Perhaps for those that don't believe the Bible to be the inerrant Word of God.

 

No, No you misunderstand. What I am saying it that people distort the word of God, as you call it, for profit all the time. Just look at a lot of the Health and Wealth Christian Self Help books.

 

My believing has no affect on my observation...

My trouble is that Queen is the ultimate cherry-picker. For example:

 

1. In several of the sermons he uses the phrase "most scholars accept . . ." on issues that are absolutely false. Most scholars do NOT accept that Matthew was an add/on writer. There are some who claim the latter portion of Mark are, but the "addition" scholarship on Matthew is far from being consensus; Queen tosses it out there like fact, I guess believing that his parishioners will accept it carte blanche with drool running down their faces;

 

2. There is no equanimity to his choice of adjective. If a passage says the word hell or judgment, Queen dismisses it out of hand saying it is "vindictive," and therefore contradictory to Jesus' teaching. Jesus pointing out there is an eternal judgment is not vindictive, it is fact, no matter how Queen chooses to describe it.

 

3. His conclusions are merely self-serving. Matthew has over 37 references to Hell, so he concludes that the writer of Matthew in the "Hell" parts is different from the Matthew in the "love" parts, and then says the writer "has an ax to grind." Mind you, he provides no textual support for that, he merely tosses a "scholars agree" in there and hopes you'll accept it. On the flip side, Acts doesn't mention the word Hell so the writer of Acts (Luke) is pure and accurately reporting the teaching of Jesus.

 

4. His scholarship is poor. He condemns or tries to spin the reference to Hell in Luke, but praises Acts, forgetting perhaps that Luke wrote both books.

 

If you are going to pretend to be authoritative, you need at a very minimum to be able to use scholarship and citation to textually support your argument, or it cannot even be called criticism. Queen's sermons are nothing more than fatuous drivel spouted as something to pass the time after the passing of the plate. Unfortunately, it appears that many will simply sit there, glassy-eyed, vigorously nodding their heads with the occasional "Amen."

 

 

Since you know very little about Pastor Queen and the congregation of IBC I can let it slide that you so slander his and our intellect.

 

Unfortunately for us we are a rather homogenous congregation. Most of us are well educated and most of us are rather opinionated. To suggest that we follow along like lambs to the slaughter is just a silly proposition. Are Sunday morning pews are populated with Doctors, Lawyers, Teachers, Day Treatment Directors (), preachers kids, former preachers, blah, blah, blah. We enjoyed being challenged to think about the scripture and about our theology. We are unlike many churches with which I am familiar in that we don't think that everything that comes out of Chuck's mouth is "gospel." He is human like us and he could be wrong. The great thing about my church is that we actually challenge one another, in love of course, when we think differently. Our preacher sits in our Sunday School class and neither he nor I are afraid to say, "well I disagree with what he is saying and here is why."

 

The columns are not meant to be scholarly works. They are articles for the local newspaper that allow people to see that there is a different perspective. FWIW it has attracted several non-churched people to visit our congregation and some have stayed to worship with us on a regular basis. They are written for a 'general' audience.

 

As for his religious training . . . Campbellsville, SBC, and one other I think. But how do you criticize when you do not know. you make assumptions because you disagree.

 

BTW I KNOW of former professors at SBC who do not believe in an eternal punishment. They are undecided maybe on what actually does happen but an eternity of torment is certainly not it.

Okay a little confused here.

 

Reading 6th installment and he starts with this.

 

This column is my sixth in the series on hell. It is clear from Paul's letters that he expected a future judgment, but it is not at all clear what he believed about the consequences of this judgment. His most severe depiction of judgment occurs in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, one of his earliest letters, though many Pauline scholars do not attribute this epistle to Paul. The context is one of intense persecution, and the entire passage (1:3-2:12) is filled with apocalyptic images. God will "repay with affliction" those who have afflicted Christ's followers "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven ... inflicting vengeance ... These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord." While severely harsh in tone there is no mention of "hell" (gehenna) and the fate of the wicked is described as "eternal destruction" (annihilation).

