The Israel of God

Following are continuing remarks by reformed dispensationalist, William E. Cox.
{From: http://www.neve-family.com/books/jews/Israel&TheChurch.html}

ISRAEL and THE CHURCH

by William E. Cox

 

He denies being a dispy and claims to be a 'covenaptist', I guess meaning he considers himself holding to covenant theology yet in every whit he espouses classic dispy theology.

Good OP on "The Wall That Jesus Christ Broke Down; Rebuilt?"

Yeshua1:
"Both Jews and gentiles have been made part of the same flock of God now by Crtoss of Christ, but that does not mean that God will not turn back to dealing with national israel after the Churge Age is done with!"

"After the Church Age" = the 'parenthesis Church'.

 

I get it from the Lord:


John 10:15-17

King James Version (KJV)

15 As the Father knoweth me, even so know I the Father: and I lay down my life for the sheep.

16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.

17 Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.


Until the Eternal State the saved of all history will not be united. Even your Catholic brother seems to understand this:

But let's put my statement back into it's context:

At this time in history we have yet to see the redeemed that will be saved in the future saved. When the Eternal State begins the People of God will finally be gathered together, we will be One Fold with One Shepherd.

Not two peoples (Israel and the Church).

Right now the Lord is still gathering His Own.


God bless.

 

It was a joke, lol.

"Covenaptist" simply speaks of the fact that I embrace the teachings of the Covenants and place them in their proper perspective, as opposed to associating with groups that deny certain truths because it doesn't fit the Theology System they adopted.

I am a Baptist, proud of it, and glad I was not thrown into the theological maelstrom of certain theology systems, whose doctrine is usually traced back to the Catholic Church, though they deny it. I am glad of what kind of Baptist I am, because the Baptists I have associated have held doctrine which, unlike certain Baptists, can be supported from the Word of God, and do not rely on Catholic teachings which their group was not able to divorce themselves from.

Like loss of salvation which has as the only possible recourse...salvation by works.


God bless.

 

Just to touch on the "heart of the matter and the continuous charge against me that I am a Dispensationalist:

Quote me saying that Israel and the Church, in Christ, are two separate groups. I do not hold to that view, nor do I care that there are Dispensationalists that do.

What I do teach consistently is that Israel has not ceased to be Israel. At this time those of Israel are lost and in need of Christ, which will not happen on a National basis until the Millennial Kingdom, when only those of Israel who are born again enter into the Kingdom, thus fulfilling...


Romans 11:25-26

King James Version (KJV)

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:


Paul acknowledges the difference between Israel and Gentiles here in a prophetic tense.

Why wouldn't we? lol

Go and learn what that meaneth.


;)


God bless.

 

I now get where you get 'this stuff', it's strictly your imagination. Is there something about 'he is our peace, who made both one' and, 'one Spirit, one body, whether Jews or Greeks, one Spirit' that you don't understand?

 

What I don't understand is your continuous attempt to make unbelievers...believers.

This applies only to those already saved.


God bless.

 

What I don't understand is why you won't accept that His children can fall into the sin of unbelief, or that Christ's atonement does not cover the sin of unbelief. Are there other sins that Christ did not atone for, or is that the only one?

So? What is it in your imagination that moots the fact that there is NOW no distinction between the two? There is no longer TWO. There is only ONE.

 

Now you're restructuring the issue.

I do believe believers can fall into unbelief and sin, but loss of salvation is not the punishment, and the texts the L.O.S.T. use speak of eternal damnation.

Believers who sin run the risk of chastisement, illness, and even death.

The penalty for sin has always been and always will be death. This was true for the Old Testament Saint, it is true for the New Testament Saint.

But the death of believers does not equate to eternal death. Moses and Aaron died physically for their sin but that does not mean they died eternally.

But that is not the context of any passage you have presented...and you know it.

You are trying to teach that believers can go into eternal punishment and that is false doctrine unsupported by any Bible passage or teaching.

So?

That's the point?

You cannot see you are in error from Paul's statement?


Romans 11:25-26

King James Version (KJV)

25 For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fulness of the Gentiles be come in.

26 And so all Israel shall be saved: as it is written, There shall come out of Sion the Deliverer, and shall turn away ungodliness from Jacob:


He isn't saying that all Jewish believers will be saved. Have you even read chs.9-11?


Romans 9

King James Version (KJV)


1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;


Doesn't seem Paul writes Israel off.

And you say I have an imagination? lol

Show how Paul denies National Israel? He doesn't say his brethren speaking of Christians.

And if you take that in consideration that will help you better understand the Book of Hebrews, which you have used to teach loss of salvation, not...

...judgment on sinning believers.


God bless.

 

I would also ask you to comment on this...


Romans 9

King James Version (KJV)


1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;


And show how Paul is speaking past tense.

Israel will receive, on a National basis, the promises of God, thus shall all Israel be saved, because those who reject Christ in the Tribulation will be put to death.


God bless.

