Refusal to gather as the greater sin?

[CGS]

One should worship at the best available church that they can reasonably get to. If they happen to have an organ, that's no excuse to sit at home alone. Refusal to gather with and worship with other saints is the greater sin.

(Bringing this over from the other thread so as not to derail it)

And these were provided as proof of the above quote: “See WCF 26-2, 27-4, and 29-4 in answer to your question. And I would urge to also ponder on WCF 25-2 and 25-3.”

But these WCF references only establish that refusal to gather is a sin, not necessarily that it is the greater of the two sins…correct?

Calvin ranked worship as first in importance even before salvation and placed the proper worship of God - not justification - as the primary issue of the Reformation:
"If it be inquired, then, by what things chiefly; the Christian religion has a standing existence amongst us, and maintains its truth, it will be found that the following two not only occupy the principal place, but comprehend under them all the other parts, and consequently the whole substance of Christianity, viz., a knowledge, first, of the mode in which God is duly worshipped; and, secondly, of the source from which salvation is to be obtained." - John Calvin

If Calvin is correct, then wouldn’t it potentially be a greater sin to worship God in a way that He has not prescribed (idolatry, will worship, superstitions, violations of the RPW, etc.) than to refuse to gather and participate in those things. How would Nadab and Abihu advise us?

Certainly, we need great wisdom and discernment to know when/how one who holds to a “strict” view of the RPW can attend non-regulated* worship services...for example, an exclusive Psalmist could attend, but refrain from singing uninspired hymns. I think most would agree that this would be an acceptable solution in this scenario.

But wouldn’t there be times when it would be appropriate to temporarily refuse to gather for just a limited/specified time? For example, if one's conscience is especially grieved during the Advent/Christmas season would it be appropriate to refuse to gather just for those 4 Sundays of Advent and any Christmas/Christmas Eve services? Many of these services can often become almost completely centered around violations of the RPW (e.g., Advent candle lighting ceremonies, Christmas trees/wreaths/decorations in the meeting place, Christmas carols/cantatas, etc.). I realize that no church is perfect, and it may be difficult to discern when too much will worship is too much, and that the "too much" will vary from conscience to conscience...but aren't there some cases where refusal to gather (temporarily) would be the lesser sin? Are we ever guilty of implied consent or condoning those violations of the RPW by attending?

I'm not looking to debate whether or not Christmas/Advent are violations of the RPW. I'm asking those who already agree that it is - and/or those who hold to a "strict" view of the RPW - if it is ever appropriate (or even obligatory) to refuse to gather for a temporary, limited time only? I'm just using Christmas/Advent as a good scenario on which to frame the question/discussion.

*By "non-regulated", I simply mean not regulated by a strict view of the RPW. It's not meant to imply that churches that allow hymns have anarchy in worship.

 

[jwithnell]

As much as I love the WCF and a good directory of worship, these are secondary to the scriptures that command us to gather as God's people.

We are not to forsake assembling together (Hebrews 4:12). We cannot ignore that the Bible tells us that we are part of a whole and that we each bring unique capabilities to the body of Christ (Romans 12:4). Through the ages, God has put men over us to tenderly care for our souls; he has given us under shepherds who give a physical presence for our chief Shepherd (1 Peter 5:1-4).

Please, do not endanger yourself as a believer. Falling away is a very real and present danger outside of the context Christ has given for our care, as imperfect as any particular local church will be in this sin-stained, fallen world.

 

[MW]

I followed the previous thread from which this is a spin off. It made me wonder if "gathering" or "attending" is the right door through which to approach the question. A more fundamental issue is "belonging." In Calvin's view, and in the reformed view in general, the church is a society, not simply a gathering. The visible catholic church is one and particular churches are members of it. The church itself is an object of faith and is only discerned by marks identified in Scripture. We must look for these marks to discern the true church of Jesus Christ. Where we find it we have an obligation to join it.

