Longview Relinquishes the Short View?

Baptist City Holdout

Baptist City Holdout

Well-known member
Doctor
Elect
Joined
Jan 29, 2013
Messages
3,890
Reaction score
324
Points
83
Location
South of the Arctic Circle
The sermon begins at 1:02.
Make sure you at least watch the segment beginning at 1:15:30 and listen to at least 1:20 before replying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Ql1q8iitg

I never have listened to a sermon from II. Glad this was my first.
 
Since I don't really know this ministry, I have the following questions:

1.  What do you mean by "the short view"?

2.  Is his "conversion" real?  Do we see evidence to confirm that?

3.  Is his "conversion" the direct result of daddy being gone?
 
Twisted said:
Since I don't really know this ministry, I have the following questions:

1.  What do you mean by "the short view"?

2.  Is his "conversion" real?  Do we see history to confirm that?

3.  Is his "conversion" the direct result of daddy being gone?
Click to expand...
1. I must admit the wording of the thread title was a stretch. "The short view" is an attempt to label the approach of beat the people over their head to get the performance you desire.

2. Any "conversion" does not require history; we look for evidence.

3. I have no idea.
 
Baptist City Holdout said:
Twisted said:
Since I don't really know this ministry, I have the following questions:

1.  What do you mean by "the short view"?

2.  Is his "conversion" real?  Do we see history to confirm that?

3.  Is his "conversion" the direct result of daddy being gone?
Click to expand...
1. I must admit the wording of the thread title was a stretch. "The short view" is an attempt to label the approach of beat the people over their head to get the performance you desire.

2. Any "conversion" does not require history; we look for evidence.

3. I have no idea.
Click to expand...

Evidence is a better word.
 
Twisted said:
Since I don't really know this ministry, I have the following questions:

1.  What do you mean by "the short view"?

2.  Is his "conversion" real?  Do we see history to confirm that?

3.  Is his "conversion" the direct result of daddy being gone?
Click to expand...

I don?t know him, but have heard of him. I don?t know what his motive could be but it seems he is taking on his own heritage and peer group by his ?conversion?.
To doubt his word...his sincerity is so IFBx of you.
His daddy has been long gone, so he took his time in converting.

I give him the benefit of the doubt and applaud the substance of his message.
I do see great irony in his statement that some who suffer from SPTSD are settling for contemporary music, false bibles and watered down standards in fleeing ?man made? leadership principles.
 
I also don't know him but have gotten "bad vibes" in the past and  I was most likely wrong for feeling that way. I hope better days are ahead for us all.
 
I listened to the one section the OP suggested. The speaker is repudiating the position of HAC, FBCH, Jim Vineyard, etc., that a pastor is to rule through force and fear.

He is apologizing for the wrongs that he and his church have done in the past by using force and fear to rule.

But he does not repudiate the hatred of Peter Ruckman, and he insists that he will continue to operate a phony  college.

But he is on the right track.
 
Brethren, I've been giving this some serious thought for a few days.

As Jack Hyles watched his church shrink from over 40,000 to less than 6,000; and as Jim Vineyard watched his church shrink from the hundreds to the dozens, neither man showed any rejection of the sins that cost them the blessings of God. They slowed them down (partly thanks to the FFF publicizing them), but never obeyed the Scriptural commands to get things right with those they had wronged. Neither man returned to the Word of God from the KJV.

Bob Gray II is following a path that might bring down a volley of hatred on himself, and I don't want to be allied with his haters. I'm sticking my neck out (gulp) and taking his side.

But he needs to go farther--he needs to explain how unaccredited Ruckmanite colleges have failed, and he needs to take his church back to the Word of God. He needs to repudiate easy believism. He needs to repudiate the doctrine that man-made rules are both the cause and result of holiness. He might be honestly unaware of this.


But I'm on his side.

 
THE MORAL HIGH GROUND

Brethren, I'm still concerned about this whole thing, so I'm going to stick my neck out farther. Since the publisher of the video banned it on this site, it appears that Longview Baptist is monitoring this site. Not only is that not illegal, it is not even wrong. So I hope I can help the brethren there and here.