 

I said earlier that Darbyites will twist any Scripture in an attempt to justify the false teaching of Darby and his acolytes! Consider what Paul is really saying about Israel:

Romans 9:1-16
1. I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,
2. That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.
3. For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:
4. Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;
5. Whose are the fathers, and of whom as concerning the flesh Christ came, who is over all, God blessed for ever. Amen.
6. Not as though the word of God hath taken none effect. For they are not all Israel, which are of Israel:
7. Neither, because they are the seed of Abraham, are they all children: but, In Isaac shall thy seed be called.
8. That is, They which are the children of the flesh, these are not the children of God: but the children of the promise are counted for the seed.
9. For this is the word of promise, At this time will I come, and Sara shall have a son.
10. And not only this; but when Rebecca also had conceived by one, even by our father Isaac;
11. (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;)
12. It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger.
13. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.
14. What shall we say then? Is there unrighteousness with God? God forbid.
15. For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion.
16. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy.

And then consider who Paul called the true Israel:

Romans 11:1-7
1. I say then, Hath God cast away his people? God forbid. For I also am an Israelite, of the seed of Abraham, of the tribe of Benjamin.
2. God hath not cast away his people which he foreknew. Wot ye not what the scripture saith of Elias? how he maketh intercession to God against Israel, saying,
3. Lord, they have killed thy prophets, and digged down thine altars; and I am left alone, and they seek my life.
4. But what saith the answer of God unto him? I have reserved to myself seven thousand men, who have not bowed the knee to the image of Baal.
5. Even so then at this present time also there is a remnant according to the election of grace.
6. And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
7. What then? Israel hath not obtained that which he seeketh for; but the election hath obtained it, and the rest were blinded.

 

That is proven false by the very Scripture you posted!

There is one fold now, the Church. Your pope Darby and his acolytes, or should I say his "teaching magisterium", invented the "parenthesis" Church to support his new revelation of a future Jewish dispensation. His doctrine of the "parenthesis" Church, as an "interruption" in Gods program for national or ethnic Israel, is as blasphemous as much of what the Church of Rome teaches.

I have posted elsewhere Charles Spurgeon's remarks concerning Darby's heretical view of the atonement! Perhaps he was striving for the same position among the Plymouth Brethern and dispensationalism that Mary has among the Roman Catholics.

 

At least answer respectfully. Do you know anyone person on the board who claims to be a follower of Darby? Seriously?

 

That you cannot understand the passages is surely attributed to the hatred which blinds you.

Here is the post again:


Originally Posted by Darrell C
I would also ask you to comment on this...


Romans 9

King James Version (KJV)


1 I say the truth in Christ, I lie not, my conscience also bearing me witness in the Holy Ghost,

2 That I have great heaviness and continual sorrow in my heart.

3 For I could wish that myself were accursed from Christ for my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh:

4 Who are Israelites; to whom pertaineth the adoption, and the glory, and the covenants, and the giving of the law, and the service of God, and the promises;


And show how Paul is speaking past tense.

Israel will receive, on a National basis, the promises of God, thus shall all Israel be saved, because those who reject Christ in the Tribulation will be put to death.


Can you ever just once actually address a post?


God bless.

 

How would you know. You always ignore the Scripture provided.

You completely ignored my point. Here it is again:

And I'll pause there for you to show that you can actually address the points in a post.

Go for it.


Continued...

 

Every point of doctrine is taken from and supported by Scripture.

You are arguing something that has nothing to do with me or my posts.

You would know, wouldn't you, seeing your doctrine can be traced only to Catholicism.

It sure doesn't come from first century teachings.

Yes, we are all aware of your habit of spamming threads.

You tell me.

It is the Pope that has influenced you in ignoring the Word of God and teaching spectacular fantasies that negate what the Word of God states and impose on the text the meaning you want.

How very popish of you.

Speaking of being popish, your Pope has also convinced you that there is a need to keep people from discussing the Word of God.

Doesn't that bother you?

No of course it doesn't, because you are not even aware of what you are doing.


God bless.

 

Why is it that his constant trolling, spamming, disruption, and slander of other members is tolerated?


God bless.

 

I have posted numerous times the writings of dispensational scholar Dr. Thomas Ice that John Nelson Darby is the father of pre-trib-dispensationalism. Whether you agree or not he carries that title! Following is another writing of Ice I just located:

 

And whether you like it or not, we don't believe the same as he does, don't have the same doctrine, haven't read his books etc.

For a parallel we don't call you an Augustinian, which technically you are because of your beliefs in Calvinism.
However he believed in infant baptism, purgatory, adhered to the precepts of his mother church, of which the RCC considers him one of the fathers. So whether you like it or not you are an Augustinian. Deny it all you like you are an Augustinian. Those are your beliefs. They stem from him. You have been in cahoots with Catholicism more than with a Baptist heritage of which you boast.

 

as it is written, The Deliverer came out of Sion 2000 years ago. His name was Jesus Christ. The Jews had HIM crucified by the Romans!