Obviously, the church is divided. We recognise degrees of separation over various things related to doctrine, worship, discipline, and government. It is quite possible to belong to a church as a true church and to abstain from specific actions. This is a legitimate degree of separation. Attendance is not the first concern. Belonging to the true church, and doing so with a good conscience, is primary. If it comes about that one cannot partake with a good conscience on a regular basis that is a clear sign it is time to look for a more pure church.

My instinct as a pastor tells me that the fixation on attendance is probably owing to decreasing numbers at church. That seems to be causing angst among church leaders. We shouldn't let our anxieties spoil the biblical and reformed doctrine of the church. The Lord adds to the church such as should be saved, and the Lord can save whether by many or by few.

 

[DanSSwing]

A few years ago, the only English-speaking church in our entire country (Armenia) was heavily NAR-influenced. It was tolerable for 5-6 months, but it eventually went over the line. Fortunately, some other families felt the same way so we were able to start our own church. But if we had been the only ones, I think we would have just started worshipping Sunday AM as a family and inviting others.

PS - I'm not sure if that NAR church was even really a church since there was one guy running absolutely everything (except for music) by himself. No elders. No deacons. No membership rolls.

 

[KMK]

I agree with Rev. Winzer on the use of the word "belonging."

Instead of focusing on which is the greater sin, why not focus on which should be the greater desire of a saint? Spend the Lord's Day alone with scruples intact or with other less scrupulous saints?

It is impossible, this side of glory, for any of us to worship God without some idolatry, will worship, or superstitions in our hearts, and such should not be a test of fellowship in others.

 

[jfhutson]

wouldn’t it potentially be a greater sin to worship God in a way that He has not prescribed (idolatry, will worship, superstitions, violations of the RPW, etc.) than to refuse to gather and participate in those things

I don’t think the second option is a real option for a believer. If you refuse to gather with the congregation you are in, you need to find our plant another one, or make peace with your scruples. Some sins are greater than others, but you are never commanded to sin, and neglecting to gather is sin.

 

[Polanus1561]

If you are single. Consider the need for community.

If you have a family. Consider the need for community.

 

[CGS]

While I appreciate all the thoughtful responses, they all seem to be missing the point I was trying to emphasize…I am not talking about anything even remotely like:

• Completely falling away from the church for an extended time
• One removing himself from the care/oversight of the session of his local church
• Jeopardizing one’s “belonging”
• Abandoning one’s need for community or fellowship with the saints

I’m simply asking about refusing to gather for a very limited, temporary and specific amount of time (i.e. Christmas/Advent season) so as not to grieve one’s conscience over participating in all the idolatry/superstition of the season. This person would still belong to the society of the church, still be under the oversight of the session, and still maintain fellowship with other believers during this time. After all, we can fellowship with other believers (or our elders) 7 days a week and outside of public/corporate worship...right? And he would fully disclose his reasons for not attending in the month of December to his session and fellow believers. So one could easily refrain from public worship for one month without raising any of the concerns mentioned above.

And shouldn’t the greatest desire of the saint be to please the Lord and bring glory to Him? Wouldn’t refusing to participate in worship that He has not prescribed be the best way to do this? Does fellowship with the saints take priority over properly worshipping God in the ways which He has authorized? Or does fellowship with the saints take priority over issues of conscience?

 

[jwithnell]

Friend, your desire to worship God aright is admirable. Were more like you, the church as a whole would be greatly blessed. But you cannot spur the grace and protection God has given you in observing his sabbath amongst his people. I implore you not to risk your very soul in this manner. Those who will be held accountable for bringing strange fire before God, should it prove to be so, will be the officers in your church.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

While I appreciate all the thoughtful responses, they all seem to be missing the point I was trying to emphasize…I am not talking about anything even remotely like:

• Completely falling away from the church for an extended time
• One removing himself from the care/oversight of the session of his local church
• Jeopardizing one’s “belonging”
• Abandoning one’s need for community or fellowship with the saints

I’m simply asking about refusing to gather for a very limited, temporary and specific amount of time (i.e. Christmas/Advent season) so as not to grieve one’s conscience over participating in all the idolatry/superstition of the season. This person would still belong to the society of the church, still be under the oversight of the session, and still maintain fellowship with other believers during this time. After all, we can fellowship with other believers (or our elders) 7 days a week and outside of public/corporate worship...right? And he would fully disclose his reasons for not attending in the month of December to his session and fellow believers. So one could easily refrain from public worship for one month without raising any of the concerns mentioned above.