 

Another judgment text that is certainly from Paul is Romans 2:5-11. On the day of "God's righteous judgment" God "will repay according to each one's deeds." Those who have done evil will face God's "wrath and anger" and will experience "anguish and distress"; whereas, those who have done good will be given "eternal life" and will experience "glory and honor and peace." Like the text from 2 Thessalonians it seems, on the surface, to be retributive in character, though the passage is prefaced by the observation that God's kindness is intended to lead people to repentance (2:4). Could God's judgment be a form of kindness? The passage concludes with the statement that God shows no partiality (2:11). God judges fairly. There is no mention of "hell," nor is their any intimation of eternal suffering. In fact, the word for "hell" does not occur in any of Paul's letters.

 

But in the first installment he made this statement.

 

The judgment of God cannot contradict the love of God, but must be interpreted within the context of God's unconditional love for all people, the righteous and the wicked.

 

 

Does not eternal destruction not stand in contrast with his statement of God's unconditional love for all people?

 

And notice he says God judges fairly. That does not mean he lets people off the hook but rather fairly, meaning they got what they deserved.

 

Not sure how Mr. Queen can say that punishment of eternal destruction is not referring to Hell and his only argument on it, is that the term Hell was not actually used.

Ace, do you believe in Satan?

 

We started down this very road right at the end of SS this past week, and you know . . . I don't know.

 

The question was . . . if everything that comes from God is good (defined as just, righteous, whatever, not just warm fuzzies) from whence does evil arise?

 

Well some say, it was a fallen angel, but did the angel not come from God. Well, some say, it comes from man's free will. But doesn't free will come from God?

 

I do certainly believe that there is evil in the world, I am not so certain of the personification of that evil in one certain being, but I am not closed to that possibility.

 

Did I parse that answer enough to be a politician???:ylsuper:

We started down this very road right at the end of SS this past week, and you know . . . I don't know.

 

The question was . . . if everything that comes from God is good (defined as just, righteous, whatever, not just warm fuzzies) from whence does evil arise?

 

Well some say, it was a fallen angel, but did the angel not come from God. Well, some say, it comes from man's free will. But doesn't free will come from God?

 

I do certainly believe that there is evil in the world, I am not so certain of the personification of that evil in one certain being, but I am not closed to that possibility.

 

Did I parse that answer enough to be a politician???:ylsuper:

 

Just led to question #2.

 

Scripture says that Satan will be thrown into the Lake of Fire for all eternity. If you don't believe in Hell, where will Satan be for all eternity?

Okay a little confused here.

 

Reading 6th installment and he starts with this.

 

This column is my sixth in the series on hell. It is clear from Paul's letters that he expected a future judgment, but it is not at all clear what he believed about the consequences of this judgment. His most severe depiction of judgment occurs in 2 Thessalonians 1:5-10, one of his earliest letters, though many Pauline scholars do not attribute this epistle to Paul. The context is one of intense persecution, and the entire passage (1:3-2:12) is filled with apocalyptic images. God will "repay with affliction" those who have afflicted Christ's followers "when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven ... inflicting vengeance ... These will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, separated from the presence of the Lord." While severely harsh in tone there is no mention of "hell" (gehenna) and the fate of the wicked is described as "eternal destruction" (annihilation).

 

Another judgment text that is certainly from Paul is Romans 2:5-11. On the day of "God's righteous judgment" God "will repay according to each one's deeds." Those who have done evil will face God's "wrath and anger" and will experience "anguish and distress"; whereas, those who have done good will be given "eternal life" and will experience "glory and honor and peace." Like the text from 2 Thessalonians it seems, on the surface, to be retributive in character, though the passage is prefaced by the observation that God's kindness is intended to lead people to repentance (2:4). Could God's judgment be a form of kindness? The passage concludes with the statement that God shows no partiality (2:11). God judges fairly. There is no mention of "hell," nor is their any intimation of eternal suffering. In fact, the word for "hell" does not occur in any of Paul's letters.

 

But in the first installment he made this statement.

 

The judgment of God cannot contradict the love of God, but must be interpreted within the context of God's unconditional love for all people, the righteous and the wicked.

 

 

Does not eternal destruction not stand in contrast with his statement of God's unconditional love for all people?

 

And notice he says God judges fairly. That does not mean he lets people off the hook but rather fairly, meaning they got what they deserved.

 

 

I certainly do not mean to speak for him, as he does not speak for me, but i believe he MIGHT say that the judgment is a redemtive one. It is not about punishment, but about cleansing. He may say that God continues to hope for reconciliation even while being separated from someone who chose not to accept God's love and forgiveness in this "life", but there is still hope in the next. And that the punishment is the separation from all that is good

I certainly do not mean to speak for him, as he does not speak for me, but i believe he MIGHT say that the judgment is a redemtive one. It is not about punishment, but about cleansing. He may say that God continues to hope for reconciliation even while being separated from someone who chose not to accept God's love and forgiveness in this "life", but there is still hope in the next. And that the punishment is the separation from all that is good

 

On the bolded, I absolutely agree.

