Kurt said "Spiritual new H/E are not received by the righteous". "The wicked are in the new H/E, but are unsaved unless and until they enter the city." "They (the new H/E) are not the new Covenant. " WOW Kurt, this is not a Full Preterist view that I have heard before. Are you sure the New Jerusalem is different from the New Heavens and Earth? GK Beale does a good job of showing how they are the same otherwise, why is the focus on the NHE ONLY the city. The ONLY thing talked about in the NHE is the city. They are synonymous, and the FP claim that there is some MASSIVE difference is a huge weakness that many are not seeing. What is missed is the connection between the New Heavens and Earth, New Jerusalem, and New Covenant, all representing the exact same things as a symbol which are reflected by those in Christ. As does the present heavens and earth, present Jerusalem, and the old covenant as a symbol of those not in Christ. Again Kurt says the H/E are spiritual, and place the endings and beginnings in a historical timeline. How can something be spiritual yet be temporal or earthly at the same time? How can Simmons say that the New Heavens and Earth are not covenantal? Where is his magic ball to say what is and is not part of the covenant. Saying something is or is not covenental does not lead one from drawing Universalistic conclusions. It is 70ad that leads one to that conclusion. It is creating a temporal line, where old things pass or end, and new things begin. Should not this line be Christ. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; all things have become new." (2 Cor 5:17) "
Kurt Simmons On Heavens and Earth
First, it is not the natural H/E that passed away in AD 70. Second, the spiritual new H/E are not received by the righteous. I believe they are simply a symbol for the world under the reign of Christ in which the church reigns triumphant with him. The wicked are in the new H/E, but are unsaved unless and until they enter the city. They (the new H/E) are not the new Covenant.
If the New Heavens and Earth are the NT, then, yes, logically all men are partakers of grace for the simple fact that all men are under their unbrella. This is Max King's view and many FP's (myself at one time included) believe this. But I no longer see the New Heavens and Earth (or old heavens and earth of II Pet. 3:10ff) "covenantally". Hence, whatever objection there is to FP on this basis does not apply to me and others like me (who are many). We need to STOP interpreting the heavens and earth covenantally. Rev. 22:15 is very clear that the wicked are in the New heavens and earth. Hence, they CANNOT be the New Testament. It is the New Jerusalem that is the New Testament and covenantal habitation of the saints.
The new heavens and earth are merely a symbol for the post-parousia world under the victorious Christ in which the church riegns with Jesus and God is present with his people legally and covenantally (restored in relationship by Christ's blood) in the church.
