|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 17, 2011 11:45:30 GMT -5
I apologize for the non-chronological presentation of realized truths...
As a 20-year dispensationalist, I had never even heard of the destruction of Jerusalem and temple in 70 AD. Definitely shame on me. I have since learned that this was a covenant judgment of God’s old covenant people who refused to transition into the new covenant in Christ (the new creation – 2 Cor 5:17). What then was the old creation? I had learned this first creation that has passed away was related to the old covenant and to the old heaven and earth. At this time, I held to the resurrection as being IBD (individual body at death view). I have since come to understand the corporate body view of resurrection (first Adam, last Adam) and view these TWO bodies as being covenant related (two heaven and earths, two bodies, two Adams, two covenants, two kingdoms, two Jerusalems, two Israels, etc).
At first, I thought the NHNE (new heaven new earth) was a system that now governed the planet because of the parousia in 70 AD. And then, I thought the NHNE was a PLACE where those in Christ dwell. Although it probably could technically be considered a place, I prefer to say it as a covenantal existence. I came into this existence the moment I came into the new covenant. I was still in the same physical and political space, but now I was in the new covenant. I had become the new creation. This made me realize that those who believe the NHNE applies to all people are positing Universalism. To this day I believe that a wrong understanding of what the NHNE are contributes greatly to this view. Many non-Universal preterists believe in the NHNE as the governing system, but this eventually causes them some problems.
I suppose it may have been possible that the parousia event brings in this new creation (and it does), but does it bring it in for all mankind at that time? I thought is somehow did...hence my discussions with Noble on CARM that the parousia did not come at a person's individual death. I argued that the parousia came at salvation by entering into the new covenant. And then it occurred to me that the parousia in 70 AD did not bring this for all mankind, but just for his covenant people. I was looking at the parousia as an event and not as a covenant existence. It was the parousia COMING of 70 AD that was an event...
I also realized that the 70 AD judgment was a covenant judgment. The Roman Empire was not wiped out but the old covenant "things" were. That's when I realized that the flood could have been representative in covenant terms as well. And since 70 AD was confined locally to a covenant group, then the flood could be confined locally to one covenant group as well. YEC started to crumble away...
I was always having problems in whom to assign the old heaven and earth. Futurists have always associated Genesis 1 with the OHE (old heaven and earth) and Revelation with the NHNE. They believe in the destruction/refurbishment of a new universe. Preterists have since determined the NHNE to be covenant related but cannot accept the OHE as originating from Genesis 1. Preterists have moved the beginning to suit their end. This beginning occurs anywhere between Genesis 3 to Sinai depending on the individual preterist.
So, now that the NT combines the resurrection, and other redemptive contexts with the passing away of the OHE, the creation of the NHNE, the first Adam, the last Adam, and the references to a return to the Garden state (where the tree of life exists – Rev 2:7, 22:2, 22:14), I have found it difficult making all these things apply to strictly old covenant Israel as representative of the OHE. My book is based upon this older view.
I began to run across passages that had the phrase “from the foundation of the earth (or world)” and had trouble fitting them into a context of physical, material creation. It was the same for phrases of “in the beginning.” There are still things to be sorted out but it seems that covenant creation brings these aspects all together. I just don’t know what to do with THREE heavens and earths.
|
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 17, 2011 17:37:13 GMT -5
Just for clarity, would you list what those three H&Es are, please? Here is what I think you're saying they are, but I'm not sure:
1. Genesis creation
2. OC Israel
3. NC ________
Would the heavens be the "ruling order" of things and the earth be the people affected by that rule?
