Then let's approach the subject employing reason and experience. "If they drink any deadly poison, it will not harm them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will be made well.” Does this happen today? No. These gifts, assuming that the ending of Mark truly records the words of the Lord, have obviously passed away.
Really??? With regard to laying hands on the sick in particular, I respectfully disagree. In my local ACNA parish, there are couples designated to pray for people after Eucharist if the people desire prayer. At almost every service I see some parishioners availing themselves of this. The couples lay their hands on the one who needs healing in body or soul and pray for them. If God doesn't heal people today in response to their prayerful requests, why are we bothering to do this? Is it just a "feel-good about you" tradition, letting you know we care about you but knowing that our loving Lord will do nothing for you? Perhaps we do it just for psychosomatic effect? My wife and I both can attest to occasions in which she or I laid our hands on someone and prayed for that person's healing, and that person was healed. I don't think we are exceptional Christians, so if God is willing to "give the daily bread" (meet the needs of His children) in answer to our prayers I believe He's willing to do so in response to the prayers of any Christian. We have a Father in heaven who loves us dearly enough to send His Son to die for us, and we have a perfect intercessor (Jesus) at the Father's right hand who makes intercession for us. Surely our God does not turn a deaf ear to our earthly needs? I know of a Christian ministry that travels the globe with teams of ordinary Christians sharing their faith on the street and in large nightly crusades. in 20 years they have documented I forget how many tens of thousands of healings and miracles. By 'documented' I mean they do not count the healing as valid unless at least one person who knows the allegedly healed individual steps forward to verify the individual's former condition and current healed state. As for drinking deadly poison, I'm not sure how we can know the number of times believers might have ingested poison unknowingly yet remained unharmed. But considering the warnings we've heard about pesticides on fruits and vegetables (poisons that are difficult to get rid of even with very thorough washing), I'd like to believe that God is protecting you and me. An interesting book from the 1800s which one might find very enlightening is "Smith Wigglesworth, Apostle of Faith" by Frodsham. It shows that belief in God's will to heal is not a "modern" 20th/21st Century phenomenon.
Though I have 'liked' the post above, I think it might be relevant to ask ourselves this: Though 'inspired' and accepted into the canon, when might this addition have been included and for what reason. I very much doubt that it was included to try to identify 'believers' over against 'unbelievers' by setting various 'entrance tests' that we must either 'pass' or 'fail'. Such 'examinations' could severely deplete the church, leaving it composed of only extremely believing nutters with a death wish.