Phillip Schaff is the author of the eight volumes of History of the Christian Church. According to Wikipedia,
Schaff was born in Chur, Switzerland and educated at the gymnasium of Stuttgart. At the universities of Tübingen, Halle and Berlin, he was successively influenced by Baur and Schmid, by Tholuck and Julius Müller, by David Strauss and, above all, Neander. At Berlin, in 1841, he took the degree of Bachelor of Divinity and passed examinations for a professorship….. In 1843, he was called to become Professor of Church History and Biblical Literature in the German Reformed Theological Seminary of Mercersburg, Pennsylvania, then the only seminary of that church in America…. Schaff’s broad views strongly influenced the German Reformed Church….
Since he authored such a monumental work, it is worth noting briefly his own background. His first volume covers from A.D. 1 to 100; we are considering some of the topics of interest to the Christian about which Schaff writes.
The Resurrection
Anyone who discusses Christianity must realize that the resurrection is the most fundamental doctrine of the religion, setting it apart from all other religions. Paul said: “For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified” (1 Cor. 2:2). Of course, His death on the cross that all who desire may have forgiveness of sins is validated by His resurrection. His claims of Deity were proven by all His miracles and unequivocally established by the resurrection from the dead. Naturally, this historical fact would be challenged by the enemies of Christianity—some of whom profess to be followers of Jesus.
There may be more currently than there were 150 years ago, when Schaff wrote, but he lists four possible views of the resurrection. The first one is the truth; he calls it the HISTORICAL view, which is “presented by the Gospels and believed in the Christian church of every denomination and sect” (1:175). (When Schaff refers to the Gospels, he means Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John—the Gospel writers. Only one Gospel exists. He also apparently accepts the concept of denominationalism, which is not authorized in the New Testament and is expressly condemned by Paul in 1 Corinthians 1:10-13 and 3:1-4. It opposes the unity for which Jesus prayed in John 17:20-21.) In making this statement, Schaff stresses thoroughness of the acceptance of the resurrection of Christ among those who believe and obey the Scriptures.
Having affirmed the importance of the resurrection, Schaff acknowledges that there are difficulties in harmonizing all the details of the resurrection events, citing the “ten discrepancies” that have been discussed since the days of the heretic Celsus (1:176). He does not go into these, but all of them can be explained.
Second is the THEORY OF FRAUD, which means that the “apostles stole and hid the body of Jesus, and deceived the world” (1:177). The Jewish priests invented this story (see Matt. 27:62-66 and 28:12-15). It was repeated by other unbelievers and later adopted by Celsus, also. With the rise of higher criticism, various “scholars” in the 17th and 18th centuries repopularized it. This theory is clearly false, as only a little consideration of it shows. If all the soldiers were asleep, how do they know who stole the body—that they were the apostles? If some of the soldiers were awake, they would have prevented the theft. Even if they awoke while the apostles were making their exit, it should have been simple for them to overtake men carrying a body. And are we to believe that the disciples of Jesus boldly preached and gave their lives for a lie?
Equally untenable is the SWOON-THEORY, which is itself revived every few decades by some self-styled genius who thinks he has it all worked out. The idea they propagate is that Jesus did not actually die, but He revived in the tomb and continued to live—maybe with an Essene colony (1:178). Promoters of this notion cite cases in which some men have been thought to be dead but after a period of time came back to life. No one can argue that such occurrences did not and do not happen. But how many of them were scourged and had a crown of thorns placed upon their heads, which was afterward beaten into their scalps? Both of these actions resulted in a loss of blood, as did driving the nails through Jesus hands and feet. When the spear was cast into the side of Jesus, blood and water came forth, indicating that death had already occurred.
Yet Jesus allegedly revived in the tomb and with hands that had recently had spikes in them and feet also pierced by iron, He was able to summon enough strength to not only stand but to push away a stone so large that it covered the entrance to the burial cave and would have ordinarily taken two or more individuals to handle. Then He hobbled away in silence so that not a single soldier saw Him or heard Him one time say, “Ouch!” Such an event would be a miracle almost as great as the resurrection!