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 17, 2011 21:06:28 GMT -5
Just for clarity, would you list what those three H&Es are, please? Here is what I think you're saying they are, but I'm not sure: 1. Genesis creation (Yes) 2. OC Israel (yes, but not exactly Israel but related to a previous covenant)3. NC ________ (yes, the NHNE)Would the heavens be the "ruling order" of things and the earth be the people affected by that rule? Not according to my view. If the NHNE is the ruling order that implies a governing system over all of mankind. If all of mankind is within this NHNE then I believe that lends itself to Universalism. Allyn seems to believe this way except that he has a NHNE covenant of death where unbelievers go or end up. I am trying to gain a better perspective from where he is coming from. For me, the NHNE is equivalent to the new creation, which is opposite to the old creation. When a person enters the new covenant in Christ they become a new creation, or part of the new creation, I lean to becoming the new creation. And as a new creation they dwell in the new city. Those outside the city need to become new creations or become part of the new creation to gain entry. Hope that helps... |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 17, 2011 22:22:08 GMT -5
Just for clarity, would you list what those three H&Es are, please? Here is what I think you're saying they are, but I'm not sure: 1. Genesis creation (Yes) 2. OC Israel (yes, but not exactly Israel but related to a previous covenant)3. NC ________ (yes, the NHNE)Would the heavens be the "ruling order" of things and the earth be the people affected by that rule? Not according to my view. If the NHNE is the ruling order that implies a governing system over all of mankind. If all of mankind is within this NHNE then I believe that lends itself to Universalism. Allyn seems to believe this way except that he has a NHNE covenant of death where unbelievers go or end up. I am trying to gain a better perspective from where he is coming from. For me, the NHNE is equivalent to the new creation, which is opposite to the old creation. When a person enters the new covenant in Christ they become a new creation, or part of the new creation, I lean to becoming the new creation. And as a new creation they dwell in the new city. Those outside the city need to become new creations or become part of the new creation to gain entry. Hope that helps... I wasn't saying anything that included all of mankind, but only those in covenant. My comments were just me thinking out loud, anyway; there wasn't a whole lot of thought involved at the time. Your comment about becoming new creations has set me off in another direction. I might have to start a new thread.  |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 18, 2011 9:13:10 GMT -5
For me, the NHNE is equivalent to the new creation, which is opposite to the old creation. When a person enters the new covenant in Christ they become a new creation, or part of the new creation, I lean to becoming the new creation. And as a new creation they dwell in the new city. Those outside the city need to become new creations or become part of the new creation to gain entry. Hope that helps... So, are you saying that we (believers) ARE the NH/NE? I am just trying to understand and this is actually a conversation I am having with my pastor right now...so...if we are the NH/NE then we are in the NH/NE positionally and covenantally because we are IT? This is a mode/status vs. place? Thanks brother |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 18, 2011 13:31:32 GMT -5
Why does everything have to be so complicated? The new creation is through Christ. II Corinthians 5.17 states, "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." All things only become new in Christ. The old only passes away in Christ. The old heavens and earth, that is the physical creation has not ever passed away. This is true since the we still see the physical creation all around us. This is where you need to understand the two realms of existence. The new creation spoken of by Paul is spiritual, as we are not physically in Christ. The physical body does not merge with the physical body of Christ. Therefore, what are the old things that have passed away? It is not the "old" physical creation, but rather the old spiritual creation that passes away when one is in Christ.  |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 18, 2011 14:44:23 GMT -5
I am trying to get a grip on what may or may not be nuances or a deeper understanding..that is why i ask the questions i do. Not to complicate matters or to muddy the waters...it is just how I process things.
I have been under the assumption that the old heavens/old earth = old covenant and the new heavens/new earth = new covenant. I know I am in Christ. I know I am now living in the new covenant. Perhaps I have a much too simplified understanding since I dont see that I am the NH/NE ... but i am within the NH/NE...i dont know.
Which is why I asked Ted to explain more to me...I respect his thought process and studies tremendously.