And shouldn’t the greatest desire of the saint be to please the Lord and bring glory to Him? Wouldn’t refusing to participate in worship that He has not prescribed be the best way to do this? Does fellowship with the saints take priority over properly worshipping God in the ways which He has authorized? Or does fellowship with the saints take priority over issues of conscience?

I don't think it would be a sin to not gather for a short amount of time. I mean, honestly every year in December I wish things would look different in the life of the church, but there are still so many blessings of being able to be in fellowship with others.

I think the problem is that we tend to have a view, and then we negatively view all others who don't practice the way we do, as if we are the judge. This puts us in a tough place mentally and emotionally when we are always judging others based off of our dogmatics, especially when we aren't sure if we are even right. I think if we just embrace the freedoms we have, this will help us relax and be more willing to do things differently sometimes than the ways we prefer.

Maybe in the spirit of Romans 14
‭"Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. [5] One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. [6] The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God."

Sorry, I think I read this may be for the more strict regulative folks, who though I once was, I admit I am more relaxed now.

 

[jfhutson]

After all, we can fellowship with other believers (or our elders) 7 days a week and outside of public/corporate worship...right?

Sure, but we’re commanded to meet one day in seven, without exceptions for December. It’s one thing if you’re sick, another when you willfully stay home because you disagree with the elders God’s placed over you.

 

[Theoretical]

Going off the premise highlighted in the OP in the context of strict RPW convictions and applications with a less RPW congregation that does observe Advent (and increasingly Lent as well, ugh):

"But wouldn’t there be times when it would be appropriate to temporarily refuse to gather for just a limited/specified time? For example, if one's conscience is especially grieved during the Advent/Christmas season would it be appropriate to refuse to gather just for those 4 Sundays of Advent and any Christmas/Christmas Eve services? Many of these services can often become almost completely centered around violations of the RPW (e.g., Advent candle lighting ceremonies, Christmas trees/wreaths/decorations in the meeting place, Christmas carols/cantatas, etc.). I realize that no church is perfect, and it may be difficult to discern when too much will worship is too much, and that the "too much" will vary from conscience to conscience...but aren't there some cases where refusal to gather (temporarily) would be the lesser sin? Are we ever guilty of implied consent or condoning those violations of the RPW by attending?"

1. The elders would need to be fully informed and willing to acknowledge your objections, given number 2 as your alternative.

2. I think if one is to do this, one needs to be willing and able to drive to the very far away church that does hit your convictions if possible on those Lord's Days. That might mean a 2-3+ hour drive and stay with a family in that church. It might need to be a situation similar to those with summer homes and a summer church, but you need to physically attend church if at all possible.

3. That church should also know where you're coming from and at least have some communication with your local church that you visited.

4. If #2 is not actually doable (not to be confused with practical as it certainly isn't), then relocation to a location with a church that you can worship at should be on the radar and in the meantime I think you should attend and not participate in the Advent things to the best of your ability. Maybe that means stepping out of the sanctuary except for the pastoral prayer, the sermon, baptisms, and the Lord's Supper. I don't know, but I can definitely appreciate the serious conflict.

As we all learned from the pandemic, and as shut-ins have learned for time immemorial, it's incredibly important to gather physically together as embodied saints.

-----

I think it has some analogies to the situations some are in who have 0 reformed churches within even an unreasonable range and have to attend the best local option like a conservative Lutheran church, an international Baptist church (as Rich L. did faithfully for many years), or some Bible church and monthly or quarterly trek to somewhere with your convictions.

