| Author | Message | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 99 Registered: 9-2006 |
Spokenfor: One word of clarification. When I use Last Will and Testament (plural) I am refering to the fact that down through history, messing with God's Will is not a wise thing to do. WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 490 Registered: 7-2000 |
Walk, once your real estate contract is fully executed, what happens to the contract? | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 381 Registered: 7-2005  |
WOW said quote{King David once said, "Oh how I love thy law." I know how he felt! I can say, "Oh how I love Oregon State Law." Without it, my covenant, my contract would be worthless. } If I'm understanding correctly, the law of God mentioned by David is not the Old Covenant, but something which guarantees the Old Covenant, as well as the New Covenant. Both covenants are regulated by this law. This makes me eager to hear the other answers. It seems that the Old Covenant, which is the Law (Decalogue and the rest of the commandments of Torah), is not the "law" which King David has in view. It seems that this law is another law found in Old Testament, which guarantees the Old Covenant. For me this is a mystery, what law different than the Old Covenant is the Law David loved. | ||
| Jackob Registered user Username: Jackob Post Number: 382 Registered: 7-2005 |
WOW said
If I'm understanding correctly, the law of God mentioned by David is not the Old Covenant, but something which guarantees the Old Covenant, as well as the New Covenant. Both covenants are regulated by this law. This makes me eager to hear the other answers. It seems that the Old Covenant, which is the Law (Decalogue and the rest of the commandments of Torah), is not the "law" which King David has in view. It seems that this law is another law found in Old Testament, which guarantees the Old Covenant. For me this is a mystery, what law different than the Old Covenant is the Law David loved. | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 100 Registered: 9-2006 |
Dear Lone, You asked: "... once your real estate contract is fully executed, what happens to the contract?" My Response: Once the deal is closed, the money is distributed, and the terms of the contract have been performed, I keep it on file for future reference. I do not discard it. Why? Because there are obligations and terms of the contract which continue after the closing of the deal. For example, let's say the Seller certified in the contract that he has no knowledge of hazardous waste being dumped on the propety. But 10 years down the road I find out that he had been paid to dispose of used engine oil and he had dumped thousands of gallons of oil down an old abandoned well on the property. What he said in the contract is still binding and I could sue him in court and the Laws of the State of Oregon would be on my side and against him. Normally the only thing that can end the validity and force of the contract is either a mutual agreement between the parties OR the death of the parties. But even then, the deceased person's estate or heirs might be liable. God bless, WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 491 Registered: 7-2000 |
Well, Walk, I asked my question as I wanted to see just how accurate your knowledge of the law was. There are some real problems with your understanding of the law---and I can show you both my law degree and my real estate brokers license. Once all of the terms and conditions of a contract are fulfilled, and title passes---the contract ends. It's done for, finished--kaput. If there is a situation where the seller dumped hazardous wastes, and didn't disclose that fact which was later discovered---the cause of action would not come from the contract. It would come as an action 'at tort', for fraud. The biggest difference in this understanding would be the remedies available. If the seller lies about dumping hazardous waste before the contract closes and title passes---then the contract can be rescinded, and your earnest money returned. Or, you could sue for specific performance and force the seller to clean up the mess. Then, you may also (depending on the state) have other remedies, both equitable and legal you can pursue. Once the contract is closed, you can't go back and rescind the contract. You can't get your earnest money back. You can't sue the seller for specific performance and force them to clean up the hazardous waste. All you can do is sue for monetary damages under a tort action. The point is that a contract DOES close, it does end, there is a point where it is no longer enforceable. Finally, as an aside, your last short paragraph is really wrong. Before all terms and conditions in a contract are satisfied, to change the terms of the contract requires the mutual agreement between the parties. If the seller were to die, then the sellers estate usually 'steps into the shoes' of the seller. The estate takes the place of the seller---but only until the contract ends with title passing to the new owner. Any legal action past this point would not be under the provisions of the contract. The reason I'm going into all of this is that you want to discuss wills and testaments. I need to know if you really know what you are talking about and it appears that you only have enough information to be dangerous. | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4924 Registered: 12-2003  |
