Allen Parr is Right We Shouldn't Try to Handle Snakes (But Overall Wrong on Mark 16:17—18)

Charismatics Try To Fool You On This Bible Verse
THE BEAT by Allen Parr | 12 Aug 2025
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNlgUOi8jU0

4:17 Jesus was in fact saying "these signs will follow them" ... not "you" but "them that have believed" (τοῖς πιστεύσασιν)

5:52 Nope, both Mark 16 and Matthew 28, the Great Commission applies to a group and basically the same one. The Apostles.

It still applies throughout time, as per Matthew 28:20, because the group is not finished with it's then members.

However, it applied to a group then, it applies to a group now. 12 / 72 / maybe even 500 back then. Catholic bishops now.

St. Mary Magdalene, an Apostle to the Apostles, was not an Apostle, was not in that group then. Women are not in that group now.

6:55 St. Paul was at that point not in the group. He was later handling deadly snakes.

The words are prophecy, not command.

Driving out demons is elsewhere commanded, to a specific group, which is perpetuated throughout time, but here Jesus is prophecying that the attempts will be successful, or sometimes even there wasn't an attempt, and the good result will follow.

Some where, some time, in Church history, perhaps someone will have accidentally drink what was meant to poison him and not died, or perhaps it's already fulfilled when St. Benedict of Nursia set out to drink, he made the sign of the cross over it and it burst. I'm not sure if that's fully the meaning of the aorist subjunctive I found in the interlinear namely πίωσιν.

And these miraculous signs are not restricted to the Apostles or their successors, the bishops. Venerable Eusebia Palomino Yenes (whose abbess was martyred by the Reds in the Spanish War, she had already died) didn't try to make an exorcism to get rid of the poltergeist, they were waiting for an exorcist to come, but with three Hail Marys on her part, the exorcism was already done, the commanded exorcist came to late to perform an exorcism there and then visibly stopping the Poltergeist. That's why in a poem I called her "exorcista de España" not as if she were an ordained exorcist, but because she performed an exorcism and can from that matter be called an exorcist. Dito for the skull of St. Bridget of Sweden, also in Spain, I think. Exorcisms are still worked by that relic.

7:34 The words And these signs shall follow them that believe: is a prophecy to which the group hearing the words was a witness, not a command to them.

He didn't say "do this as a sign" but "this kind of sign will happen" ... so, it is definitely not restricted to the then and there hearers.

It is indeed for all times, but having to handle snakes or accidentally drinking what someone else poisoned without telling you is obviously rarer than calling for an exorcist or getting a healing miracle in Lourdes or when a priest gives Extreme Unction.

8:18 The signs are not commands.

They are none of them for all individual believers, but all of them to the Christian community as a whole.

That's why we see exorcisms and healings today. Speaking a tongue you haven't learned is rarer, maybe last happend with St. Francis Wavier, unless he had a translator, since the Church is usually alert to avoiding the necessity for this sign. On Pentecost day, none of the Apostles, I can safely conclude had studied Cretan Doric. Nevertheless, Jews from Crete who knew Cretan Doric were hearing it. Snakehandling and poison drinking with survival are obviously emergency situatiional miracles, not sth you deliberately expose yourself to.

And when Paul had gathered together a bundle of sticks, and had laid them on the fire, a viper coming out of the heat, fastened on his hand And when the barbarians saw the beast hanging on his hand, they said one to another: Undoubtedly this man is a murderer, who though he hath escaped the sea, yet vengeance doth not suffer him to live And he indeed shaking off the beast into the fire, suffered no harm [Acts Of Apostles 28:3-5]

8:45 The actual text* doesn't say "will be able to" ... while healers exist, who actually are able to do so, it could often be in contexts where no healing was expected, like if a priest gives a cancer patient Extreme Unction and instead of soon dying he is healed and doesn't need an operation, the prophecy is fulfilled even if that priest doesn't have a parmenent ability to heal the sick.

Quit using that text*, which reads things into the words rather than translating. Unbelievers won't be converted by a priest "being able to" heal the sick, they will be converted by a priest actually doing so.

9:17 None of the signs say, "at will" ... an exorcist may be able to cast out some demons but not others. And not every Christian is an exorcist.

The sign belongs to the community of the believers, i e the Catholic Church, even if most can't cast out demons, it's enough that some can.

And none of the five signs says "at will" ... it's about results not expected for. Wednesday after Ascension Thursday, Peter wasn't saying "tomorrow, I'll speak Gaulish and Cretan Doric" and he was not claiming that ability in Jesus name, but whoever of the Apostles spoke in those languages did so as a free and unexpected gift from the Holy Spirit.

St. Paul wasn't expecting to be stung by a viper.

10:26 On the contrary, it is very applicable to believers today.

Miracles still happen.

Exorcisms and healings of the sick being the most common of the five.

Your problem is, you substitute "believers today" as the red herring, when the real one is "every single one" ... a community has the credit of every miracle it's members do, even if not every single member is doing a miracle.

You also pretend the word is about "at will" or read a text that falsely states "be able to" ... a sign is a sign even if or maybe rather especially if it is unexpected.

14:17 Thank you for clarifying, on your own reading it is not** "at will" ...

* The actual text = the Bible (original, Vulgate, Douay Rheims, Monsignor Knox, or for French Crampon). That text = whatever Allen Parr is using (NASV?) ** The "at will" is a logical exploration of how his adversaries reads the passage, even if they do not utter it, or should be reading it in consistency, even if they are inconsistent.