Occasionally a Christian reminds the world that the religion is pagan, its human sacrifice an abomination to the God of Moses

 

What Protestants Get Wrong About the Epistle to the Hebrews

Peter J. Leithart, First Things

 ... The blood of bulls and goats was always impotent; what was needed was the human sacrifice of total obedience, fulfilled in the cross. It’s not a conservative gospel, but a revolutionary one in which first things change place with last things. ...

To wit:

When you come into the land which the LORD your God gives you, you shall not learn to follow the abominable practices of those nations.  There shall not be found among you any one who burns his son or his daughter as an offering, any one who practices divination, a soothsayer, or an augur, or a sorcerer, or a charmer, or a medium, or a wizard, or a necromancer. For whoever does these things is an abomination to the LORD; and because of these abominable practices the LORD your God is driving them out before you.

-- Deuteronomy 18:9ff.

They built the high places of Ba'al in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to offer up their sons and daughters to Molech, though I did not command them, nor did it enter into my mind, that they should do this abomination, to cause Judah to sin.

-- Jeremiah 32:35

Not only that, Leithart's interpretation of the Eucharist is an abomination to the Christian God, even whose catechumens were excluded from the Lord's Supper as strangers from the third and fourth centuries:

The Eucharist is the Lord’s, and our, hospitality to strangers.

To wit:

The Church urges the entire assembly of the faithful to pray for the catechumens, even though they are still strangers. Indeed, they do not yet belong to the Body of Christ, they have not partaken of the Holy Mysteries; they are still apart from the spiritual flock … They stand outside the royal court, far from the sacred forecourts. That is why they are sent away before those fearful prayers [of the Anaphora] are said. So she asks you to pray for them, that they may become fellow members with you and no longer be strangers and cut off.

— Apostolic Constitutions, 8.32 PG 1.1132B; Apostolic Tradition, 17, SC 11bis, p. 75

Except Jesus the apocalyptic prophet never would have said it, let alone imagined it

 “This is my body; this is my blood” is one of the most philosophically challenging of all human utterances, forcing us to consider the meaning of substance, the modes of presence, the concept of embodiment, the relation of God and creation or heaven and earth, the metaphysics of change, and on and on.

More.

Peter Leithart observes that William Lane Craig is a moderate on Genesis, and Craig responds that a figurative reading was the Pentateuchal author's intent!

In which Leithart amusingly puts back on his discarded Protestant hat to defend the faith from a mind-reader trapped in a cul-de-sac.

[H]e sneaks into the head of the author of Genesis to discover that the biblical account of Eden and the fall was “fantastic, even to the Pentateuchal author himself.” ... Some Evangelical theologians deny the existence of a historical Adam entirely, which means that Craig’s position is a moderate one.

-- Leithart, here in "Doubts About William Lane Craig’s Creation Account"

If an aspect of a story contradicts what the Pentateuchal author believed, it is unlikely to be literally intended.

... the Pentateuchal author would have known that ... sunset and sunrise could not have occurred prior to the creation of the sun ...

... If the stories are inconsistent with one another when read literally, that suggests that a literal interpretation is not intended.

-- Craig, here in "Mytho-History in Genesis"

 

The harebrained Peter Leithart writes that "we fill up what is lacking in Christ’s suffering" at First Things

Here.

It's a textbook example of ignorant exegesis, in this case of Colossians 1:24.

Who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his body's sake, which is the church

Νῦν χαίρω ἐν τοῖς παθήμασιν μου ὑπὲρ ὑμῶν καὶ ἀνταναπληρῶ τὰ ὑστερήματα τῶν θλίψεων τοῦ Χριστοῦ ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου ὑπὲρ τοῦ σώματος αὐτοῦ ὅ ἐστιν ἡ ἐκκλησία

Paul isn't saying there's anything insufficient or lacking in Christ's afflictions. He's saying he himself is lacking in them, which is why he says to begin with that he rejoices in his sufferings.

Those sufferings fill up what he asserts to be a deficit of them in his experience, "in my flesh" (ἐν τῇ σαρκί μου), which might seem surprising given his statements elsewhere about their ubiquity in his missionary activity. So Paul is clearly speaking a little hyperbolically about himself here. Or perhaps ironically. In comparison with most every one of his contemporaries, he has already suffered much. The point Paul wishes to make is that his service to the church as Apostle to the Gentiles is validated when he experiences suffering and affliction, and so he welcomes those things. The more he suffers for the sake of the gospel, the more the church should know the validity of his calling. "When I am weak, then am I strong", etc.   

