STARTLING! LARRY BOOKER'S Latest Message!!!(wait til you see this!!!)

[Ferd]

Originally Posted by dizzyde

I think lately the changes have been far swifter than two month increments!! What I don't get is his inability to understand why people don't take him seriously. It baffles me!

when one takes ones self seriously, it is hard to understand why others dont...

[Ferd]

This must have really been one impactful sermon. I wish I had been there.

the proof is that over a year later we are still talking about it!

[tv1a]

Bill Price hasn't got the guts to leave. He will run out of material for his blog/website/Dick and Jane/McGuffey Reader.

Time to man up Bill. Let everyone know it is me you banned. First of all don't flatter me by calling me a hero. Have no fear. I had no intentions of going back anyway. I knew you were going to block me. Legalists are as predictable as a laxative. As if you care, feel free to leave your babble on my blog.

There are people who can vouch I even attempted to get you some traffic on your blog out of the goodness of my heart, but the powers that be decided that was a bad idea.

The guy who you put your trust into getting you to heaven compared me to a wild dog. Funny statement from a man who preys on the weak and defenseless can't stand a stong man of God. That is why he attacks Haney, Mangun, Blume, even one of our ultra conservative posters EB is on his hit list.

If this guy is all that and a bag of gumdrops, have you made the trip to the mecca of the southeast to be baptized? According to your pope, if he doesn't baptize you, it is the wrong baptism.

I debated on asking this question, but has anyone other than I wondered if Bill Price changed his beliefs in deathbed salvation? We know it was about a year ago Bill had a change in heart about salvation at repentance. Not a good time of the year to reverse that position.

I leave you with what is quickly becoming my favorite verse in the KJV,
2 Peter 2:16.

You and GR can determine who plays what role.

Originally Posted by Brother Price

By all means... let's just show how liberal this forum is, shall we. You know, I would leave this place once and for all, but I feel so sorry for all you backsliders on here who have rejected holiness, rejected the truth about the grace of God, and rejected the Lord Himself in doing so.

You know what. I have said I am leaving quite a few times. Maybe it is time for me to shake the dust and bid adieu to this home of charismatic liberal compromise who commits libel in calling itself 'Apostolic'. Maybe, I should just wlk away, and let the liberal have this corner of the Internet. I already had to ban the IP of one of your favorite heroes from my site, so maybe I should let this place go the way of FCF and NFCF, right down the tubes.

[tv1a]

I believe the men were honorable who initially made the reccommendations about television. However history paints a disturbing picture that future generations loses the principle behind the rule.

The pharisees began with a desire to pleae God. They instituted rules which they thought would bring them closer to God. What happened was the opposite. The pharisees were more concerned about their works than their relationship with Christ.

Rules were based on principle at the beginning. By the time Jesus hit the ground running, the pharisees forgotten about the principle which guided their forefathers.

Flash foward.

Mid 1950's. Ministers wanted television ban because of content.
Flash foward early 2000's. Legal Larry ignoring internet content comes up a loophole which gives people the okay to have internet. Legal Larry could not give the television owner the same slack as he gave someone with internet access.

The legalists today are following the letter of the law, but not the principle of the law.

That's why I get a tiny irritated when people say I'm against holiness, conservatism, standards. I understand why the decisions were made. I may not agree with them, but I understand.

I have the highest respect for people who preach against television and the internet. I may not agree with their premise, but one cannot say they are bending the rules for convenience. The WPF could learn a lot about principle from real conservatives.

Originally Posted by 2020Vision

This debate was settled decades ago when the Beaver was a sitcom star. (And no, not everyone in favor of the resolution lacked character, integrity, were TV-aholics, etc... many were good men with good intentions).

[ReformedDave]

Originally Posted by tstew

From an earlier post:




I cannot figure you out Bro. Price.

Neither can Bill Price......

[My Own Eyes]

Originally Posted by tv1a

Bill Price hasn't got the guts to leave. He will run out of material for his blog/website/Dick and Jane/McGuffey Reader.

Time to man up Bill. Let everyone know it is me you banned. First of all don't flatter me by calling me a hero. Have no fear. I had no intentions of going back anyway. I knew you were going to block me. Legalists are as predictable as a laxative. As if you care, feel free to leave your babble on my blog.

There are people who can vouch I even attempted to get you some traffic on your blog out of the goodness of my heart, but the powers that be decided that was a bad idea.

The guy who you put your trust into getting you to heaven compared me to a wild dog. Funny statement from a man who preys on the weak and defenseless can't stand a stong man of God. That is why he attacks Haney, Mangun, Blume, even one of our ultra conservative posters EB is on his hit list.

If this guy is all that and a bag of gumdrops, have you made the trip to the mecca of the southeast to be baptized? According to your pope, if he doesn't baptize you, it is the wrong baptism.