|
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 18, 2011 17:03:05 GMT -5
So, are you saying that we (believers) ARE the NH/NE? I am just trying to understand and this is actually a conversation I am having with my pastor right now...so...if we are the NH/NE then we are in the NH/NE positionally and covenantally because we are IT? This is a mode/status vs. place? Thanks brother The whole idea of redemption was to bring us into fellowship (covenant) with God. To me, the whole idea of the NHNE is being in (new) covenant with God. Therefore, it is a covenantal existence only for believers... This is why those who believe the NHNE is an all-encompassing entity that comprises all of mankind leads to Universalism. There are many preterists who think along these lines but are not Universalists, but that is where that view leads, IMO. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 18, 2011 17:08:29 GMT -5
I am trying to get a grip on what may or may not be nuances or a deeper understanding..that is why i ask the questions i do. Not to complicate matters or to muddy the waters...it is just how I process things. I have been under the assumption that the old heavens/old earth = old covenant and the new heavens/new earth = new covenant. I know I am in Christ. I know I am now living in the new covenant. Perhaps I have a much too simplified understanding since I dont see that I am the NH/NE ... but i am within the NH/NE...i dont know. Which is why I asked Ted to explain more to me...I respect his thought process and studies tremendously. Wanda, Think of a marriage, the archetypal covenant. That covenant requires 3 things. A man. A woman. Vows. Remove one, and the covenant does not exist. The vows alone are not the covenant. The people alone are not the covenant. As I see it, the people plus their vows makes the covenant. It is this total covenant, people and vows, that is the H&E. You can't separate out the parts. Does that help? |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 18, 2011 17:25:31 GMT -5
I have been under the assumption that the old heavens/old earth = old covenant and the new heavens/new earth = new covenant. I know I am in Christ. I know I am now living in the new covenant. Perhaps I have a much too simplified understanding since I dont see that I am the NH/NE ... but i am within the NH/NE...i dont know. Which is why I asked Ted to explain more to me...I respect his thought process and studies tremendously. Understand that us being the new creation is my opinion. There are those who believe the church is the new creation. Both would be considered covenant existences, IMO. All of mankind does not dwell in the church, nor do they dwell in the NHNE because not all of mankind (few actually) are in covenant with God through Christ (as Didymus said). The idea that today's planetary system or governing rules (for a lack of a better phrase) is the NHNE is wrong. It is hard to think of a covenantal existence. But was it not the same way as the OHOE? Were all people involved in that existence too? One other thing might help is that both covenantal existences belong to physical people, just as the phrase "but first the natural then the spiritual" also applies to physical people. It does not mean "physical" versus "spiritual" (non-physical), as is often attempted... clear as mud? |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 18, 2011 20:48:50 GMT -5
I am trying to get a grip on what may or may not be nuances or a deeper understanding..that is why i ask the questions i do. Not to complicate matters or to muddy the waters...it is just how I process things. I have been under the assumption that the old heavens/old earth = old covenant and the new heavens/new earth = new covenant. I know I am in Christ. I know I am now living in the new covenant. Perhaps I have a much too simplified understanding since I dont see that I am the NH/NE ... but i am within the NH/NE...i dont know. Which is why I asked Ted to explain more to me...I respect his thought process and studies tremendously. Wanda, I wasn't addressing my comments to you. If I was I would done it like this post.  |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 18, 2011 20:51:06 GMT -5
I am trying to get a grip on what may or may not be nuances or a deeper understanding..that is why i ask the questions i do. Not to complicate matters or to muddy the waters...it is just how I process things. I have been under the assumption that the old heavens/old earth = old covenant and the new heavens/new earth = new covenant. I know I am in Christ. I know I am now living in the new covenant. Perhaps I have a much too simplified understanding since I dont see that I am the NH/NE ... but i am within the NH/NE...i dont know. Which is why I asked Ted to explain more to me...I respect his thought process and studies tremendously. Wanda, Think of a marriage, the archetypal covenant. That covenant requires 3 things. A man. A woman. Vows. Remove one, and the covenant does not exist. The vows alone are not the covenant. The people alone are not the covenant. As I see it, the people plus their vows makes the covenant. It is this total covenant, people and vows, that is the H&E. You can't separate out the parts. Does that help? Don't the vows have to include promises to be a covenant?  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 18, 2011 21:38:42 GMT -5
