them entirely since they were “not scripture.”

Deuterocanon was a term adopted in the 16th century to specify those OT writings that were accepted by all the branches of the Catholic Church later than others. But they were all canonized and declared to be inspired Scripture at the same time beginning in A.D. 382. I know you discount the early local councils, but I can’t understand why. All that is necessary to make their decrees applicable to the entire Church is the approval of the Pope. Pope Damasus I presided over the local Council of Rome (A.D. 382), and commissioned Jerome to translate the Vulgate based on that canon. The Vulgate was published in 405. Pope Innocent I wrote a letter in A.D. 405 confirming the same canon adopted at Rome, Hippo (393), and Carthage (397). St. Augustine presided over Hippo and Carthage. St, Augustine was furious with St. Jerome over his attitude toward the D-Cs. Jerome was fond of the Hebrew language and critical of the Greek. Pope Boniface I approved the decrees of Carthage III or IV (419). The same canon was affirmed again at the ecumenical Council of Nicaea II in 787, some 758 years before Trent (1545-63), which Lutherans and the Orthodox accept, and again at the ecumenical Council of Florence in 1442, more than a century before Trent. Trent confirmed the canon of the ancient Vulgate, which – again – was based on the canon of the Council of Rome. Trent made the canon of the Vulgate dogma because it was under attack by Protestants.

Peace to you, Jon.

 

[benjohnson]

Had Luther not done all of this, the D-Cs would still be in Protestant Bibles. The British and Foreign Bible Society, in 1847, jettisoned them entirely since they were “not scripture.”

If I understand correctly, it was the Westminster Confession that caused the removal the DC’s from English Bibles, not the German Luther - the DC’s remained in German bibles.

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The books still supply lessons for the liturgy of the Church of England, but the number has been lessened by the hostile agitation. There is an Apocrypha appendix to the British Revised Version, in a separate volume. The deuteros are still appended to the German Bibles printed under the auspices of the orthodox Lutherans.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

If I understand correctly, it was the Westminster Confession that caused the removal the DC’s from English Bibles, not the German Luther - the DC’s remained in German bibles.

The Westminster Confession was drawn up in 1646. My information is that the D-Cs remained as an appendix in English Bibles until the Edinburgh Society (Scotland) pressured the British and Foreign Bible Society to take action. “In 1827, it [the BFBS] adopted a resolution that no aid, financial or otherwise, would be given to any Bible society that produced Bibles containing the so-called Apocrypha” and began distributing editions without them (from Why Catholic Bibles are Bigger by Gary Machuta).

From the Catholic Encyclopedia:

The books still supply lessons for the liturgy of the Church of England, but the number has been lessened by the hostile agitation. There is an Apocrypha appendix to the British Revised Version, in a separate volume. The deuteros are still appended to the German Bibles printed under the auspices of the orthodox Lutherans.

Yes, *** appended*** to German Bibles . . . in an appendix between the OT and NT, just as Luther placed the deuteros when he removed them from the canon of the original Bible. They’re still there, but not among the Scriptures Luther considered canonical. I’ve read that Lutherans (and Anglicans) don’t consider them “Scripture” – is that correct?

 

[JustaServant]

I wish a snake-handler would open an account here so we can hear their POV. Don’t they have computers?
No sock puppets, only the real thing.

 

[Oldtimer_7]

Jim had a question of what I meant in my post regarding the message of the Epistles. I had stated that they all spoke to living in Christian community. I was thinking about an American Protestant mindset that began in the 1730’s. It turned from opening the scriptures to making salvation a personal matter. One might begin by reading Jonathan Edwards’ sermon Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God. The US went through 4 periods of religious revival that carried the title of Great Awakening. Separatist communities such as the Onieda Community and the Adventist societies were the outcome of this movement. Theology and a deeper understanding of Scripture was abandoned for a soliptistic focus on religious experience.

JustaServant, I see you are from West Virginia. Do you have any contacts in the eastern part of the state that might encourage a snake-handler to participate in this forum? I agree with you, hearing from that side would be very enlightening for us all.

 

[JonNC]

Yes, *** appended*** to German Bibles . . . in an appendix between the OT and NT, just as Luther placed the deuteros when he removed them from the canon of the original Bible. They’re still there, but not among the Scriptures Luther considered canonical. I’ve read that Lutherans (and Anglicans) don’t consider them “Scripture” – is that correct?

As for Lutherans, the confessions do not say, anywhere, whether they are or not. The confessions do reference them on occasion, and Lutherans, at times, use them liturgically. The Lutheran view is that they were, historically, disputed, as opposed to the other 66 that have been universally attested.

It isn’t simply a matter of them either being scripture or not scripture. Additionally, it isn’t Luther that determines for Lutherans, but the Lutheran confessions.

Jon

 

[JustaServant]

JustaServant, I see you are from West Virginia. Do you have any contacts in the eastern part of the state that might encourage a snake-handler to participate in this forum? I agree with you, hearing from that side would be very enlightening for us all.

I’m actually a tranplant from Pennsylvania. Real irony. When I lived in a predominately Catholic city, I was Baptist. Now in BaptistLand, I’m Catholic again. And people say doesn’t have sense of humor.
Anyway, never met any SHs in my life. They are found mostly (from what I understand) on the WV/Kentucky border. I suspect they are pretty secretive and try to stay “off the grid”. I think the chances of getting a SH on CAF are pretty slim, and give our mods a headache.

 

[Rabbity]

Anyway, never met any SHs in my life. They are found mostly (from what I understand) on the WV/Kentucky border. I suspect they are pretty secretive and try to stay “off the grid”. I think the chances of getting a SH on CAF are pretty slim, and give our mods a headache.

That’s actually a shame. I bet they’d be interesting to talk to and I’d love it if one showed up here and joined in the conversation.

I’ll have to get that book Salvation on Sand Mountain.

 

[Jim_Dandy]

As for Lutherans, the confessions do not say, anywhere, whether they are or not. The confessions do reference them on occasion, and Lutherans, at times, use them liturgically. The Lutheran view is that they were, historically, disputed, as opposed to the other 66 that have been universally attested.

It isn’t simply a matter of them either being scripture or not scripture. Additionally, it isn’t Luther that determines for Lutherans, but the Lutheran confessions.

Jon

Jon, who wrote the Lutheran confessions? Why is their authority accepted? Why do Lutherans leave the condemnation of the Pope in the confessions? It can only be because that continues to be Lutheran belief.

All 73 books of the Bible were universally attested by the first Church, the Church founded by Christ for the salvation of the world. The books called the D-Cs were disputed early on, but were universally accepted before they were canonized. And – as I have noted previously, the term “deuterocanon” was used for the first time in the 16th century. These writings were canonized at the same time as the other books. Judith is just as canonical as Isaiah; Maccabees is just as canonical as Matthew. Further, their acceptance should not be in question, since 88% of the quotes from the OT that are in the NT are from the Septuagint, which contains the so-called D-Cs. If that doesn’t certify their status, what would it take? The Apostles and their disciples who wrote the NT certainly knew what was Scripture and what was not. Would they have quoted from the Greek Septuagint if its status as “Scripture” was questionable? I think not. Only 14% of the OT quotes in the NT are from the Hebrew. If this were common knowledge in the 16th century, Luther could not have gotten away with removing these texts from the original canon of Scripture. Luther did not succeed in removing Hebrews, James, Jude, and Revelation, which were also relegated to an appendix in his German Bible.

Peace, Jim Dandy