The Evils of Contraception

[Reformed2]

Our culture does not condemn masturbation. More often it celebrates it.

Sorry by culture though I'm referring to our evangelical subculture not the macro heathen culture.

 

[Vicomte13]

Surely this is not the first time Catholic doctrine has changed over the years.

You have no organized religion, just yourself. Have you changed your mind on nothing over the years, ever? Have you never admitted that your earlier understanding of something was incomplete, and changed your view?

Why, then, do you treat it as a scandal that Catholics have done the same thing you do?

Could you stand up to the standard you are applying to them.

Remember what Jesus said: You will be measured by the measure by which you measured.

You sure want to condemn Catholicism. Has Jasonism been perfectly correct and without sin or error since the beginning?

Remember - don't lie - that will get you damned to the lake of fire.

Jesus admonished us to be perfect, as our common Father in Heaven is perfect. It's a worthy goal. I obviously have not met that standard, yet anyway. I doubt I can. But I know I CAN be forgiven, if I forgive - a much easier bar to clear.

The Catholic Church has obviously been imperfect. We burnt a saint sent from God! We have been THAT HORRIBLY WRONG at times. We're human.

Have you been perfect in all things, in your beliefs, acts, deeds? No. So don't judge the imperfections of others too harshly, unless you would like God to do the same to you. Remember: Do unto others as you would have done unto you.

There are two ways to pass final judgment: (1) Be perfect (not following the Law of Moses - which never applied to you anyway, but following the Law of Jesus), or (2) Forgive everybody everything, as you want God to forgive you everything.

Standard (1) is possible - if you die before age 1, maybe 2, you lived a sinless life and died perfect.
For a 50 year old, no way. Jesus managed it. Perfection is too hard.

Standard (2) is what we're left with. It's achievable, and it makes everybody's life better. The Law of Moses prefigured it, with its debt forgiveness requirements. Jesus gave us the full implication of it.

It's just not that hard, really.

 

[Vicomte13]

The Bible is how we get our faith (Romans 10:17).

The Bible is how YOU get YOUR faith. Most Christians get theirs differently.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What I don't get is why even the rhythm method is then countenanced. Is it not an attempt to prevent impregnation? Is it ok because it is not a very reliable method? But intent has been held supremely important in this matter by the RCC. Is any human discretion allowable?

That is a great question. It would seem that ANY means of preventing conception while having sex should be wrong if contraception is wrong. But here's the difference. Sometimes a woman is ovulating yet most of the time she is not. Consequently only a few days a month a woman can become pregnant while most of the month she can't. If you decide not to have sex, normally that isn't considered a sin. If you have sex on one of those infertile days, that's not a sin either. So if you decide to have sex only on infertile days, no foul. If you can know which of those days are infertile days you can avoid pregnancy pretty successfully. And no sin. It's not really contraception. There is no thwarting of fertility as the woman is naturally not fertile in those times. There is an intent to not get pregnant, but there is no intent to violate, nor any actual violation of any particular sex act. The allowed discression is to not have sex when fertile, presuming a good reason for not getting pregnant.

Modern Natural Family Planning is far and away better than the old Rhythm Method. It's user success rate is on par with sterilization and the pill. There are even apps available for Android and iPhone!. Basically one determines a woman's basal temperature and/or evaluates the nature of cervical mucous to determine when ovulation happens. A calendar has little to do with it, although many women do have regular and predictable cycles.

I will say this: the pope's argument that separating conception from sex would lead to social degradation of human life and the family has proven most unfortunately prophetically true. Women as sex objects, men as ravenous beasts, abortion for any reason, and the dissolution of family bonds have been the ugly fruit of sexual licentiousness.

Seems almost prophetic.

But it bothers me to place this matter under the aegis of law. First of all, I don't think it's possible, for reasons I touched on above. But secondly, I don't think it's proper. I have a firm belief that the letter kills, while the spirit gives life.

There is little law involved. The one thing that is totally counter-cultural is that each and every act of sex should be engaged in without violating any of the purposes of sex and marriage. There is moral law about not raping, about not having sex with others than your spouse, about permanence in marriage, a bunch of things. This is that we should not violate our potency or fertility. Sometimes a little bit of law protects us and leads us to encounter life.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Sorry by culture though I'm referring to our evangelical subculture not the macro heathen culture.