[ Wanda, Think of a marriage, the archetypal covenant. That covenant requires 3 things. A man. A woman. Vows. Remove one, and the covenant does not exist. The vows alone are not the covenant. The people alone are not the covenant. As I see it, the people plus their vows makes the covenant. It is this total covenant, people and vows, that is the H&E. You can't separate out the parts. Does that help? Jeff, What differences, if any, do you see between the NHNE and the NJ? I see the NJ as the church with the new creation and the new covenant in bond together. So, my NJ is your NHNE, but I would not say that my NHNE is your NJ... |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 18, 2011 21:45:02 GMT -5
What does New Jersey have to do with anything?  |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 18, 2011 22:02:53 GMT -5
What does New Jersey have to do with anything? New Jersey is the state that is just outside of the gates of the New Jerusalem. Everyone knows that. :-) |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 18, 2011 22:40:32 GMT -5
.. Think of a marriage, the archetypal covenant. That covenant requires 3 things. A man. A woman. Vows. Remove one, and the covenant does not exist. The vows alone are not the covenant. The people alone are not the covenant. As I see it, the people plus their vows makes the covenant. It is this total covenant, people and vows, that is the H&E. You can't separate out the parts. Does that help? That is similar to what I was trying to get across earlier when I wrote: "Would the heavens be the 'ruling order' of things and the earth be the people affected by that rule?" The heavens = "ruling order" = vows The earth = the people = the man and woman |
|
|
|
Post by Once4all on Jan 18, 2011 22:46:04 GMT -5
[ Wanda, Think of a marriage, the archetypal covenant. That covenant requires 3 things. A man. A woman. Vows. Remove one, and the covenant does not exist. The vows alone are not the covenant. The people alone are not the covenant. As I see it, the people plus their vows makes the covenant. It is this total covenant, people and vows, that is the H&E. You can't separate out the parts. Does that help? Jeff, What differences, if any, do you see between the NHNE and the NJ? I see the NJ as the church with the new creation and the new covenant in bond together. So, my NJ is your NHNE, but I would not say that my NHNE is your NJ... How did the old Jerusalem relate to the old H&E? Describing that relationship may help illuminate the relationship of the new H&E and NJ. |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 18, 2011 23:01:42 GMT -5
How did the old Jerusalem relate to the old H&E? Describing that relationship may help illuminate the relationship of the new H&E and NJ. I'll probably be using my new covenant bias to back track, but I'll give it a shot. The OJ (not orange juice, Tom) was the official place where the OC people "performed" their "duties" of law. To me, there had to be a people who followed the OC in order to perform those duties, if that makes any sense at all..I call those people the OHOE (old heaven old earth). So, in OC terms... OHOE (people) plus functions of OC (vow) = old Jerusalem city of God And in NC terms... NHNE (people) + new covenant of fulfilled law (vow) = new Jerusalem (city of God, church) Course, this could all be malarkey. Already it seems confusing...probably will change tomorrow... :-) |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 19, 2011 1:50:10 GMT -5
.. Think of a marriage, the archetypal covenant. That covenant requires 3 things. A man. A woman. Vows. Remove one, and the covenant does not exist. The vows alone are not the covenant. The people alone are not the covenant. As I see it, the people plus their vows makes the covenant. It is this total covenant, people and vows, that is the H&E. You can't separate out the parts. Does that help? That is similar to what I was trying to get across earlier when I wrote: "Would the heavens be the 'ruling order' of things and the earth be the people affected by that rule?" The heavens = "ruling order" = vows The earth = the people = the man and woman Bev, I've tried that. Sometimes it appears to work. Sometimes it doesn't. I eventually decided I was trying to hard to divide it and have let it rest. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 19, 2011 1:56:38 GMT -5
[ Wanda, Think of a marriage, the archetypal covenant. That covenant requires 3 things. A man. A woman. Vows. Remove one, and the covenant does not exist. The vows alone are not the covenant. The people alone are not the covenant. As I see it, the people plus their vows makes the covenant. It is this total covenant, people and vows, that is the H&E. You can't separate out the parts. Does that help? Jeff, What differences, if any, do you see between the NHNE and the NJ? I see the NJ as the church with the new creation and the new covenant in bond together. So, my NJ is your NHNE, but I would not say that my NHNE is your NJ... I believe they are all different names for the same entity. Except for New Jersey which was covenantally thrown into the Lake of Fire. |
|
|
|
Post by JLVaughn on Jan 19, 2011 1:58:37 GMT -5
Wanda, Think of a marriage, the archetypal covenant. That covenant requires 3 things. A man. A woman. Vows. Remove one, and the covenant does not exist. The vows alone are not the covenant. The people alone are not the covenant. As I see it, the people plus their vows makes the covenant. It is this total covenant, people and vows, that is the H&E. You can't separate out the parts. Does that help? Don't the vows have to include promises to be a covenant? Huh? What's the difference between a vow and a promise? |