This is an entirely autobiographical statement by Paul as an apostle, an example of the defense of himself he is wont to make against his opponents, rather than a recommendation for or illustration of the normal Christian life (compare his counsel elsewhere to ordinary folk to live peaceably with all men, live quietly, work with your hands, etc.).

To suggest otherwise is ignorant and needlessly feverish.

Peter Leithart wrings his hands over the divisions caused by the Reformation, uttering complete rubbish

Here in First Things:

The catastrophic effects of these divisions rippled out into European culture, society, and politics. They’re rippling still. Worse, the fragmentation of the Church undermined the evangelical aims of the Reformers. By its sibling feuds, the Reformation quenched the very Spirit it had unleashed.

Protestants were not solely responsible for the division of the Church. Catholic intransigence and treachery silenced prophetic voices and delayed and prevented the deep self-examination the Church needed. Yet Protestants were responsible, especially for the divisions within the Reformation’s own ranks.

Quenched the Spirit, eh? Which spirit? Peter Leithart, like most Christians of the contemporary period, doesn't grasp the essentially divisive nature of the coming of the Spirit, as if the prophets were put to death for preaching the unity of the faith in the bond of peace. The prophets critiqued the household of God, calling it to repentance and revealing its sins, often at the cost of their lives.

It is a fetish of our utopian age to exclude this point of view in favor of a preoccupation with unity. But it's still disturbing that churchmen seem caught up in it, even at this late hour in the ridiculous history of ecumenism. They'll do anything it seems not to face the fact that in the Bible the idea is a development of its later literature, emphasized in the Fourth Gospel (especially John 10 and 17) and the Pauline Ephesian letter (chapter 4), neither of which can be reconciled with the Synoptic tradition nor the early genuine letters of Paul without doing a little violence to reason. Even the Passion narratives have been reworked from this point of view of the later "church", which is the first concrete expression of Christianity's decadence. Robust preoccupation with "the Other" from the original period of the Spirit gave way to the crabbed self-reflection and identity "politics" of Christian, Jew, church, synagogue, Greek, barbarian, male, female, slave, free, and Roman citizen.  

Jesus the eschatological prophet, on the other hand, never imagined a "church", let alone this long, drawn out history betwixt heaven and hell. He did not imagine "identities". Those who do the will of God are my mother, sisters and brothers, he said. Many are called. Few are chosen. Narrow is the gate and difficult the way that leads to life. Few are they who find it. Repent while you still can. The reign of God is nigh. Come follow me.

What a polarizing fellow.

"All his ways are judgment" (Deut. 32:4).

 

Protestants shouldn't apologize for it.

Peter Leithart provides a helpful exegesis of Shakespeare's 3rd Sonnet, apposite our exceptionally narcissistic age

Here, in which he meditates upon the immortality afforded us by human reproduction, the urgency of it when young, and our obligation not to defraud the world of it, nor especially a mother like our own, and in the end, ourselves:

"Battle mutability, battle age. Reproduce."

Look in thy glass and tell the face thou viewest

Now is the time that face should form another;

Whose fresh repair if now thou not renewest,

Thou dost beguile the world, unbless some mother.

For where is she so fair whose uneared womb

Disdains the tillage of thy husbandry?

Or who is he so fond will be the tomb

Of his self-love, to stop posterity? 

Thou art thy mother's glass and she in thee

Calls back the lovely April of her prime;

So thou through windows of thine age shalt see,

Despite of wrinkles, this thy golden time.

   But if thou live, remembered not to be,

   Die single and thine image dies with thee.

Peter Leithart Hates America And The Protestantism Which Gave Birth To It

 

Where else? In "grace and cooperation with grace" First Things, here:

The Reformation isn’t over. But Protestantism is, or should be.

Protestantism is a negative theology ... 

Mainline churches are nearly bereft of “Protestants.” ...

Though it agrees with the original Protestant protest, Reformational catholicism is defined as much by the things it shares with Roman Catholicism as by its differences. Its existence is not bound up with finding flaws in Roman Catholicism. ...

Protestantism has had a good run. It remade Europe and made America. It inspired global missions, soup kitchens, church plants, and colleges in the four corners of the earth. But the world and the Church have changed, and Protestantism isn’t what the Church, including Protestants themselves, needs today. It’s time to turn the protest against Protestantism and to envision a new way of being heirs of the Reformation, a new way that happens to conform to the original Catholic vision of the Reformers.

------------------------------------------------------

Flattery will get you nowhere, Peter.

"By definition, Roman Catholic is an oxymoron."