 

[CGS]

Those who will be held accountable for bringing strange fire before God, should it prove to be so, will be the officers in your church.

So, only the officers of the church - and not church members who go against their conscience and knowingly participate in the strange fire - will be held accountable? What are you basing this on? Is there Scripture that teaches this?

 

[CGS]

Sure, but we’re commanded to meet one day in seven, without exceptions for December. It’s one thing if you’re sick, another when you willfully stay home because you disagree with the elders God’s placed over you.

But I don't think it's as simple as just saying "we're commanded to...". We're also commanded not to participate in idolatry, not to add to God's Word, not to go against our conscience, etc. (i.e. participation in unauthorized days/seasons of worship). Why does the command to meet one day in seven trump God's other commands? Why do we assume that the command to attend church takes priority over these other commands?

 

[jfhutson]

Why does the command to meet one day in seven trump God's other commands? Why do we assume that the command to attend church takes priority over these other commands?

I didn’t say it does. If you really don’t think you can gather with this particular assembly in good conscience, I suggested you find or plant another one. Our forefathers risked death to meet. It’s hard to believe there is no option besides sitting in your house.

 

[CGS]

I didn’t say it does. If you really don’t think you can gather with this particular assembly in good conscience, I suggested you find or plant another one.

Assuming this person can assemble/worship there in good conscience 11 months out of the year, it seems a bit drastic to completely separate from them to find another church. And not everyone is called to plant a church. But your point is taken.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

If every corruption is idolatry to separate from, why is observance of the pretended holy days some way some how worse than singing uncommanded hymns or other things rejected by Westminster Presbyterianism such as the responsals, reading the word by one not a minister, creed recital, etc.? These others if we must separate from idolatry by not being present or else its endorsement would mean separating weekly. If presence is endorsement it would overturn presbyterianism's arguments against the separatists who said if church discipline is faulty they must separate from the unworthy let in to the Lord's Table. I don't have time to pursue this but I can point to the anti separatist arguments of some Presbyterians at the NP site and of course read James Durham's Treatise Concerning Scandal.

 

[MyCrows]

The Lord commands us, "not to forsake the gathering of ourselves together."

Who are we to reply back, "how much forsaking is too much, Lord? Is just one month too much? What if I only forsake one day?"

I wouldn't look for reasons, or amounts of time where it is appropriate to withdraw from gathering on the Lord's Day. The command is not to forsake it.

Even if there is idolatry in our congregation, we're called to strengthen what remains. Rev.3:2 Do we think we can do that by not being present?

The gathering of the saints isn't a big box company that we can boycott when we aren't satisfied with their politics, then come back when things simmer down.

Do we have no thirst for the means of grace that exist among the Lord's people? Maybe we think we can get by without them for a time?

 

[Jeri Tanner]

Are we ever guilty of implied consent or condoning those violations of the RPW by attending?

I think this is the heart of your question, and the answer is, thankfully, no. I would say though that if an Advent or Christmas service on the Lord’s day did not include preaching, then I think you’d be under no obligation to be present there, but should visit elsewhere (and not sure, but there could be participation in sin in going to such a “service” and if your church had one, it may be time for sure to seek a more pure church to join).

 

[Ploutos]

One thing being lost in this discussion is the notion of believers making things holy by their presence. This doesn't mean we should go to brothels or marry unbelievers, but it does mean that we should have more of a mindset of our contribution in a sinful world. Too much obsession with our own purity - which I am not accusing anyone of - smacks more of the mindset of the Pharisees. When it comes to church attendance, which we ARE commanded to, and which is fundamentally different from marrying an unbeliever or taking up work as a drug dealer, we should have a greater awareness of the sin that remains in Christ's body and our call to be part of its purification - not obsessive guardians of our own illusory perfection.