On the part that followed it, I would like to see Scripture supporting this view.

 

On the last statement, I agree and that is HELL. You and he would have just agreed to it's existence.

Just led to question #2.

 

Scripture says that Satan will be thrown into the Lake of Fire for all eternity. If you don't believe in Hell, where will Satan be for all eternity?

 

Parable or story that shows that "evil" will be laid to rest and that good will reign.

 

We know that Revelation is full of symbolism, why is this not symbolic? Could it not represent the earthly rule of tyrants and the coming of the Kingdom of God where love rules.

Parable or story that shows that "evil" will be laid to rest and that good will reign.

 

We know that Revelation is full of symbolism, why is this not symbolic? Could it not represent the earthly rule of tyrants and the coming of the Kingdom of God where love rules.

 

So, where do you think that Satan will be for all of eternity then?

Jesus speaks of hell and Satan. Good enough for me.

 

 

"No one comes to the Father except Thru me". Why would he say we have to "go to the Father"? What are the other choices if we rufuse to Come to the Father where Jesus says "I have prepared many rooms".

 

 

Why is there judgement that Jesus talks about? Why Judge? Everyone goes to the same place.

 

What happen to Cain, David, Sampson, Solomon, Job, Uza, The Flood, Sodom/Gomorrah, Countries who fought against the chosen people, Egypt, etc. They all experinced the Wrath of God.

We started down this very road right at the end of SS this past week, and you know . . . I don't know.

 

The question was . . . if everything that comes from God is good (defined as just, righteous, whatever, not just warm fuzzies) from whence does evil arise?

 

Well some say, it was a fallen angel, but did the angel not come from God. Well, some say, it comes from man's free will. But doesn't free will come from God?

 

I do certainly believe that there is evil in the world, I am not so certain of the personification of that evil in one certain being, but I am not closed to that possibility.

 

Did I parse that answer enough to be a politician???:ylsuper:

 

Probably another thread but I believe that not all the evil in the world is Satan-created evil.

 

Man is evil in our own right and we can produce a good deal of evil without Satan's help.

 

Exhibit A: Rap music. (that will rankle Jim Shue.:lol:)

On the bolded, I absolutely agree.

On the part that followed it, I would like to see Scripture supporting this view.

 

On the last statement, I agree and that is HELL. You and he would have just agreed to it's existence.

 

I can go with that, his point is that there may not be this fire and brimstone that we have grown up with where God is INTENTIONALLY inflicting pain on someone forever. What is just or Holy or Righteous about that? I would never INTENTIONALLY inflict pain for eternity on my son, and does God not love me more than that??? If I were to "spank" it would be for redemptive purposes to change a behavior. what good is it if it lasts forever and I know there will be no reconciliation. Why must I then continue to punish? That is such a WORLDLY notion.

So, where do you think that Satan will be for all of eternity then?

 

Vanquished??? I am allowing myself to assume that your premise of Satan is true.

Reading the sermon on Acts and Paul's story would seem to contradict and early claim.

 

If God is only a non-violent, loving, caring God, how does that fit in with Paul being struck blind for a time being? Is that loving and caring?

 

He was struck blind "for a time being" so that he could ultimately "see". It was about redemption and reconciliation.

I can go with that, his point is that there may not be this fire and brimstone that we have grown up with where God is INTENTIONALLY inflicting pain on someone forever. What is just or Holy or Righteous about that? I would never INTENTIONALLY inflict pain for eternity on my son, and does God not love me more than that??? If I were to "spank" it would be for redemptive purposes to change a behavior. what good is it if it lasts forever and I know there will be no reconciliation. Why must I then continue to punish? That is such a WORLDLY notion.

 

So, is society at fault for criminals spending their life in prison?

Or are the prisoners at fault for where they are?

 

No difference. The person chooses where they will spend eternity. Gnashing of teeth in total separation from all that is good, GOD or with God in Heaven.

 

You and I make that choice, not God.

The prisoners make that choice, not society.

 

On your analogy, it does not work because we aren't God and don't have the ability to do something for someone for all eternity.