Well, Walk, your last example illustrates why the new covenant is different from the oldóthe new does not involve any human promises. YupóIsrael was like the theoretical landowner that swore the property was clear of hazardous wastesóonly to be exposed later as having lied after deliberately corrupting the property. That very problem is why the old covenant isn't part of the new covenant put into effect after Jesus rose from the dead. Hebrews 7:12: For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law. Hebrews 8:6-7 But the ministry Jesus has received is as superior to theirs as the covenant of which he is mediator is superior to the old one, and it is founded on better promises. For if there had been nothing wrong with that first covenant, no place would have been sought for another. The new covenant is built entirely on God's promisesónot ours. Period. We don't promise or deliver anything in the new covenant. We receive Christ's righteousnessóand that is NOT the ability to keep the law by His power. His righteousness has absolutely nothing to do with the law. Romans 3:21, etc. Colleen | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 80 Registered: 9-2006 |
Lone Viking, I know enough about Bible Covenant to make me dangerous. Ha. But seems to me, as a gentile, we would never have been under the ìOld covenantî since we have been grafted in, unless of course you are a Jew. So, as gentiles we would have only one covenant to be concerned with. Which to me shows the futility of Adventism by the way, again, unless the Adventist happened to be a Jew, which most arenít. I was just wondering why gentiles are hassling over old Jewish covenants unless of course to help them understand the covenant mentioned in Jer 31:31. River. | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 492 Registered: 7-2000 |
The answer, River, is that some Christians are like WOW and can't understand that a covenant can end. Further, you can't just arbitrarily bring a third party into an existing contract. There has to be a change in the contract, or the contract has to end and a new one written to allow for the change. There is no mention, anywhere in the New Testament, of the non-Jewish believers being brought under the Old Covenant. The old covenant was enacted at Sinai between God and the Jews. There was no way to bring the Gentiles, as a body, into this covenant as they weren't parties to the agreement. A new covenant was needed to do this. This new covenant was agreed to by the Godhead, not man. The provisions of the New Covenant are not those of the previous covenant. Bill | ||
| Grace_alone Registered user Username: Grace_alone Post Number: 299 Registered: 6-2006  |
I'm glad you two brought that up. I asked the question on the other thread "When did the Gentiles receive the law?" (To which I should have clarified that as the Mosaic Law.) I can't find it anywhere. Furthermore, I'd really like to see the rest of Walk's answers to Ramone's questions. Bless his hear, Ramone has been so patient!  Leigh Anne | ||
| River Registered user Username: River Post Number: 81 Registered: 9-2006 |
Lone, thanks for that, I was just wondering, your answer is why I was never concerned with old covenants. course I love the old testament as well as the new and use it extensively. now back to my steak on the barby. I tell you the smell of that ribeye cooking is enough to make a grown man cry, sorry all you vegy-tarrians. | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 101 Registered: 9-2006 |