 

[jfhutson]

it seems a bit drastic to completely separate from them to find another church

To be clear, I'm accepting the hypothetical that you aren't able to participate in good conscience. But I agree with others here that it seems unlikely that the assembly we're talking about is so impure that you have good reason to separate, or that somehow by attending an impure assembly you are participating in idolatry.

 

[CGS]

If every corruption is idolatry to separate from, why is observance of the pretended holy days some way some how worse than singing uncommanded hymns or other things rejected by Westminster Presbyterianism such as the responsals, reading the word by one not a minister, creed recital, etc.? These others if we must separate from idolatry by not being present or else its endorsement would mean separating weekly. If presence is endorsement it would overturn presbyterianism's arguments against the separatists who said if church discipline is faulty they must separate from the unworthy let in to the Lord's Table. I don't have time to pursue this but I can point to the anti separatist arguments of some Presbyterians at the NP site and of course read James Durham's Treatise Concerning Scandal.

Thank you for the resources, and I do intend to read them as I'm sure they have some relevance to these issues. But I'm not sure that what I'm asking fully corresponds to what the separatists were arguing for. Rather than a radical/full separation, think of it more in these terms...many exclusive Psalmists (yourself included I believe) will belong to a church that sings both uninspired hymns and Psalms, but they will refuse to participate when the uninspired hymns are sung. I believe this is a widely accepted practice among those who hold firmly to the EP position...correct? So, the principle/logic involved with this is something like "it's OK to belong to a church that does X as long as I don't participate in X (with X being any RPW violation)". I'm just extending that same logic/principle to Advent/Christmas services, and trying to figure out what that would look like in those scenarios.

So...consistently extending that same logic/principle..."it's OK to belong to a church that holds Advent services (with candle lighting ceremonies, Christmas trees/wreaths, carols, etc.) as long as I don't participate in the Advent services."

How does one not participate in an Advent service? If it's not by refraining from attending said Advent service, then what is the acceptable way to not participate?

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thank you for the resources, and I do intend to read them as I'm sure they have some relevance to these issues. But I'm not sure that what I'm asking fully corresponds to what the separatists were arguing for. Rather than a radical/full separation, think of it more in these terms...many exclusive Psalmists (yourself included I believe) will belong to a church that sings both uninspired hymns and Psalms, but they will refuse to participate when the uninspired hymns are sung. I believe this is a widely accepted practice among those who hold firmly to the EP position...correct? So, the principle/logic involved with this is something like "it's OK to belong to a church that does X as long as I don't participate in X (with X being any RPW violation)". I'm just extending that same logic/principle to Advent/Christmas services, and trying to figure out what that would look like in those scenarios.

So...consistently extending that same logic/principle..."it's OK to belong to a church that holds Advent services (with candle lighting ceremonies, Christmas trees/wreaths, carols, etc.) as long as I don't participate in the Advent services."

How does one not participate in an Advent service? If it's not by refraining from attending said Advent service, then what is the acceptable way to not participate?

If it's one's church's regular Lord's Day service for four weeks in December to have advent services, one does not sin by going to participate in what he can participate in, such as hearing the Word preached (skipping the advent hymns etc.). I'm not saying it isn't grievous or that one can't visit another church etc.; but it is the separatist view to say one cannot attend because one participates in the sins of those foisting the additions onto that church. If one is protesting, made one's views known, their conscience should be clear.

 

[CGS]

If it's one's church's regular Lord's Day service for four weeks in December to have advent services, one does not sin by going to participate in what he can participate in, such as hearing the Word preached (skipping the advent hymns etc.). I'm not saying it isn't grievous or that one can't visit another church etc.; but it is the separatist view to say one cannot attend because one participates in the sins of those foisting the additions onto that church. If one is protesting, made one's views known, their conscience should be clear.

Thank you...this is some helpful clarification. What would you recommend as an appropriate way to protest and make one's views known? I guess I was assuming that not attending is a valid means of protest against the observance of Advent.