The final explanation offered at the time in which Schaff wrote was the VISION-THEORY (1:179), which involves the hypothesis that the apostles only imagined, dreamed, or had visions that Jesus had been resurrected. When the heretic, Celsus, grew tired of the apostles-stole-the-body theory, he originated this one in the second century. It was adopted by Spinoza in the 17th century but became popular in the 19th with Strauss and Renan. While Strauss credited the apostles with a resurrection dream in Galilee, Renan pinpointed Mary Magdalene as the source of it in Jerusalem. In his Life of Jesus, Renan asserts that “the passion of a hallucinated woman gave to the world a risen God!” (1:179).
These theories are preposterous. The first question that comes to mind is, “All twelve had the same vision at once?” And if that is not incredible enough, how is it that 500 brethren had the same “dream” at the same time (1 Cor. 15:6)? Furthermore, one of the most familiar texts is in Acts 2 where Peter declares, “This Jesus God has raised up, of which we are all witnesses” (v. 32). The resurrection was based in part on eyewitness testimony (not visions) but also on the fulfillment of a prophecy made by no less than King David (Acts 2:25-31)! Does it not seem logical that anyone seeking to attack the credibility of eyewitnesses must also assault any and all prophecies of the resurrection, including Jesus’ own confident predictions (Mark 8:31; 9:31-32; 10:33-34)? Schaff argues that visions would not explain the empty tomb; there would be multiple “pious fictions,” which all ceased simultaneously after 40 days (1:181-82). The fact of the resurrection remains intact. Either the writers of the New Testament or the witnesses must be impeached, but they stand.
Why Christianity Grew
This topic relates to the last one because if Jesus was not raised from the dead, how can anyone account for the growth of the church? Many people would cheerfully follow a military leader—especially to rebel against Rome, but how many people become devoted followers of a man who was crucified as a common criminal? People both lived and died for Jesus; why? Today’s critics of Christianity often downplay this issue, but people gave themselves up to be tortured and killed because they believed in Jesus and the resurrection. They faced wave after wave of persecution but only grew stronger in their faith. Schaff addresses the “Causes of Success.”
The number of Christians in the first century may have reached 500,000, but with some notable exceptions most congregations were small and probably not wealthy. By the time of Constantine, the number of Christians had grown from 500,000 to (despite persecution) between ten and twelve million (1:196-97). All this growth was achieved without firing a shot, engaging in a single military battle, or following the suggestions of a think tank or public relations firm. During this time thousands of Christians submitted to death. Under these adverse conditions, what can account for the great growth the church experienced?
Schaff quotes five reasons provided by historian Edward Gibbon in his six volumes of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. The reader should understand that Gibbon was critical of Christianity; thus, his reasons prove to be interesting. According to him, the reasons for growth were:
- “the intolerant but enlarged religious zeal of the Christians inherited from the Jews”
- “the doctrine of the immortality of the soul, concerning which the ancient philosophers had but vague and dreamy ideas”
- “the miraculous power attributed to the primitive church”
- “the purer but austere morality of the first Christians”
- “The unity and discipline of the church….”
The author adds: “But every one of these causes, properly understood, points to the superior excellency and to the divine origin of the Christian religion, and this is the chief cause, which the Deistic historian omits” (1:197-98).
The first of these is interesting. Gibbon calls the zeal of Christians intolerant. Why? Because they stand up for what they believe in? Because they insist that they know the truth? Because they are evangelistic? None of these are forms of intolerances. However, putting Christians to death for their beliefs actually was intolerant. It began with Stephen (Acts 7:1-8:4).
What did Gibbon mean about Christians inheriting zeal from the Jews? The Pharisees were quite zealous over their traditions, but Christians were not imitating that. True, they were also zealous of the Law of Moses, but they did not hesitate to violate it in order to kill Jesus. The Sadducees were scarcely zealous over anything. The zealots’ enthusiasm was all directed in a political way. The best zeal Israel had ever shown was in the days of Joshua, when they were careful to keep God’s Law. The reigns of Hezekiah and Josiah also saw a high measure of zeal, but it was not as thorough as in Joshua’s time as evidenced by how fast the mood of the country changed upon Josiah’s death.