I'm not in the evangelical subculture, so I can't speak at all to that. Can't say if it's good or bad, consistent or not, able to endure or not. As to the 'macro heathen culture', it's a steamroller.

 

[chevyontheriver]

Bigotry is hating somebody over a matter of difference of opinion.
First, I do not hate you or Catholics.

Sure. I'm figuring out the ignore settings right now.

edit: success

 

[Bible Highlighter]

We were NEVER under the Old Convenant at ANY MOMENT in human history, unless we happen to be Jews.

But Gentiles could be converted to Judaism back in the Old Covenant. In fact, the Jews were supposed to be a light unto the world back in the Old Testament times, but they failed in that mission. Jesus was the Jew who was successful on their behalf in accomplishing this mission for them instead.

I'm not, so I was not freed from the Law by Jesus. I was never under the law in the first place. The only people who ever were were the Hebrews in Israel. Nobody else. I am not under the Ten Commandments, for example. Those were for the Hebrews.

So you are not under the command to not murder?
I believe 9 out of the 10 commands (Sabbath excluded) are moral laws that are eternal.
God has eternal moral laws that existed even before the written law (that exist even for us today) under the New Covenant.
But technically there are 613 laws under the Old Covenant. Yes, as a whole, the Covenant is no more, but there are laws that still remain true, prophecies that still remain unfulfilled, and truths within it's stories that still apply to the believer today. For the Scriptures say that the Law is lawful if one uses it lawfully.
Granted, the law has changed (Hebrews 7:12). So we are not lawless. Neither do we minimize the law by saying that we can break God's laws on occasion with the thinking we are saved, either (Unlike the majority of Eternal Security Proponents say today).

The whole world is under the Law of God, revealed by Jesus - so call it the Law of Jesus. That we are under. There is some overlap.

I agree. But I also agree there are Eternal Moral Laws that existed even before the written law. For example: It was always wrong to murder (like with Cain). It was always wrong to sleep with one's parents like with Ham taking advantage of Noah's wife, and Lot's two daughters seducing their own father.

Jesus is much harsher on sexual sin of any sort: lust in the mind = adultery, and sexual immorality + second death in the lake of fire at final judgment, unless forgiven.

Yes, I agree 100%. Matthew 5:28-30 is one my most highly used passages against Eternal Security proponents.

So does a lie.

Yes. All liars will have their part in the Lake of Fire according to Revelation 21:8.

So does cowardice.

Yes. In the Parable of the Sower, the seed who was offended in being persecuted was the seed that did not grow because it was sown amongst the rocks.

Fortunately, he revealed how to be forgiven everything: forgive men everything you have against them.

Yes, God can forgive us. But we also have to strive to live holy. Grace is not a license to sin (as I am sure you would probably agree).

Do that, and God forgives you everything. Jesus said so. He didn't give ANOTHER way either. So if you won't forgive, you're going to fail final judgment and be thrown into the Lake of Fire.

Yes, I am in complete agreement with Matthew 6:14-15.
We have to forgive if we desire to be forgiven.

What is forgiveness? Completely letting go of the retribution due, and letting your fellow man off the hook. What you want from God, you must do for others. Do unto others what you want God to do unto you. You want him to forgive it all, so you do the same thing.

There is no such thing as... "What I want from God." It is about what God requires of me (According to His Word). For we know that He hears our requests whenever we ask anything according to HIS will. Do unto others as you want done unto yourself is in regards to loving your neighbor as yourself. If you desire others to be good, do that which is good towards them (even if there is no change in them in this life). We work out of our love for God and what He has done for us. We walk by faith for a reward we cannot see now.

That's all that you need to know.

No. There are tons of other commands in the New Testament for our benefit as believers.

Arguing about the sinfulness of masturbation, or fornication, or lying, is arguing about angels dancing on the head of a pin. It's all deadly sin, and if unforgiven, it dooms you to the lake of fire at final judgment. But there's an easy way out - so focus on the easy way out, which is forgiving tresspasses just as you want to be forgiven by God. And that's it - you're forgiven.

There's nothing to fight about.

