Since I've not made any particular comments about what Maoz said, I'm not sure your conclusion is warranted. I was especially interested in your take on the issue of justification as he outlined it.
I'll have to go back and listen again with your comments in mind.
I'm basing it on your activities on this thread and the Rosh Hashanah thread: You have legalistically condemned the practice of observing the Appointed Times of the Lord on the supposed basis that they are "not authorized" in the NT. You have legalistically determined that keeping the Passover as the Lord and His disciples kept it is forbidden for Christians, since you write, "Christians do not celebrate the passover."
Every post in this thread that has demonstrated that the Bible never moved the Sabbath to Sunday and never ended the keeping of the Feasts has been in reaction to your legalistic demands that everyone worship according to your Calvinist tradition.
I did not author these articles in such a way as to make keeping the Appointed Times of the Lord a matter of salvation, fellowship, or maturity in a believer's walk. I wrote them to explain just why God commanded that they be kept, to show how they relate to both Israel's history and the eschaton. I wrote them to educate, not to mandate. If a few of my Sunday-brethren walked away with nothing but an enhanced understanding of an area of Scripture that they hadn't considered before, then I considered the article a success.
You are the one who came into both threads to pick a fight. You are the one who has cast judgment on another believer in a matter of observing certain days as holy in defiance of Rom. 14:5ff and Col. 2:16--and therefore in defiance of the very NT that you profess to obey. And you are the one who has elevated the traditions of men to a dogma, since your whole argument in favor of Sunday has been the supposed universal--even though we know from the ECF that it was not universal--observance of Sunday and forsaking of the Feasts in the Church in the post-NT era rather than on any careful and clear exegesis of the NT itself.
You have tried to turn your opinion into our boundary and our burden. That makes you, not us, the legalist.
It's interesting that Max Lucado penned those words (in his booklet, The Greatest Moments) at a time when he was under heavy fire from the Church of Christ for worshipping with other denominations as he traveled around the country on speaking engagements. Why? Because the Church of Christ does not use musical instruments in worship, and these other denominations do. What's up with that? you ask. Well, it's a funny thing, but nowhere in the NT is the use of musical instruments specifically authorized. The CoC, taking the, "we follow the New Testament, not the Old," to its logical extreme, therefore came to the conclusion that instruments were verboten in a church service. Some in the CoC were therefore passing judgment on Lucado for worshipping in a fashion not specifically authorized by the NT.
Sound familiar?
Now, while I thank you for all the hits and all the times you've bumped my articles, I think your time and intellect would be far better served discussing the material and interpretations of the articles themselves, rather than arguing that we should not be observing these times or even having these discussions on the basis of your particular interpretations of certain NT passages which we have shown there are other, equally or more viable interpretations for.
The former edifies the body. The latter is just legalism and Hellenizing, and denies that "All Scripture (not just the NT) is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works" (2 Ti. 3:16-17).