Why I Will Not Be Preaching the Longer Ending of Mark - by Josh Buice

Found here. My comments in bold.
---------------------

The passage in question is Mark 16:9-20:

9 When Jesus rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, out of whom he had driven seven demons. 10 She went and told those who had been with him and who were mourning and weeping. 11 When they heard that Jesus was alive and that she had seen him, they did not believe it.

12 Afterwards Jesus appeared in a different form to two of them while they were walking in the country. 13 These returned and reported it to the rest; but they did not believe them either.

14 Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen. He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well.”

19 After the Lord Jesus had spoken to them, he was taken up into heaven and he sat at the right hand of God. 20 Then the disciples went out and preached everywhere, and the Lord worked with them and confirmed his word by the signs that accompanied it.

It is somewhat surprising to me that a pastor would simply decline to preach on a passage of Scripture. I grant there is some question in scholarly circles as to whether this passage is genuine. However, I am not going to consider the documentary evidence here. I want to examine the author's doctrinal objections.
----------------

(...)

The Doctrinal Evidence

The longer ending of Mark contains some troubling doctrines (As we will see, the only troubling thing is the author's interpretation of the passage.)

that are not in harmony with the wider context of the New Testament. In particular, four strange doctrines emerge from Mark 16:9-20 that must be exposed as inconsistent with the New Testament apostolic age and miraculous gifts.

Baptismal Regeneration
Snake Handling
Drinking of Poison
Healing by Laying Hands on the Sick

Although many have explained Mark 16:16 in a way that does not teach baptismal regeneration, the best explanation does not emerge from the text itself. The best explanation arises from the overall context of the New Testament. (Isn't this how we interpret Scripture anyway? We don't create a doctrine based on a single verse. So this objection is empty, since the whole of the Bible gives us insight on how to interpret any one verse.)

In no other place in the New Testament do we see a verse that teaches the necessity of baptism in order to have true salvation. This is one more indicator that this isn’t an authentic text coming from John Mark’s pen. (The conclusion is not justified from the objection. "Troubling verse" does not equal "delete the verse.")

In no other place in the New Testament do we see the disciples commanded to take up serpents in order to validate their faith in Christ. (Which the verse does not teach. "They will" is not the same as "They must." And there is no mention of validating faith.) 

Even during the apostolic age when miraculous gifts were normative gifts to the church, such practices are not seen in any other place in the New Testament. Only in Acts 28:3 do we see something similar to this, but it’s involuntary or accidental as opposed to intentional snake handling. This serves as added support for the shorter ending of Mark. (The author inserts words like "intentional" without justification. Thus he reaches conclusions based on his disdain for contemporary snake handlers rather than the testimony of the Scripture itself.)

Nowhere in the New Testament do we see the followers of Christ drinking deadly poison in order to validate the deity of Christ or the authenticity of the church. (Our answer is the same, because the author engages in the same disingenuous technique of imposing meanings not taught by the Scripture.)

In our modern Charismatic movement we see tongues, professed healing, snake handling, and more—but no drinking of deadly poison. It seems to once again support the idea that Mark’s true ending is 16:8. (What does or does not happen in contemporary churches is irrelevant and does not speak to the veracity of this Scripture.)

When we see the practice of healing in the New Testament it doesn’t seem to be a mere laying on of hands that is practiced. (This is simply wrong. 

Ac. 3:7 Taking him by the right hand, he helped him up, and instantly the man’s feet and ankles became strong.

Ac. 28:8 His father was sick in bed, suffering from fever and dysentery. Paul went in to see him and, after prayer, placed his hands on him and healed him. 

In addition, there are other truly unconventional ways people got healed:

Ac. 5:15 As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by.

Ac. 19:11-12 God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, 12 so that even handkerchiefs and aprons that had touched him were taken to the sick, and their illnesses were cured and the evil spirits left them.

Should we discount these as Scriptural on the basis of there being no other account of a similar healing?)

James mentions the need to call for the elders of the church to anoint someone with oil (James 5:13-15), but the idea of just touching someone and providing a healing goes against the grain of the New Testament pattern. This once again supports the shorter ending of Mark as opposed to the longer ending. (No, it doesn't. I'm astonished that this man stands in front of a congregation and teaches them.)

(...)