Nope, missed that one. However, since you freely associate yourself with Calvin, and even call yourself by his name, that's not a guilt-by-association argument. It could be an ad hominem against Calvin, however.
On the other hand, given the natural Calvinist tendency to insist that only the elect can properly interpret Scripture, it's not entirely unfair to see if Calvin's life demonstrates that election, since otherwise he could simply be just an intellegent man who makes a good argument--you know, like the rabbis you reject as having anything to say of value.
It's not enough that Calvin called himself a Christian or proclaimed Christ:
Not every one that saith unto Me, "Lord, Lord," shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of My Father which is in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, "Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Thy name? and in Thy name have cast out devils? and in Thy name done many wonderful works?" And then will I profess unto them, "I never knew you: depart from Me, ye that work iniquity." (Mat. 7:21-23)Therefore, we are right to look at the personal lives of all who claim authority in the Lord's Name, for, "Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits" (vv. 15-16).
While I frankly find the whole matter extraneous to the conversation and not worth getting into, why is examining a particularly black mark on Calvin's personal record off-limits? Frankly, before you get upset about an ad hominem on John Calvin, you would have to take back all the ad hominems you've been making against the Jews.
I'm willing to try to rise about the pettiness that has been rampant on all sides in these discussions.
I won't speak of "all sides," but I don't think that I've personally been in the least petty in this debate. I've treated you with respect and I've given full and supported answers to your questions and objections. I have never questioned your faith, and despite your attempts to goad me into saying otherwise, I have never said that what I perceive as an honest error on your part in any way invalidates your love for the Lord. I have in fact said several times on many threads that I know you have a genuine love for the Lord, and I have even gone as far as calling down "my" side on this thread for even implying that God's Appointed Times are a matter of salvation.
If you believe that I have personally wronged you in some way, then please quote the specific post and explain what I did so that we can come to a reconciliation.
Now, I'm all for proceding in the Spirit, but let's get one matter out of the way first: Is it in fact your contention that someone saying that we should keep the Feasts is legalism, but someone saying that we must not keep the Feasts is not legalism? That seems to be a curious double-standard to me.
Now, I'm all for proceding in the Spirit, but let's get one matter out of the way first: Is it in fact your contention that someone saying that we should keep the Feasts is legalism, but someone saying that we must not keep the Feasts is not legalism? That seems to be a curious double-standard to me.
What I have always said is that keeping the feasts/dietary laws/circumcision/etc is a matter of adiaphora as far as individual believers are concerned. I would say the same of people who wish to exchange gifts on December 25 and call it "Christmas".
My objection is when folks bring these things into the church as normative worship practices for a congregation of baptized believers (Jews/gentiles/both, doesn't matter). In my understanding of Scripture, under the new covenant God could care less if we have a roast pork dinner at a church gathering, where clothing of mixed material, cut or beards a certain way, or do not remember the "passover" or "yom kippur". In fact, what would be offensive to God is if we insist on doing these things which are personally adiaphora in the context of corporate worship among other brothers and sisters who believe they have been set free from these thing in Christ. To force adiaphora on the church would be denying them their liberty since they do not constitute the "commands of Christ".
So, far from being "legalism" in any true sense of the word, the objection is to the sense of spiritual superiority that comes from "messianic judaism" v. "gentile christianity" based on the idea that keeping what were admittedly laws pertaining to Israel as a nation in a particular time and place that are somehow normative for the universal church under the new covenant.
Or, to put it another way, if you believe that for me (or anyone else who calls himself a Christian) to keep these laws or not keep these laws is a matter of absolutely moral indifference (adiaphora), then we are OK. But, if you insist that I will be better off spiritually and truly pleasing to God by devoting myself to keeping these things in as scrupulous a manner as can be defined in this day and age, then I call that "legalism" and a judaizing of the church.
So that is where I stand on the ceremonials.
The weekly sabbath is a different issue in my mind since it involves the moral law (the 4th of the "Ten Words") and is not the strictly ceremonial. I have a difficult time thinking that God has left the day of the week for worship by His body a matter of adiaphora. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem to be the case. So we are left with trying to understand based on all that is given to us in the Bible what was God's intention for weekly sabbath worship under the terms of the new covenant within the universal body of Christ. Obviously, we disagree on the proper interpretation of certain Scripture passages. You think I'm wrong and I think you're wrong. Sometimes it escalates to outright name calling; "legalist" v. "judaizer".
I'm not sure if this question is useful, but let me ask anyway. When we talk about the fact that "Christ died for our sins" (1 Cor. 15:3), I assume you believe that means that if a person were an actual murderer, then Christ died for the particular act of murder in that person's background. Would it also be your belief that for a Christian from a gentile background that means that Christ died for the sin of eating swine flesh or not properly worshipping on the "passover"?