I debated on asking this question, but has anyone other than I wondered if Bill Price changed his beliefs in deathbed salvation? We know it was about a year ago Bill had a change in heart about salvation at repentance. Not a good time of the year to reverse that position.

I leave you with what is quickly becoming my favorite verse in the KJV,
2 Peter 2:16.

You and GR can determine who plays what role.

How did I miss this? When did Bill phase back to Ultra Con???

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I believe the men were honorable who initially made the reccommendations about television. However history paints a disturbing picture that future generations loses the principle behind the rule.

The pharisees began with a desire to pleae God. They instituted rules which they thought would bring them closer to God. What happened was the opposite. The pharisees were more concerned about their works than their relationship with Christ.

Rules were based on principle at the beginning. By the time Jesus hit the ground running, the pharisees forgotten about the principle which guided their forefathers.

Flash foward.

Mid 1950's. Ministers wanted television ban because of content.
Flash foward early 2000's. Legal Larry ignoring internet content comes up a loophole which gives people the okay to have internet. Legal Larry could not give the television owner the same slack as he gave someone with internet access.

The legalists today are following the letter of the law, but not the principle of the law.

That's why I get a tiny irritated when people say I'm against holiness, conservatism, standards. I understand why the decisions were made. I may not agree with them, but I understand.

I have the highest respect for people who preach against television and the internet. I may not agree with their premise, but one cannot say they are bending the rules for convenience. The WPF could learn a lot about principle from real conservatives.

Decisions are not blanketed. From the outside, it can seem inconsistent, but in reality, the spiritual community has the right and duty to make decisions about things on their own merit. While the internet may have far worse potential, the issue is television, which has been settled long ago and is still not needed in the sanctuary of our homes. On to internet, there's such a day-to-day use in education, business, etc that you couldn't exist in society at all without one. So we encourage filters, accountability, computers in open places and not bedrooms, etc. It's not full proof of error, and yes many are wrecking their lives over this. But this does not resurrect the tv issue from the dead. It just means we need the Holy Ghost to give us wisdom in this ever-changing society that is leaning toward "Barbarism in the 21st Century" (another great LB message that someone sent me).

Too many are trying to appoint themselves as lawyers. In reality, these are humans making decisions that they feel are best for the community. If people don't like it, they can leave. In my church, and others that we fellowship with, the proof is in the pudding. And people love and appreciate the community. The antithesis to godly, Holiness preaching is not always ugly, power-hungry, legalistic, bitter, angry men. Believe it or not, sometimes there are men that truly love God and want what's best for his flock.

[2020Vision]

Originally Posted by tv1a

I believe the men were honorable who initially made the reccommendations about television. However history paints a disturbing picture that future generations loses the principle behind the rule.

The pharisees began with a desire to pleae God. They instituted rules which they thought would bring them closer to God. What happened was the opposite. The pharisees were more concerned about their works than their relationship with Christ.

Rules were based on principle at the beginning. By the time Jesus hit the ground running, the pharisees forgotten about the principle which guided their forefathers.

Flash foward.

Mid 1950's. Ministers wanted television ban because of content.
Flash foward early 2000's. Legal Larry ignoring internet content comes up a loophole which gives people the okay to have internet. Legal Larry could not give the television owner the same slack as he gave someone with internet access.

The legalists today are following the letter of the law, but not the principle of the law.

That's why I get a tiny irritated when people say I'm against holiness, conservatism, standards. I understand why the decisions were made. I may not agree with them, but I understand.

I have the highest respect for people who preach against television and the internet. I may not agree with their premise, but one cannot say they are bending the rules for convenience. The WPF could learn a lot about principle from real conservatives.

tv - I've used that same scripture as a lesson point many times. But calling churches that have Apostolic growth, revival and where people are getting saved as legalists is a hard point to make. Legalism and deadness usually have the most in common.

True, Jesus was trying to break these newly-saved Jews away from their old mentality of extreme orthodoxy and traditions, but I'm quite confident my church is not a legalist church. The spirit of the law is important, but that does not extinguish the law. And in reality, when one buys into the community of believers, falls deeply in love with God, these "laws" are not ever thought of, just as a married man never has to consider his vows at the mall to remind him of his duty of faithfulness. He instinctly knows this and conducts himself out of love.

No matter where you stand on the TV issue, just know it's a matter of wisdom, with both sides calling the other foolish. I do not pretend to believe tv = sin, but I do see and agree that homes with television share a stark contrast with those homes that do not. The secular social scientists even tell us this for crying out loud. TV is a dinosaur issue for even them.

[tv1a]

The last time you blinked your eyes.
I doubt Bill will answer the question of deathbed salvation. Reckert may be reading and throw BP under the bus again.

If Bill would answer the question, than that may leave a lingering doubt in hsi mind about his father's salvation. What a difference a year makes...

Originally Posted by My Own Eyes

How did I miss this? When did Bill phase back to Ultra Con???

[berkeley]

I love this thread. Keep it going so I'll have something to read when I come back.