 

[Edward]

But I don't think it's as simple as just saying "we're commanded to...". We're also commanded not to participate in idolatry, not to add to God's Word, not to go against our conscience, etc. (i.e. participation in unauthorized days/seasons of worship). Why does the command to meet one day in seven trump God's other commands? Why do we assume that the command to attend church takes priority over these other commands?

Well, here's a good brightline test for you.

Is the group

A) subject to mixture and error

OR

B) so degenerated so as to by a synagogue of Satan.

If B, certainly avoid it at all cost. If A, it's in the same classification as your preferred church.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

Thank you...this is some helpful clarification. What would you recommend as an appropriate way to protest and make one's views known? I guess I was assuming that not attending is a valid means of protest against the observance of Advent.

Make clear to the session on joining about concerns, or upon coming to views on such practices. Make clear if you attend you don't endorse or will not participate in the special music, or what have you, or if it becomes or is just over really over the top to preclude edification from at least the sermon, make clear you will attend another church in those seasons.

 

[thegoadfather]

Well, here's a good brightline test for you.

Is the group

A) subject to mixture and error

OR

B) so degenerated so as to by a synagogue of Satan.

If B, certainly avoid it at all cost. If A, it's in the same classification as your preferred church.

Would you say the only legitimate line for abstaining from worship and membership (assuming no other local congregation that you could rather go to) is the distinction between true and false church then?

 

[jfhutson]

Here is a letter from Calvin that might be helpful http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-7/LIBRARY/CALVIN/CAL_SLW6.PDF (p. 33)

If the pastors did their duty, they would employ all their endeavors to retrench those superfluities which do not tend to edification, or rather which serve to obscure the clearness of the gospel. The governors on their part would also do well to see to it. It is a vice to be condemned so far as they are concerned, that they keep up these unmeaning mummeries — which are as it were a residue of Popish superstitions, the recollection of which we should strive as much as in us lies to exterminate. But in your capacity of private individuals, not only you may lawfully, but what is more, you should support and suffer such abuses as it is not in your power to correct. We do not hold lighted candles in the celebration of the eucharist nor figured bread to be such indifferent things, that we would willingly consent to their introduction, or approve of them, though we object not to accommodate ourselves to the use of them, where they have been already established, when we have no authority to oppose them. If we were called upon to receive such ceremonies, we should hold ourselves bound according to the position in which God hath placed us, to admit of no compromise in resisting their introduction, and in maintaining constantly the purity which the church confided to us already possesses. But should our lot be cast in some place where a different form prevails, there is not one of us who from spite against a candle or a chasuble would consent to separate himself from the body of the church, and so deprive himself of the use of the sacrament.

I don't have a quote, but I believe Calvin also opposed the church calendar, but complied with Genevan authorities' imposition of certain holidays. And he was in a position of some authority; I'm sure he would have said that a private person had even less right to absent themselves from ceremonies imposed by legitimate authority.

 

[CGS]

Here is a letter from Calvin that might be helpful http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-7/LIBRARY/CALVIN/CAL_SLW6.PDF (p. 33)

I don't have a quote, but I believe Calvin also opposed the church calendar, but complied with Genevan authorities' imposition of certain holidays. And he was in a position of some authority; I'm sure he would have said that a private person had even less right to absent themselves from ceremonies imposed by legitimate authority.

Thank you for providing the quote from Calvin...that is helpful. I recently read a sermon by Calvin entitled "On Fleeing Outward Idolatry" (based on Psalm 16:4). In this sermon, Calvin is advocating for separation, but it is in the context of the mass and the Roman Catholic church. So I think this is a perfect example of Edward's distinction above in regard to a true versus a false church.

And he was in a position of some authority; I'm sure he would have said that a private person had even less right to absent themselves from ceremonies imposed by legitimate authority.

But then there is also the command to obey God rather than men.

 

[NaphtaliPress]

A summary with slight edits of my summary of Calvin's view of the pretended holy days.

