Why Do Jehovah's Witnesses Reject Blood Transfusions?

[Ferris Bueller]

Abstaining from idols and fornication is something taught throughout the the scriptures and now you're trying to say it's ok if we don't abstain from idols or fornication it's ok because God has changed.

No, that's not the argument. You're not listening.
You don't have to agree with the argument, but you do have to understand it correctly.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

People such as that will excuse themselves for not being obedient to the scriptures by saying grace excuses them.

As a believer in God, do you still have to sacrifice an animal for your sins? No, because grace has excused you from having to do that (the requirement for sacrifice for sin has already been graciously fulfilled for you). Grace didn't make it so you can sin by not offering an animal for your sin. Grace made it so that you don't have to, because the necessity for sacrifice for sin has already been done for you, one time for all time. And so it is for other lawful requirements. In the case of blood, grace opened up the way for you to have the life blood of the sacrifice applied to you, not poured out uselessly on the ground.

This knowledge is why we do not feel compelled to abstain from eating the blood of an animal. We understand what abstention from blood was all about. You don't have to agree with that. But you do have to understand our argument and represent it correctly. Just as we have given you the courtesy of properly understanding yours.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

the abstaining of blood goes way back further with the Jews. It had nothing to do with idols.

Yes, but if you eat the meat of a strangled animal, or commit fornication, or eat food sacrificed to an idol, or eat blood, in a pagan ritual sacrifice, that is the blood they did not want the gentiles to eat. Grace opened up the way to have the life blood of the Sacrifice applied to the believer, but it did not make it so you can cause division, and cause someone—Jews particularly—to stumble by eating food sacrificed to idols. A common practice of the day.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

For you to say that the only relation about abstaining from blood is idols shows you really don't know about what the scriptures say about blood.

I know that the scriptures say this about blood:

"53So Jesus said to them, “Truly, truly, I tell you, unless you eat the flesh and drink the blood of the Son of Man, you have no life in you. 54Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. 55For My flesh is real food, and My blood is real drink.56Whoever eats My flesh and drinks My blood remains in Me, and I in him. 57Just as the living Father sent Me and I live because of the Father, so also the one who feeds on Me will live because of Me." John 6:53-57
​

So we see that not eating the blood was to lead us to the truth that it is only through the grace of Christ's Sacrifice that the life blood of the sacrifice goes into the worshiper. The command to abstain from blood leads us to this truth. That's what abstention from blood was all about. It's an example of how the law leads us to Christ (Galatians 3:24). It had nothing to do with there being something wrong in and of itself about eating blood.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

...for you to be teaching that the only reason why God taught his servants to not have anything to do with idols is because the gentiles ate blood shows again that you don't truly understand the scriptures.

If I was making that argument you'd be right. But I am making no such argument.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

...you still abstain from blood which is a law that goes all the way back to Noah and it had nothing to do with idols when this law was given to Noah.

Just because the command to not eat blood did not have anything to do with idols when God gave that command does not automatically mean it has nothing to do with idols in Acts 15. The issue in Acts 15:29 is not that blood is forbidden in this New Covenant (Christ's life blood must be in us in order to have eternal life). The issue is about eating blood that was sacrificed in a pagan ritual. The association with idol worship is what is forbidden, not the eating of blood. You don't have to agree with that. What you have to do is understand the argument correctly.

 

[robert derrick]

That is not what a private interpretation is.

Peter, writing under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit forbids any private interpretation. People exercising liberty in areas where there is room is simply living according to how their conscience acts towards god. It is not reinterpreting Scripture which is what a private interpretation is.

We must exercise care when using biblical terms.

I do. And we disagree on the Scripture. Read it how you want and believe what you want, and I will do the same.

I like my reading and understanding much better. It makes much more sense to me, and I practise it all the time.

 

[robert derrick]

Well people privately interpret Scripture all the time. And they are all wrong! Private interpretation translated means ones own personal opinion. We are forbidden to add our opinion to Scripture. the Bible makes a clear distinction between ones personal opinion and ones liberty to do or not do.

We are forbidden to add our opinion to Scripture.

So we agree

We can have all the personal opinions and interpretations and applications of Scripture all we want in our own lives.

We just don't preach them as Scripture, unless there is plain Scripture to prove it as such.

Well people privately interpret Scripture all the time. And they are all wrong!

So, we don't agree.

Example: I believe the first resurrection is at the end of the last great tribulation on earth, right at the time of the Lord's return into the air.

Others don't agree, and we all give our reasons from prophecy of Scripture. I am entitled to hold my opinion of it, and so are they, and we can go back and forth on it ad nauseam.

I just wouldn't teach and preach it as certain truth of Scripture, but only offer it as my personal interpretation of Scripture: My private interpretation of the prophecy of Scripture is legitimate to me, and cannot be disproven, but neither to I then teach it as proven Scripture to others.