But whatever Gibbon was referring to, Christians did not inherit it from the Jews; they received it from the same source. One cannot expect human beings to hear and know the truth and fail to be excited about it, especially when it concerns such wonderful issues as forgiveness of sins and eternal life, which brings us to the second point.
Christianity is neither vague nor dreamy. The soul, upon death, resides in the Hadean realm—either in the blessed side known as Paradise or Abraham’s bosom or the side of torment. After the Judgment Day, Christians will be rewarded, and the ungodly will be cast into the lake of fire. These are specific.
Jesus did miracles, and His followers also had the ability to heal the sick and raise the dead. Specific instances are provided in the Scriptures in which Peter and Paul both did such amazing things. When the apostles laid their hands on Christians, they too had spiritual gifts which were exercised in the church. The power they possessed was not merely alleged or attributed to them; they actually had and used such abilities. Of course such things as speaking in tongues, prophecy, and healing illnesses could not go unnoticed. People were drawn initially to examine Christianity because of these special powers.
The reason that many people start something new relates to what they can get out of it. Why do youngsters desire to be movie stars, great athletes, or politicians? Often it is about sexual opportunities, money, fame, or power. Christians did not receive anything akin to those things. Apart from a man and a woman being married to each other, sexual relationships are forbidden. The desire for wealth was condemned (Luke 12:15-20). Earthly fame does not generally accrue to one striving to please God. As for power over others, Christians are taught to walk humbly before their fellow man.
Unity did exist in the beginning (Acts 2:42-47) and could today, also, if men would follow the same teachings as the first Christians. God exercised the first discipline with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1-12), but the church was commanded to exclude those who practiced sin (1 Cor. 5). As Schaff pointed out, people believed these truths because they were convinced that these teachings came not from men—but God.
THE HOMOSEXUAL WHOPPER
Marvin Weir
As one can see on the rainbow colored wrapper, this special burger is called, “The Proud Whopper.” Although it was sold only at a Burger King in San Francisco, it was planned and sanctioned by the company. The wrapper also contained this inscription: “We are all the same inside.” Gag! It is enough to make a normal person lose his appetite!
The senior vice president of global brand management for Burger King said, “It shows how we, as a brand, believe in self-expression.” A two minute video depicting “the proud whopper” is to be shown on the You Tube channel. The VP went on to say, “The inspiration behind the unusual burger wrap and video is Burger King’s localized efforts to put into motion actions that support its recently-tweaked slogan, ‘Be Your Way.’”
Burger King was a sponsor of San Francisco’s gay pride parade. All Proud Whopper sandwich sales, according to the company’s VP, “will be donated to the Burger King McLamore Foundation for scholarships benefiting LGBT high school seniors graduating in spring 2015.”
One homosexual activist sings praises to Burger King in saying, “Whenever a company comes out in support of gay people, it makes a difference. But when it’s done right—when it’s done with a campaign that shows the company understands diversity and really believes in the profound acceptance of other people—that sort of marketing can change minds and hearts at the deepest level.”
That’s it, folks! Sodomites know that companies can make a difference. Companies realize they can jump on the bandwagon and make a difference. Doesn’t it sound nice? It is about changing minds and hearts to accept other people! The truth is, none of these campaigns are about accepting red, brown, yellow, black, white, male and female as human beings. It is all about conditioning and forcing everyone to accept abominable, sinful, and ungodly behavior as a normal and wonderful thing!
Do the activists and companies who support homo-sexuality truly believe in equality and the “Be Your Way” slogan? Why do these companies not create a special wrapper praising Christianity and godly morals? Can you imagine the media rage and public outcry from those bereft of morals if a company did such? No, it is not about acceptance of others as human beings—it is about accep-tance of sodomy and sin!
Nothing is more destructive to humanity than the accep-tance and practice in morality of anti-God and self-centered slogans like “have it your way” and “if it feels good, it must be right!”
Feeling good while living in sin does not make it right (Prov. 14:12; Rom. 6:23; 1 Cor. 6:9-10; Gal. 5:19-21)! Choose God’s way — not man’s (John 14:6)!
[Source: Burger King & ETUSA article by Bruce Horo-vitz]. [This article by Marvin Weir was published in The Reno Record on July 20, 2014. All of this information can be verified on the Internet.]