The reason why I argue against these sins is because there are people out there who do not think they are sins that can cause them any kind of dire after life consequences. So yes. There is something to fight for. It's called loving others because you care for their souls enough to warn them.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Sure. I'm figuring out the ignore settings right now.

edit: success

May God bless you;
And may His love shine upon you greatly.

 

[GingerBeer]

There wasn't much in the way of artificial contraception during the age in which the Bible was written and canonized. New technology gives rise to new questions and challenges. You won't find quotes denouncing stem cell research, or space travel in rocket ships in the Bible, of course, because they weren't of that world that produced the Scripture.

You are right about rocket ships and the specifics of stem cell research but you're not right about contraception in the first century and earlier. There were physical methods and chemical methods though by modern standards they were unsophisticated.

Birth control and abortion are well documented in Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. (See History of abortion.) The Ebers Papyrus from 1550 BCE and the Kahun Papyrus from 1850 BCE have within them some of the earliest documented descriptions of birth control, the use of honey, acacia leaves and lint to be placed in the vagina to block sperm. Another early document explicitly referring to birth control methods is the Kahun Gynecological Papyrus from about 1850 BCE. It describes various contraceptive pessaries, including acacia gum, which recent research has confirmed to have spermatocidal qualities and is still used in contraceptive jellies. Other birth control methods mentioned in the papyrus include the application of gummy substances to cover the "mouth of the womb" (i.e. the cervix), a mixture of honey and sodium carbonate applied to the inside of the vagina, and a pessary made from crocodile dung. Lactation (breast-feeding) of up to three years was also used for birth control purposes in ancient Egypt. (wikipedia)​

 

[Vicomte13]

That war has already been won brother; Jesus will crush Satan when He returns.

Yes, the ultimate outcome is assured: God wins. But remember that part of that outcome is that on earth, men lose. We lose the fight here, Satan wins. THEN Jesus returns and set it aright. We are fighting the long defeat - individually in the flesh, with certain death ahead - and collectively as a planet - revelation portrays the conquest of humanity by evil, and the end of the world itself being the return of Christ and the hosts of angels.

So it's not going to a fun ride for the world.

Though we know that in the end we lose, individually and collectively (it is only AFTER the end that our defeat by death is reversed), we still have to fight death and evil anyway, and when we do, we are not left wholly bereft of temporary victories that give us a foretaste of what comes at the very end, when all is lost and then reversed by God's return.

 

[chevyontheriver]

You are right about rocket ships and the specifics of stem cell research but you're not right about contraception in the first century and earlier. There were physical methods and chemical methods though by modern standards they were unsophisticated.

Birth control and abortion are well documented in Mesopotamia and Ancient Egypt. (See History of abortion.) The Ebers Papyrus from 1550 BCE and the Kahun Papyrus from 1850 BCE have within them some of the earliest documented descriptions of birth control, the use of honey, acacia leaves and lint to be placed in the vagina to block sperm. Another early document explicitly referring to birth control methods is the Kahun Gynecological Papyrus from about 1850 BCE. It describes various contraceptive pessaries, including acacia gum, which recent research has confirmed to have spermatocidal qualities and is still used in contraceptive jellies. Other birth control methods mentioned in the papyrus include the application of gummy substances to cover the "mouth of the womb" (i.e. the cervix), a mixture of honey and sodium carbonate applied to the inside of the vagina, and a pessary made from crocodile dung. Lactation (breast-feeding) of up to three years was also used for birth control purposes in ancient Egypt. (wikipedia)​

The crocodile dung one has long been a favorite of mine. Not sure how it would work except by maybe causing a raging infection followed by sterility.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

To the first part, fully agree. Christ was without sin and had no evil in Him.

To the second, I believe your theology is off on the interpretation. Why would Jesus call it adultery and not the more broad term fornication? He's referring to married people. You can't touch and think about a married woman. And if you are married, you can't touch and think about anyone other than your wife. Why the term adultery?

Then it is fornciation of the heart. Paul says you are to have your own wife so as to avoid fornication (1 Corinthians 7:2). Fornication is sex outside of marriage. If you can commit adultery in your heart (in being married by looking at women), you can also commit fornication in your heart by looking at women sexually). For it is a sin to have sex outside of marriage. To commit this act with your mind is the same as the act. That is what Jesus is saying in Matthew 5:28-30. He is saying that the mental act of doing the sin is the same as doing the physical act. We see a similar thing in 1 John 3:15. John says if you hate your brother you are like a murderer and no murderer has eternal life abiding in him. So hate is like murder (even though they are two different sins, they are related). Hate is the mind sin of the physical act of murder. Just as looking at women lustfully when you are married is the physical act of adultery and just as lusting after women in not being married is the same as sleeping with them before you are married (Which is fornication).