Calvin is often trotted out at certain times of the year as either a fan or neither for nor against the observance by churches of the pretended days. Those saying he was in favor simply don’t know or understand the corpus of what he had to say on the subject. Nor was Calvin simply neutral, neither for nor against their observance. His view was complicated since he was viewed as a leader of the Reformation in that he had personal views and then there is what he said diplomatically to keep peace amongst the churches. This was particularly true with Bern and other churches with regard to the old pretended holy days, which they chose to retain while others did not or sought to get out from under. Calvin himself knew how ‘hot’ the question could be since it was among other things the imposition which Bern placed on Geneva of following Bern’s worship practices, including five of the old holy days, which got Calvin and Farel ejected from Geneva when they took a stand against the Bern impositions in 1638. Farel had abolished all holy days except the Lord’s Day and Calvin was in agreement with this when he joined him in the ministry in 1536 after Farel practically put a curse on him if he refused. After this, Calvin would rather have died than return to Geneva, but Farel again prevailed on him and when he returned to Geneva for the 1540s forward he agreed to abide by the imposed Bern worship practices—and then immediately preceded to work at getting rid of the observance of those pretended holy days! It continued a hot dispute as he writes in his letters and by 1550 the authorities had had enough and outlawed the remaining days and moved Christmas to simply a nativity sermon on the closest Lord’s Day to December 25th. So, I think simply saying Calvin was neither for nor against does not do justice to his more full view. He was not for denigrating sister churches, but he himself opposed the old holidays and by 1557 would write, “With respect to ceremonies and above all the observance of holy days [I offer the following]: Although there are some who eagerly long to remain in conformity with such practices, I do not know how they can do so without disregard for the edification of the church, nor [do I know] how they can render an account to God for having advanced evil and impeded its solution…. Nevertheless, since we have to endure a number of imperfections when we cannot correct them, I am of the opinion that no brother ought to allow the above to be the cause of his leaving his church, unless the majority support the opposite.” Letter, December 25, 1557, in Calvin’s Ecclesiastical Advice, p. 90. In this he had been fairly consistent, though playing the diplomat with those like Bern and disclaiming a hand in Geneva’s ceasing to observe the imposed Bernese observances. He may have not had a direct hand but he had been working and teaching against such observances, which surely was a factor with the council. As one scholar writes, the council would have not made a final move against the remaining days in 1550 without knowing Calvin would not have opposed it. In fact, he does say he believed it was a good move even if he might have done it differently (to paraphrase). So I think it is simplistic to say he was neither for nor against; he most certainly was against and he advised churches that were able to get rid of the days, to never return to their observance.
So, in sum, Calvin was against criticizing the sister church down the street who did different from you. Yet, what was his advice when church leaders asked about the pretended holy days? His consistent stance from the time Farel banned them in Geneva, through their imposition by Bern and his banishment, and upon his return to the end of his ministry, was to oppose their imposition, to advise if possible to get out from under them, he himself worked to reduce the observance of them in Geneva after his return, and he was satisfied with Geneva’s ban of them in 1550, and heavily censored those as blamable late in his ministry who retained them. That sure does not sound like being neither for nor against holy days.
The above is based on all the material I could find, with some new translations never before in English, collected and presented in “In Translatiōne: John Calvin’s Letters to the Ministers of Montbéliard (1543–1544): The Genevan Reformer’s Advice and Views of the Liturgical Calendar,” The Confessional Presbyterian 13 (2017): 198-220, translations by David C. Noe and background by Chris Coldwell.

Here is a letter from Calvin that might be helpful http://media.sabda.org/alkitab-7/LIBRARY/CALVIN/CAL_SLW6.PDF (p. 33)

I don't have a quote, but I believe Calvin also opposed the church calendar, but complied with Genevan authorities' imposition of certain holidays. And he was in a position of some authority; I'm sure he would have said that a private person had even less right to absent themselves from ceremonies imposed by legitimate authority.