Okay, having read the article, I have some questions for Travis!
Please note that this issue of eating blood has caused me no small amount of consternation on the part of my conscience. Pork blood was one of my favorite foods ever and I always loved eating it as part of when our family ate Dim Sum. When I suddenly became aware of this restriction in Acts, I became concerned and had to abstain from eating it as my conscience was not settled. My inquires into the matter online as well as in other websites and Reformed resources did not avail me much over the past ten years. Off and on I would look online again for more resources over the decade, but found nothing and remained abstinent from blood with a still uneasy conscience. I had abstained from eating blood for about ten years now due to this. This year I finally started to make peace after making a few more connections to blood and atonement - that the blood we drink is that of Christ's. So these last six months I've not worried about it any longer.
Until now!
So if I understand the article's arguments correctly, it's this:
1) Genesis 9 is no longer binding because
(A) if it were logically followed through then we would be required to put to death any animal that kills a man,
(B) God's intention is to sensitize the hearts of man towards the life of man (having been desensitized to violence and bloodshed ever since Cain and Lamech),
(C) that this command was not immediately given after the fall indicates the command is not universally applicable, and
(D) the presence of Levitical Cities of Refuge in the Mosaic covenant demonstrates the rule in Genesis 9 is not universally binding.
So this all seems predicated on connection Genesis 9:4 and 9:5. The point of not eating blood is not because of God's regard for animals, "but because he accounts the life of men precious (Calvin, Gen 9:5 Commentary)."
2) The Mosaic law is not binding universally because gentiles in foreign countries may be sold strangled animals or with blood in them by the Israelites. If the rule was universally binding, God would be permitting the Israelites to sin by driving the Gentiles further into sin. Yet, this is against God's character to do so.
The only issue I have with this part is that it seems to be confusing the eating of blood with the eating of animals considered corrupted or unclean. The passage of Deuteronomy 14 seems to indicate that the issue behind the animal is less to do with blood than it is to do with the unclean way in which it died. I don't see the clear connection with blood.
I may be reading incorrectly, but it seems Calvin also distinguishes between the two in his Commentary:
"Nor is it an objection that the eating of carrion and of blood are here prohibited in conjunction with each other; for we know that Moses does not always arrange his precepts in order, but promiscuously adduces such as appertain to different classes. Therefore, I have thought it well to separate these two prohibitions which have distinct objects, and whose dissimilarity manifestly appears from the difference of their punishment. He who shall have eaten blood shall be cut off from the people; whereas he who shall have eaten carrion, shall wash himself and be unclean till the evening. A question might again arise respecting torn or lacerated flesh; but it seems in my judgment to be plain enough from the context, that flesh torn by beasts is counted amongst unclean meats; for the reason of the law is expressed, viz., because those who were chosen to be a holy people should keep themselves pure and incorrupt."
3) Acts 15's restrictions on blood may not be universally binding just as eating food offered to idols is not inherently sinful. James points out that it will take time for the Jewish Christians to come to terms with these matters of "indifference" and to not harm them unnecessarily.
4) The act of partaking in the Lord's Supper necessarily reveals the command to refrain from eating blood is no longer binding as we feast upon the body and blood of Christ.
Did I get the gist of the article?