 

[Vicomte13]

So you are not under the command to not murder?
I believe 9 out of the 10 commands (Sabbath excluded) are moral laws that are eternal.

It's nice that you believe that, but you have no basis to believe that the Ten Commandments were given as law for you. God tells us all at the beginning of the Law of Moses EXACTLY who the law is for, and to whom it applies, and he keeps repeating it throughout: for the Hebrews in the desert, heading into Canaan.

A covenant is a contract. A contract has parties, and states who they are. They were YHWH and the Hebrews. The Gentiles are not part of it, and were not made part of it.

Jesus came and gave rules that are similar to what YHWH put in the Covenant with the Hebrews. But the details of many of those things differ. Jesus revealed a great deal that was new and never part of the Hebrew covenant.

Most importantly, the Jews were never, ever, at any time, promised eternal life, life after death, anything like that, for obeying the Mosaic Law. The promise is explicit in the law: a farm in Israel, for good behavior.

We Gentiles were never promised a farm in Israel under the law.
We certainly are not promised eternal life with God for following it.

The Hebrew Covenant is useful for us because it tells us about how God thinks, and because it shows God's faithfulness: he keeps his contracts.

Jesus made his own contract with us, and it does not incorporate the old one into it. Jesus gave us all of the law we need to follow.

In short, no, the Ten Commandments are not law for anybody, and if you follow them you don't get eternal life.

You have to follow the Law of Jesus, his list of deadly sins is different, and he gives a different method for being forgiven them.

It isn't that we Gentiles were released from the Hebrew convenant by Jesus - we were never under it in the first place.

The Sabbath, for example, was never for us. In fact, were it to be followed by Gentiles outside of Israel, in many places it could only be followed by ignoring the law that God give to mankind at creation. We cannot "fill the land" if we keep the Sabbath - the great mass of the world far above and below the Arctic and Antarctic Circles cannot be inhabited by Sabbath keeping people. It is impossible.

Fortunately, it was not an issue. My ancestors were not sinning by breaking the Sabbath. They were never under it in the first place. Jesus didn't bring them under it.

There is Law in the Old Testament that does apply to us all. The law given through the time of Noah applies to everybody. After that, the laws and rules given to Abraham and to the Hebrews show you how God thinks, but we are not part of those covenants.

 

[Vicomte13]

But technically there are 613 laws under the Old Covenant.

The Jews say that. By my count there are actually 87.

 

[Vicomte13]

So we are not lawless. Neither do we minimize the law by saying that we can break God's laws on occasion with the thinking we are saved,

We can't. But the laws we have to follow are the laws of Jesus.

We never were under the Laws of Moses, and we're still not. That covenant never applied to us, and Jesus did not make it apply to us. That contract was made between YHWH and the Hebrews at Sinai and their lineal heirs. It promised a farm in Israel.

The New Covenant is between Jesus and individuals - whoever will follow him - and IT (and it ALONE) promises eternal life. The Mosaic covenant never mentioned life after death at all - it only promised Hebrews a piece of land, a farm in Israel.

Jesus' New Covenant comes with the Law of Jesus. We ARE bound to that, all of it.
The Ten Commandments are part of the Law of Moses. There are laws in the Law of Jesus that somewhat parallel the Ten Commandments. There are also additional laws in the Law of Jesus, and great additional swathes of law.

When the Apostles are talking about whether people are under "The Law" or not, they are talking to their fellow Jews. THEY were under the Law, of Moses. THEY had to work out what the New Covenant meant in light of the old.

The Apostles were not talking to us Gentiles at all. They do that at the Council of Jerusalem, and even they agreed that we're not under the Jewish law at all. They got it.

WE only have ONE Covenant with God, through Jesus - the New Covenant. THAT is for us. The Mosaic Covenant does not apply at all to us, and never did.

 

[Vicomte13]

There is no such thing as... "What I want from God."