|
|
|
Post by didymus on Jan 19, 2011 5:06:07 GMT -5
Don't the vows have to include promises to be a covenant? Huh? What's the difference between a vow and a promise? As I see it a vow is a binding promise. I can say, I promise this or I promise that. But a vow comes with consequences to bind you to the promise being made. In other words, you make a promise, and take a vow to keep those promises. And, in Biblical parlance, a vow could mean a prayer, hence a promise made to God through prayer. A vow is what we do when we enter a covenant. I guess what I am saying is that there is more to a vow than a promise, eventhough the words are very similar. |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 19, 2011 7:47:34 GMT -5
Wanda, Think of a marriage, the archetypal covenant. That covenant requires 3 things. A man. A woman. Vows. Remove one, and the covenant does not exist. The vows alone are not the covenant. The people alone are not the covenant. As I see it, the people plus their vows makes the covenant. It is this total covenant, people and vows, that is the H&E. You can't separate out the parts. Does that help? Yes Jeff that is what I understand at this point that the combination of all these makes up the H&E. It is interesting to me because I havent really thought about this too much yet and that is why I ask very basic stuff. So, let me lay out another silly question...if those "components" (I assume Christ, bride, covenant??) make up the NH/NE then what were the components of the OH/OE? God, israel, law? |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 19, 2011 7:59:47 GMT -5
Understand that us being the new creation is my opinion. There are those who believe the church is the new creation. Both would be considered covenant existences, IMO. All of mankind does not dwell in the church, nor do they dwell in the NHNE because not all of mankind (few actually) are in covenant with God through Christ (as Didymus said). The idea that today's planetary system or governing rules (for a lack of a better phrase) is the NHNE is wrong. It is hard to think of a covenantal existence. But was it not the same way as the OHOE? Were all people involved in that existence too? One other thing might help is that both covenantal existences belong to physical people, just as the phrase "but first the natural then the spiritual" also applies to physical people. It does not mean "physical" versus "spiritual" (non-physical), as is often attempted... clear as mud? Actually, this is very helpful. And I know that you are putting forth your opinion about this and I have to say it really intrigues me and it is incredibly timely to some discussions I have been having elsewhere. Let me see if I can break down where I understand and you can tweak where I dont: Understand that us being the new creation is my opinion. There are those who believe the church is the new creation. I believe we are THE new creation also. I also believe we are the church. What is the difference? I may be confusing two distinctly separate ideas... All of mankind does not dwell in the church, nor do they dwell in the NHNE because not all of mankind (few actually) are in covenant with God through Christ. I agree 100%. I know that there are some who are eternally alive and some who are not. I have never believed that all are saved or that all are in covenant with God. The idea that today's planetary system or governing rules (for a lack of a better phrase) is the NHNE is wrong. I don't believe that the NH/NE is a physical thing...of course I would have as a futurist expecting the planet to be no more but havent since embracing a spiritual invisible fulfillment of God's promises. No problem there! :-} But was it not the same way as the OHOE? Were all people involved in that existence too? One other thing might help is that both covenantal existences belong to physical people, just as the phrase "but first the natural then the spiritual" also applies to physical people. It does not mean "physical" versus "spiritual" (non-physical), as is often attempted... clear as mud? LOL - thanks for the continued discussion...it is very helpful to me to have people willing to put up with my questions and I appreciate it! |
|
|
|
Post by wandashort on Jan 19, 2011 8:02:14 GMT -5
Wanda, I wasn't addressing my comments to you. If I was I would done it like this post. No blood no foul Didy!! (that is what we say in hockey...lol)! |
|
|
|
Post by mellontes on Jan 19, 2011 9:51:31 GMT -5
Understand that us being the new creation is my opinion. There are those who believe the church is the new creation. I believe we are THE new creation also. I also believe we are the church. What is the difference? I may be confusing two distinctly separate ideas... This is the same question I asked Jeff because he believes the NHNE IS the church...and we agree, sort of. I guess I look at it as a bunch of indivdual NHNE running around all together comprising the church...which is continually expanding with all those individuals getting saved and becoming NHNE being added to the church. The kingdom continues to expand. And, like Allyn, I agree that it does not get filled up at some point in time. That would necessitate an end to infinity. It's not so easy to define the NJ and the NHNE in text, is it? |
|