It is in matters of law of God, where we are certainly to keep our personal rules of life to ourselves, and in no way suggest others ought do the same, by preaching our private application of Scripture as Scripture itself to others, thus making ourselves lawgivers and judges of others. (Jame 4:12)

 

[Desire Of All Nations]

As a believer in God, do you still have to sacrifice an animal for your sins? No, because grace has excused you from having to do that (the requirement for sacrifice for sin has already been graciously fulfilled for you). Grace didn't make it so you can sin by not offering an animal for your sin. Grace made it so that you don't have to, because the necessity for sacrifice for sin has already been done for you, one time for all time. And so it is for other lawful requirements. In the case of blood, grace opened up the way for you to have the life blood of the sacrifice applied to you, not poured out uselessly on the ground.

This knowledge is why we do not feel compelled to abstain from eating the blood of an animal. We understand what abstention from blood was all about. You don't have to agree with that. But you do have to understand our argument and represent it correctly. Just as we have given you the courtesy of properly understanding yours.

The bolded is an outright lie, especially because you offered no biblical proof to back it up. Does God's grace allow people to commit idolatry, blasphemy, adultery, murder, and other sins with no consequence? No. Barney Bright did not misrepresent your argument because the bolded betrays the fact that you're selling lawless theology. Grace is not a license to disregard God's commandments or His laws, and Paul was emphatically clear about this:

"What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound? Certainly not! How shall we who died to sin live any longer in it?" - Rom. 6:1-2

"Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. - Rom. 3:31

"Circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments of God is what matters." - 1 Cor. 7:19

Like other antinomians, you throw the baby out with the bathwater by assuming Christians don't have to abide by the moral principles required in the Law because Christ's sacrifice made the need for animal sacrifices obsolete, and that simply not the case at all. Everything that God said was sin under the former covenant is still sin under the current covenant. That hasn't been replaced or abolished by anything.

Just because the command to not eat blood did not have anything to do with idols when God gave that command does not automatically mean it has nothing to do with idols in Acts 15. The issue in Acts 15:29 is not that blood is forbidden in this New Covenant (Christ's life blood must be in us in order to have eternal life). The issue is about eating blood that was sacrificed in a pagan ritual. The association with idol worship is what is forbidden, not the eating of blood. You don't have to agree with that. What you have to do is understand the argument correctly.

This a thousand times wrong, and the Bible shows why:

“But you shall not eat flesh with its life, that is, its blood." - Gen. 9:4

‘For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it to you upon the altar to make atonement for your souls; for it is the blood that makes atonement for the soul.’ “Therefore I said to the children of Israel, ‘No one among you shall eat blood, nor shall any stranger who dwells among you eat blood.’" - Lev. 17:11-12

Contrary to your claim, it has nothing to do with idol worship. Again, this is not a matter of someone misunderstanding your position but a matter of you selling bogus theology as biblical. The edict from Acts 15 concerns laws God already revealed in the OT, because everything the apostles taught and enforced can be traced directly back to the Law. Incidentally enough, it also disproves the widespread fallacy that the Acts 15 edict told people to disregard those laws.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

No. Barney Bright did not misrepresent your argument

Yes he did. He said I was saying it was okay to worship idols.

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Does God's grace allow people to commit idolatry, blasphemy, adultery, murder, and other sins with no consequence?

No, of course not. But grace does allow us to stop worshiping according to the old covenant. For example, the people of God no longer need the old covenant sacrifices for sin now that Christ satisfied those requirements one time for all time with the Sacrifice of Himself. This is a perfect example of the fact that you can't be guilty of not doing something in the law that you no longer need to do.

 

[Mjh29]

No, of course not. But grace does allow us to stop worshiping according to the old covenant. For example, the people of God no longer need the old covenant sacrifices for sin now that Christ satisfied those requirements one time for all time with the Sacrifice of Himself. This is a perfect example of the fact that you can't be guilty of not doing something in the law that you no longer need to do.

I agree; I would add that one of the only remaining benefits of the OT covenants are

1.) the NT covenant is the same covenant as the OT covenant, just 'updated', and the obligatory parts (i.e. Sacrifices) have been perfectly fulfilled in Christ. However, by studying the OT covenant, we can learn more about the NT covenant.

2.) The OT covenant teaches us more about who Jesus is. Every sacrifice and ordinance points to Christ, and by studying these we can learn more about His and the Father's person

3.) the promises to Israel are now ours as the people of God (the church). Studying the promises made to them will reflect the promises The Father now gives to us

Well put response though!!

 

[Ferris Bueller]

"Do we then make void the law through faith? Certainly not! On the contrary, we establish the law. - Rom. 3:31

Faith in Christ does in fact establish/uphold the law of Moses. The problem is, you think that means we keep every single command of the law to the letter. It doesn't mean that. The Sacrifice of Christ satisfies many of the requirements of the law, and so we establish/uphold those requirements of the law by having faith in his finished work on the cross. Some things do remain to be literally upheld by our faith in Christ (i.e., 'love your neighbor as yourself').

 

[Mjh29]

Faith in Christ does in fact establish/uphold the law of Moses. The problem is, you think that means we keep every single command of the law to the letter. It doesn't mean that. The Sacrifice of Christ satisfies many of the requirements of the law, and so we establish/uphold those requirements of the law by having faith in his finished work on the cross. Some things do remain to be literally upheld by our faith in Christ (i.e., 'love your neighbor as yourself').