Of course there is. It's the whole purpose for following Jesus at all. If there were no reward, nothing but death in the end, and no guarantee of anything good here either, then why bother?

 

[Vicomte13]

The reason why I argue against these sins is because there are people out there who do not think they are sins that can cause them any kind of dire after life consequences. So yes. There is something to fight for. It's called loving others because you care for their souls enough to warn them.

Fair enough. I agree with that.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

It's nice that you believe that, but you have no basis to believe that the Ten Commandments were given as law for you.

Paul says,
8 "Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.
9 For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
10 Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law."
(Romans 13:8-10).

"But we know that the law is good, if a man use it lawfully." (1 Timothy 1:8).

3 "For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:3-4).

What is the righteousness of the law being fulfilled in us? It is loving our neighbor and thererby fulfilling the moral law of the Old Covenant.

Actually, they are eternal moral laws.

Cain murdered Abel and God considered it a sin.
Also, the world was destroyed for it's wickedness. How could God destroy the world for wickedness if there was no laws of God yet?

Joseph said to Potiphar's wife that he would have sinned against God if he were to sleep with her (Genesis 39:9). This was before there was any written law telling anyone that this was forbidden.

God tells us all at the beginning of the Law of Moses EXACTLY who the law is for, and to whom it applies, and he keeps repeating it throughout: for the Hebrews in the desert, heading into Canaan. A covenant is a contract. A contract has parties, and states who they are. They were YHWH and the Hebrews. The Gentiles are not part of it, and were not made part of it.

Ruth and Rahab were Gentiles and became Jews. So the Law would then apply to them.

God said to Israel,

"And he said, It is a light thing that thou shouldest be my servant to raise up the tribes of Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel: I will also give thee for a light to the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth." (Isaiah 49:6 cf. Acts of the Apostles 13:47).

God preached to the city of Nineveh and they repented. Nothing is said if they joined the Jewish nation or not. They were pagan enemies of the Jews and yet they cried out to God and forsaked their evil ways; When God had seen they forsaked their sinful ways, or wickedness, God had then turned away from destroying them (See Jonah 3:6-10). What wickedness or sin could they possibly be violating if there were no laws for the Gentiles at that time?

Jesus came and gave rules that are similar to what YHWH put in the Covenant with the Hebrews. But the details of many of those things differ. Jesus revealed a great deal that was new and never part of the Hebrew covenant.

No. The command to not murder, not to steal, not to covet, not to sleep with one's parents, etc. applied to Adam and Eve's sons, and descendants. The command to not lie also a command under the New Covenant. Sure, there are no punishments to breaking God's eternal moral laws like in the Old Covenant, but the actual moral laws themselves remain unchanged unless of course you can tell me how murder was different under the Old Covenant vs. the New Covenant, etc.

Most importantly, the Jews were never, ever, at any time, promised eternal life, life after death, anything like that, for obeying the Mosaic Law.

The Jews (Pharisees) at that time thought they had eternal life through the Scriptures.

For Jesus said,
"Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me." (John 5:39).

Salvation was the same in the Old as it is in the New (But it was under a different Covenant with some of the Laws being different): Salvation was always in Jesus:
The Israelites drank of the Rock of Christ just as true believers under the New Covenant today do (See 1 Corinthians 10:1-4).

For there is salvation in no under name under heaven whereby men can be saved (Acts of the Apostles 4:12).

The promise is explicit in the law: a farm in Israel, for good behavior.

I am not denying there are differences in the Law between the two covenants.

We Gentiles were never promised a farm in Israel under the law.

This would apply to anyone who became a Jew. A Gentiles could become a Jew and this Law would then apply to them. It was God's intention and plan for the Jews to evangelize the Gentiles. But seeing they disobeyed God's plan, the Lord Himself did this through Jesus Christ.

The Hebrew Covenant is useful for us because it tells us about how God thinks, and because it shows God's faithfulness: he keeps his contracts.

Is it possible that you may be distancing yourself from God's eternal moral laws because it clearly describes the condemnation of idolatry? In Exodus 20: We are told that idolatry is making a graven image of anything in heaven above or on earth below and then bowing down to it. That's it! There is no other reason. It does not matter what you are thinking. God says don't make the statues and then God says don't bow down to them. What you got floating around in your noggin is not what is important to God here. He said don't do those two things.