OH NO!!! I should have known we would have an attorney in the house. And Lone, what's worse is that YOU TRUMPED ME!!! (LOL) You are RIGHT, I am not an attorney. By the way, how about some free legal advice on my real estate deal. (grin) That reminds me of Tom at the mortgage company. We were talking the other day about fine print and attorneys. He said, "My nephew is an attorney and fine print is his specialty. He checks the fine print so closely I have to be very careful what I say when I send him a Christmas card." I roared! I accept that a contract can end. In fact, in an earlier post to "Spokenfor" I fully agreed with him that you cannot have two wills in force at the same time. Let me say it again, "THE OLD WILL & COVENANT CANNOT BE IN EFFECT WHEN A NEW WILL & COVENNAT IS IN PLACE." However, going back to my Real Estate Contract, just because a contract has been completed it would be very foolish to throw it out with the kitty litter the day after closing. I can see at least two important points here. 1. The document certainly has value if it turns out the Seller has lied. The contract records the nature of the lie, contains the notarized signature of the liar, and records the date of the lie. Thus ten years down the road, the contract still has value even though its value is not as a contract per se. 2. I think there is another important point here. - WHAT GIVES A CONTRACT ITS POWER? - In my case, it appears the only thing that kept the seller and his agent from accepting the other offer was fear of the LAW. Without the force of LAW, my contract would have been worthless. In fact, without the force of LAW backing up the contract, it would have been useless to even have a contract. What's the use of a contract if there is no LAW to enforce its terms? If there is no LAW to put fear into the seller's heart, then the contract only gives me utterly false hope and gives him ìperfect libertyî to do as he pleases. My point is this. A contract can have an end. But the LAW that makes contracts enforceable CONTINUES ON. Hopefully it lasts forever and woe betide the day it ends. If the law ends, then we go back to ìsurvival of the fittestî. Darwin would be so proud! God bless, WalkOnWater TenBLoÿ@hotmail.com | ||
| Colleentinker Registered user Username: Colleentinker Post Number: 4927 Registered: 12-2003 |
Walk, the LAW did not back up the contract. The law WAS the contract. Read Exodus 31:18, 34:28; Deut. 4:13, 9:9, 9:11 9:15. The tablets of stone are identified as the tablets of the covenant and as the words of the covenant, the Ten Commandments. No, your argument is circular and innacurate. The LAW you wish to make permanent was actually the old covenantóliterally the "words of the covenant"óand this covenant is the same one which Hebrews 8:7, 13; Galatians 4; 2 Corinthians 3, etc. identify as the inferior covenant which is disappearing and obsolete and must be thrown out. It was flawed, so a new covenant had to be givenóone which had no basis in the Sinai Law (see Romans 3:21). No, you can't make the law the eternal backdrop of the covenant. The Law WAS the covenant. God Himself is the eternal foundation of His covenants. Colleen | ||
| Loneviking Registered user Username: Loneviking Post Number: 493 Registered: 7-2000 |
WOW wrote: . The document certainly has value if it turns out the Seller has lied. The contract records the nature of the lie, contains the notarized signature of the liar, and records the date of the lie. Thus ten years down the road, the contract still has value even though its value is not as a contract per se. ______________________________________________ Agreed. And that is an analogy for the value today of the Old Covenant that came in at Sinai. WOW also wrote: . I think there is another important point here. - WHAT GIVES A CONTRACT ITS POWER? - In my case, it appears the only thing that kept the seller and his agent from accepting the other offer was fear of the LAW. Without the force of LAW, my contract would have been worthless. In fact, without the force of LAW backing up the contract, it would have been useless to even have a contract. What's the use of a contract if there is no LAW to enforce its terms? If there is no LAW to put fear into the seller's heart, then the contract only gives me utterly false hope and gives him ìperfect libertyî to do as he pleases. ____________________________________________ Ummm, no, not quite. Here is where the analogy of the covenants and law breaks down a bit. Did you know that there are two types of contracts that provide the contrast you talk about? The first is the traditional, law based contract. This contract is the common contract most are familiar with. There are terms and conditions to abide by, that are spelled in excruciatingly small sections of print. But, there are also 'good faith' contracts. These are more rare, but instead of relying on a 'letter' to determine what is to be done, 'good faith' is used. An example would be an 'output' contract. I come to you and say "I'll buy all of the widgets that you can produce for the next ten months---then you agree'. I'm relying, in good faith, that you actually will provide all of the widgets you make over the next ten months. In turn, the seller is relying that you will, in good faith, pay him with something that is valuable, usualy money. Good faith, and the need for what each has, drives this second contract. In a similar fashion, the Sinai Covenant is law/letter based. The New Covenant is 'good faith' based. Both have terms and conditions, but one is very specific in it's terms, the other is not. BTW, the 'fear' and 'enforcement' of the New Covenant is the reality that Christ now holds the keys to death and Hades. No man comes to the Father except through Him. Those who reject this are going to spend eternity in a very uncomfortable place. Bill | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 508 Registered: 10-2002  |