Yes! The law serves to show us God's perfect character; to keep I think is impossible for all but Christ.

Instead, we should strive to use this law to become more like Him!!

 

[amigo de christo]

Hold on, I would'nt judge that strictly. It is for God to do that.
They believe that Jesus died for their sins and rose in the third day. They follow his teachings and apply them. They know sin and love. They have false doctrines but so do many Christian churches and individuals. A false doctrine does'nt necessarily invalidate your salvation. It may just mean the Holy Spirit does not grow your church and you personally.
Look at the Seven Churches of Revelation. Only two did not receive rebuke. Their was a loveless church, a compromising church, and corrupt church, a dead church, a lukewarm church, and so that was just in them first century.
The faithful church and the persecuted church went without rebuke, all the rest needed to repent.
Are Jw's connected to the vine and Mormons as well? God is merciful. We need to be born again to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. I don't know, maybe they will be left behind with the Jews and then be enlightened?
Jesus said believe in Me, even on a basic level. You must realize that before the printing press, most people did not even have a Bible nor did they understand like we do today. They had a basic understanding and belief, a faith that was given them. Jesus did'nt say you must comprehend the major doctrines, pass a test and then you will be saved. Many in history of the Church would flunk if that were the case.
We'll see.

Hold on , I WOULD JUDGE that strictly , OR at least WARN that strictly .
THEY in dire and grave danger . ITs time to stop hugging folks to hell and start warning them into heaven , by the gosple and all truth .
We allowed men to cripple us and destroy us . When i say us i speak about the churches in general .
We allowed men to lull us to sleep and stop correction and all dire warning . AND LOOK what it did . IT LEAVEND the churches FULL .
NO . I say warn and i say warn them till the last breath . If we love we warn . if we hate we just hug them to hell and let
all think all is well .

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Like other antinomians, you throw the baby out with the bathwater by assuming Christians don't have to abide by the moral principles required in the Law because Christ's sacrifice made the need for animal sacrifices obsolete

Can you show me where I said that? I'll save you the trouble of looking. I did not say that. I'm not antinomian. The moral law is the very part of the law of Moses that I insist must be kept by the New Covenant believer. Paul says that is the debt of law that remains. It's a continuing debt of law that we must satisfy. Romans 13:8.

 

[amigo de christo]

The JW's, LDS, SDA'S, RCC, all teach another gospel. We are told that they are accursed. It gets no plainer than that. Galatians 1:8-9.

March onward my friend . YOU warn till the last breath . IF WE LOVE we WARN anyone who is in dire and grave danger .
NEVER let one silence our warnings . Warn my friend . Warn . DO so till the last and final breath .
WE have a huge number already that just hug folks to hell and wont correct squat . BUT as you know and by grace i know
that aint love . ITS death . Those who truly love the LORD would truly love others . THUS they would warn and correct as well .

 

[Mjh29]

The Law of God is to be followed today, make no mistake. Antinomianism is NOT taught in the Scriptures.

HOWEVER.

Meritous keeping of the law is also a big NO in the Bible.

The law serves to reflect the character of God. It is His own representation of who He is to mankind. We can't and won't ever live up to this standard. However, we should strive to keep his law because

1.) We are commanded to in Scripture.

2.) We should want to be More like our Savior.

The only exception to keeping the OT law is the sacrificial system, which was fulfilled in Christ.

BUT AGAIN.

We should strive to keep this law NOT to merit anything, but simply because our savior asked us to, and because we should want to be more like Him.

 

[amigo de christo]

Todays church has become a sickness . look at what is going on . THEY preach hope light and love
and yet their hope light and love is all WORDLY . Heck , they wont even speak about JESUS .
they put on puppet shows for kids and yet JESUS aint mentioned , the gosple sure aint mentioned .
They speak light hope and love , YET NO JESUS . thus they speak not hope light and love , but DEPRESSION , DARKNESS and HATE .
Death and the second death . WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING FOLKS . STOP heeding these crafty well spoken intellectual things
and start HEEDING JESUS and LEARN those bibles well .

 

[Ferris Bueller]

Everything that God said was sin under the former covenant is still sin under the current covenant. That hasn't been replaced or abolished by anything.

Not sacrificing an animal for your sin is no longer a sin. Why, because that law got destroyed and trampled down by the coming of Christ? NO! Of course not! He said he did not come to do that! Matthew 5:17. It's not a sin anymore because the person who has had his sin forgiven and removed through the greater and more efficacious Sacrifice of Christ doesn't need to keep the law of animal sacrifice for sin he no longer has.

The believer doesn't destroy and break the law of sacrifice in the OT. He just doesn't need it anymore, and so it is laid aside as obsolete. That law is not broken by faith in Christ. It becomes of no use to the person who has faith in Christ. God looks at us and says, "I see no debt of law remaining regarding sacrifice for sin." Even though we did not offer up an animal! But according to what you're saying above, animal sacrifice for sin is still required and it's a sin if you don't do it.