Jesus made his own contract with us, and it does not incorporate the old one into it. Jesus gave us all of the law we need to follow.

Yes, and Jesus said to the rich young ruler,

"....if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments."​

The rich young ruler replied,

"Which?"​

Jesus said,

"Thou shalt do no murder, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Honour thy father and thy mother: and, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."​

(Matthew 19:17-19).

Sounds a lot like the moral laws in Exodus 20.

The condemnation of Bestiality is mentioned in Leviticus 18:23, but we do not see a condemnation of this in the New Testament. Clearly this law still applies under the New Testament (even if we do not see it in the New Testament or the New Covenant). Why? Because it is an eternal moral law of God. This was always wrong (even before it was written down).

In short, no, the Ten Commandments are not law for anybody, and if you follow them you don't get eternal life.

I never said that we are to follow the Ten Commandments and we get eternal life.
I said salvation is in Justification (God's grace through faith in Jesus Christ, and believing in His death and resurrection, and repentance towards Him) and in Sanctification (Living holy according to the commands primarily in the New Covenant; Important Note: Sanctification is allowing Christ to do the good work through your life).

You have to follow the Law of Jesus, his list of deadly sins is different, and he gives a different method for being forgiven them.

Repentance is always the same. David cried out to God and was forgiven. The Ninevites cried out to God and forsaked their evil ways and judgment or wrath was averted. But yes, I am acutely aware of the differences of the laws between the Old and the New. They are not the same Covenants. But that does not mean certain things have remained the same like salvation in Jesus, justification by faith, good fruit as a part of one's faith, and the obedience to God's eternal moral laws.

It isn't that we Gentiles were released from the Hebrew convenant by Jesus - we were never under it in the first place.

Again, the Jews were supposed to recruit the Gentiles into becoming Jews or as part of one nation under God.

The Sabbath, for example, was never for us.

Yes, I am aware of that fact. But if a Gentile back in the day were to become a Jew, he would then have to keep this law. That's the point.

Jesus says salvation is of the Jews.
Technically, the Old Covenant did not end until Christ's death.
So yes. Eternal Life was spoken of under the Old Covenant by Christ Himself.

In fact, were it to be followed by Gentiles outside of Israel, in many places it could only be followed by ignoring the law that God give to mankind at creation. We cannot "fill the land" if we keep the Sabbath - the great mass of the world far above and below the Arctic and Antarctic Circles cannot be inhabited by Sabbath keeping people. It is impossible.

The Sabbath is to be kept from that person's time zone of when the sun goes down (Friday) until the sun goes down the next day (Saturday). Jesus said there are 12 hours in a day. But we know that the day of the hours is not always 12 hours exactly. According to the Jews, they recorded time into twelves segments of time that would make up the time of daylight. Meaning, the minutes in an hour would flutuate based on the amount of daylight they had. So there was no 60 minutes like we Gentiles have.

Fortunately, it was not an issue. My ancestors were not sinning by breaking the Sabbath. They were never under it in the first place. Jesus didn't bring them under it.

Yes, they were not breaking the Sabbath (unless they joined the Jews), they were breaking God's eternal moral laws. For why destroy the world with a global flood if they are not breaking God's laws? Remember, the Scriptures say that the flood was an example to all who would live ungodly thereafter (See 2 Peter 2:5-6). This would include the people of today!

There is Law in the Old Testament that does apply to us all. The law given through the time of Noah applies to everybody.

This law not only existed during Noah's time, but it existed during the time of Adam and Eve's first children, too. This would be God's eternal moral laws.

After that, the laws and rules given to Abraham

Galatians 3:29 says,
"And if ye be Christ's, then are ye Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise."

...and to the Hebrews show you how God thinks, but we are not part of those covenants.

"That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:4).

The righteous aspect or part of the Old Law that we fulfill is by loving our neighbor (cf. Romans 13:8-10).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Of course there is. It's the whole purpose for following Jesus at all. If there were no reward, nothing but death in the end, and no guarantee of anything good here either, then why bother?