My goodness, Loneviking, that was a certainly enlightening look into the nature of contracts!!! Thank you for sharing! I think it has a great spiritual application, but I'll save that for later commentary. (But I ought to jot it down so I don't forget... it's well worth it!) Walk, Your reply to my comments made me think of the most common and best example of a "covenant" we have today -- marriage. The purpose of this covenant is interesting. Many people see it defined only by its boundaries, and how it can be broken. But for anyone terribly excited and in love with the soon-to-be-spouse, you know that's the last thing on one's mind! Rather, you enter the marriage covenant in order to grow *closer* to your spouse-to-be! It becomes a doorway through which you share greater intimacy. I'm sure you already agree with this & knew it already, so I'm not going to go into spiritual analogies or race ahead to how it applies or does not apply to the Old Covenant or New Covenant. I think the desire to jump into a more intense, passionate & wonderful love -- I think that desire is good enough to appreciate for the moment without distraction. Only one short application for now: God makes covenants with mankind for the same purpose -- He wants to grow closer to us, to become more intimate with us, to share with us more of His heart, His passion, and Him Himself. Pardon if I offend anyone, but let's put it this way: God has made the covenant so that He can "get naked" with us! Just as a newly-wed husband & wife can't wait to "know" each other in the most intimate way -- their whole spirits, souls & bodies -- in the same way God has covenanted Himself to us because He desires to be as close to us as possible, as open and vulnerable as possible, and even to become one with us (Christ & the Bride). As Paul basically said, it is beautiful beyond mystery! God is soooo wonderful! Anyhow, moving on... In this great Lord of ours & His enrapturing love, Ramone | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 509 Registered: 10-2002 |
Jackob -- you hit on something really profound, but it's also incredibly simple. Remind me later after the questions. | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 510 Registered: 10-2002 |
Colleen -- your point leads up to Question #2 very well... let's identify the "first will", the "first covenant". I'll wait for #2 from you, Walk, before I say anything. Blessings, Ramone | ||
| Walkonwater Registered user Username: Walkonwater Post Number: 102 Registered: 9-2006 |
By the way, I almost forgot. The reason I asked the question, "What is 2 + 2?" was to see if we can agree on ANYTHING. I was sad to see that the answer is apparently "NO". Perhaps people saw my question as being some hidden, sinister, Ellen White, Adventist plot. Walk | ||
| Agapetos Registered user Username: Agapetos Post Number: 511 Registered: 10-2002 |
(Walk -- the 2+2 thing would've been easier if you had just come out and said "Can we agree on anything?" ... Many of us have been in & out of extreme corners and are used to "Amazing Facts" style logic & roundabout evangelistic techniques, etc. Sorry if the lack of answer disappointed you, but we do appreciate straightforwardness, and are often maybe a bit too straightforward ourselves.) | ||
| Timmy Registered user Username: Timmy Post Number: 123 Registered: 8-2006  |
Walk said: "Perhaps you have not lived long enough to find out that "me, myself and I" are extremely untrustworthy. I have let myself down more than anyone else on earth. God has had to hit me over the head many times with a 2 by 4 to help me learn that lesson. But as I recognize my undependability, I am moved to depend on God more and more." I can relate and I do agree! Whole heartedly with no reservations or hidden agenda. I almost put this down earlier but it didn't seem relavent. But with the 2+2 issue, I think it is now. If everyone reiterates everything they agree with, this questioning process would never end. Wow, I know you will find this hard to believe, but the hardest thing I ever did was let go of my works, and depend entirely on God. I had to ask myself, "Is Jesus blood powerful enough to save me, or does he need my help?" It sounds silly, but that is the reality to a born-and-raised SDA. Anyway, sorry, back to the "first will" "first covenant" |