The phrase "moral high ground" does not appear in the Bible and is therefore not defined by Scripture. What I am about to explain is a blend of what I have seen in real life, combined with Scriptural principles, that never contradicts Scripture, but is not clearly taught in Scripture.

 
Vince Massi said:
Since the publisher of the video banned it on this site, it appears that Longview Baptist is monitoring this site.
Click to expand...

Learning to read is a big help.  It clearly states, "Playback on other websites has been disabled by the video owner."

That setting is done on YouTube and has nothing to do with the FFF.
 
Some time ago, Dave Hyles complained that he had been witnessing to a man, and someone told him about Dave's evil past. The man then refused to listen to Dave any more. Dave then took the moral high ground, explaining that anyone who objected to Dave's sins was spiritually inferior to Dave, because they were doing more harm than good.

Bypassing the possibility that Dave made the story up, he holds consistently that it is wrong not to help cover up his sins. The fallout from Dave's sins was caused by the people who exposed them; Dave is not to blame. Covering up sin is good, because it protects soul-winning ministries.

That, essentially, is "the moral high ground"--the doctrine that the person who did wrong is spiritually superior to Christians who do right, because Christians who do right are doing harm.


 
Vince Massi said:
Some time ago, Dave Hyles complained that he had been witnessing to a man, and someone told him about Dave's evil past. The man then refused to listen to Dave any more. Dave then took the moral high ground, explaining that anyone who objected to Dave's sins was spiritually inferior to Dave, because they were doing more harm than good.

Bypassing the possibility that Dave made the story up, he holds consistently that it is wrong not to help cover up his sins. The fallout from Dave's sins was caused by the people who exposed them; Dave is not to blame. Covering up sin is good, because it protects soul-winning ministries.

That, essentially, is "the moral high ground"--the doctrine that the person who did wrong is spiritually superior to Christians who do right, because Christians who do right are doing harm.
Click to expand...

Off your meds again?

You posted this is the wrong thread.
 
Baptist City Holdout said:
The sermon begins at 1:02.
Make sure you at least watch the segment beginning at 1:15:30 and listen to at least 1:20 before replying.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=95Ql1q8iitg

I never have listened to a sermon from II. Glad this was my first.
Click to expand...

I have heard him before.  I assume he is sincere, and this is a major repudiation of his father's and Hyles' philosophy of leadership.
 
Baptist City Holdout said:
Twisted said:
Since I don't really know this ministry, I have the following questions:

1.  What do you mean by "the short view"?

2.  Is his "conversion" real?  Do we see history to confirm that?

3.  Is his "conversion" the direct result of daddy being gone?
Click to expand...
1. I must admit the wording of the thread title was a stretch. "The short view" is an attempt to label the approach of beat the people over their head to get the performance you desire.

2. Any "conversion" does not require history; we look for evidence.

3. I have no idea.
Click to expand...

I agree with #1 and with #2 -- There is no need to assume he is being insincere.  His statements are a pretty blatant admission that his father dealt wrongly with people.

As to #3; I don't think anyone knows for sure, but my guess is that his father's leaving was probably more a consequence of II's change of heart than a cause of it.  I would guess that as II began pastoring, he heard and read a lot about the results of his father's behavior, and that led him to this change of heart, which he said he had about 10 years ago.
 
Baptist City Holdout said:
I also don't know him but have gotten "bad vibes" in the past and  I was most likely wrong for feeling that way. I hope better days are ahead for us all.
Click to expand...

I have definitely heard pretty awful, beating sermons from him; I shall assume that he has truly repented - the very fact that he used that word, so abused by Hyles and other indicates quite a break with that crowd.
 
Walt said:
Baptist City Holdout said:
I also don't know him but have gotten "bad vibes" in the past and  I was most likely wrong for feeling that way. I hope better days are ahead for us all.
Click to expand...

I have definitely heard pretty awful, beating sermons from him; I shall assume that he has truly repented - the very fact that he used that word, so abused by Hyles and other indicates quite a break with that crowd.
Click to expand...
Good to read your comments, Walt.
 
I just listened to a 31 minute sermon.
Where is the sermon that goes to 1:20?

Sent from my moto g(6) (XT1925DL) using Tapatalk

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top