I know there will be rewards, but seeing Jesus face to face is the greatest reward or treasure that anyone could ever have. Especially when He will say, "Well done good and faithful and servant, enter thou into the joy of thy Lord." That's all the reward I need, but I know that the Lord wants to give me more than that, so I will not argue with Him over it. Especially when I know that He is a rewarder to those who seek Him. For God is good. All the time.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

We can't. But the laws we have to follow are the laws of Jesus.

You will get no argument from me that we are to primarily look to the laws of Jesus to obey God and we are not to primarily look to the laws of Moses to obey God. I believe we primarily follow the commands in the New Covenant. The Old Covenant is no longer in effect. So any law that does not appear to line up, should not be obeyed. Again, discernment needs to be used here, because as I mentioned before, just because the New Testament does not mention the condemnation of bestiality does not mean it is a command that is abrogated today. This is why I believe that God has Eternal Moral Laws. We can see that even from the very beginning there are certain moral laws that God always condemned.

We never were under the Laws of Moses, and we're still not. That covenant never applied to us, and Jesus did not make it apply to us. That contract was made between YHWH and the Hebrews at Sinai and their lineal heirs. It promised a farm in Israel.

I am not denying that God made laws for the nation of Israel. But these laws were intended for the Gentiles to eventually obey because it was God's plan in the OT for the Israelites to evangelize the Gentiles. If the Gentiles joined the Jews in becoming a Jew, THEN they would have to keep Jewish laws. The moral law was what existed for the Gentiles (before the time of when the Jews were supposed to evangelize them). We can see that they could even be saved like with the city of Nineveh.

The New Covenant is between Jesus and individuals - whoever will follow him - and IT (and it ALONE) promises eternal life. The Mosaic covenant never mentioned life after death at all - it only promised Hebrews a piece of land, a farm in Israel.

And the coming physical Messiah who was to be their salvation.
Although, faithful OT saints did abide in Christ.
For he that has the Son has life and he that does not have the Son does not have life (1 John 5:12). But you need not worry. I do not believe in following any of the ceremonial laws or judicial laws under the Old Covenant (For I believe the following commands are abrogated: The Saturday Sabbath, the dietary laws, the laws on sacrifices, circumcision, etc.). I believe these things have been done away with. I believe these were the ordinances that were against us that Christ nailed to the cross. Only God's eternal moral laws remained the same. They existed before the written law and they exist even now.

Jesus' New Covenant comes with the Law of Jesus. We ARE bound to that, all of it.
The Ten Commandments are part of the Law of Moses. There are laws in the Law of Jesus that somewhat parallel the Ten Commandments. There are also additional laws in the Law of Jesus, and great additional swathes of law.

Yes, I am aware of that there are over 1,000 plus command in the New Testament that are unique and different from the Old Covenant. We do not try to obey both Covenants. But there are eternal moral laws that have never changed.

When the Apostles are talking about whether people are under "The Law" or not, they are talking to their fellow Jews. THEY were under the Law, of Moses. THEY had to work out what the New Covenant meant in light of the old.

Yes, I agree that when Paul says we are not under the Law, he was talking about the whole of the Law of Moses. However, Paul also says that we fulfill the righteousness of the Law (Romans 8:4). Paul says we fulfill the Law by loving our neighbor in Romans 13:8-10. So Paul was talking from two different perspectives in relation to the Old Law. Paul at times points out the good aspect of the Law that we still use (Which would be God's eternal moral laws) and then Paul talks in a broad sense of how we are not under the Old Covenant written Law given to Moses.

The Apostles were not talking to us Gentiles at all. They do that at the Council of Jerusalem, and even they agreed that we're not under the Jewish law at all. They got it.

I understand that the Apostles cleared up the confusion of not being circumcised according to the Law at the Jerusalem Council. But yet, they also said: "...abstain from meats offered to idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornication." These are all things that existed in the Law. Granted, they were not under the Law as a whole now. But the point is that God has laws that have been carried over from one Covenant to the other.

WE only have ONE Covenant with God, through Jesus - the New Covenant. THAT is for us. The Mosaic Covenant does not apply at all to us, and never did.

I never said the Mosaic Covenant applies to us. I believe we are under one Covenant only and that is the New Covenant, too. That does not mean that God's eternal moral laws have not existed before the written law, and it does not mean that they do not exist now (within the New Covenant). God has eternal moral laws. Yes, there are temporary moral laws. But there are also eternal ones that God gave to us.