Hi Birch , and you are probably right , why ask since you have no evidence that Paul and the 12 taught the same good news .
Especially , since Gal 2:7 and Acts 21:21 show a difference , and am sorry that I am pushing , you for it is not personal .
I know that you know my stance , since we are on some sites together ,an will back off you , dan p
Dan, there is no need to back off, that is not what I meant. I asked why you were asking me for evidence because you are the one who said that Paul preached a different message than the 12 and you haven't given the evidence of this. There is no need for me to supply evidence since you haven't proven your point. However, the other day I was preparing for a class and was reading some material. I came across a section from the writings of Tertullian, he was arguing against a heresy of his day and this particular group while different from dispensationalism in some ways did make the same claim that you are, that Paul preached a different message. Tertullian argued against his claim, here is the argument, this proves that the early church didn't buy that argument either.
CHAPTER XX
CHRIST FIRST DELIVERED THE FAITH. THE APOSTLES SPREAD IT; THEY FOUNDED
CHURCHES AS THE DEPOSITORIES THEREOF. THAT FAITH, THEREFORE, IS APOSTOLIC,
WHICH DESCENDED FROM THE APOSTLES,
THROUGH APOSTOLIC CHURCHES
"Christ Jesus our Lord (may He bear with me a moment in thus expressing
myself!), whosoever He is, of what God soever He is the Son, of what substance
soever He is man and God, of what faith soever He is the teacher, of what
reward soever He is the Promiser, did, whilst He lived on earth, Himself declare
what He was, what He had been, what the Father’s will was which He was
administering, what the duty of man was which He was prescribing; (and this
declaration He made,) either openly to the people, or privately to His disciples,
of whom He had chosen the twelve chief ones to be at His side, and whom He
destined to be the teachers of the nations. Accordingly, after one of these had
been struck off, He commanded the eleven others, on His departure to the
Father, to “go and teach all nations, who were to be baptized into the Father,
and into the Son, and into the Holy Ghost.” Immediately, therefore, so did the
apostles, whom this designation indicates as “the sent.” Having, on the authority
of a prophecy, which occurs in a psalm of David, chosen Matthias by lot as the
twelfth, into the place of Judas, they obtained the promised power of the Holy
Ghost for the gift of miracles and of utterance; and after first bearing witness to
the faith in Jesus Christ throughout Judaea, and founding churches (there), they
next went forth into the world and preached the same doctrine of the same
faith to the nations. They then in like manner founded churches in every city,
from which all the other churches, one after another, derived the tradition of the
faith, and the seeds of doctrine, and are every day deriving them, that they
may become churches. Indeed, it is on this account only that they will be able
to deem themselves apostolic, as being the offspring of apostolic churches.
Every sort of thing must necessarily revert to its original for its classification.
Therefore the churches, although they are so many and so great, comprise but
the one primitive church, (founded) by the apostles, from which they all (spring).
In this way all are primitive, and all are apostolic, whilst they are all proved to be
one, in (unbroken) unity, by their peaceful communion, and title of brotherhood,
and bond of hospitality, — privileges which no other rule directs than the one
tradition of the selfsame mystery."
CHAPTER XXI
ALL DOCTRINE TRUE WHICH COMES THROUGH THE CHURCH FROM THE APOSTLES,
WHO WERE TAUGHT BY GOD THROUGH CHRIST. ALL OPINION WHICH HAS NO
SUCH DIVINE ORIGIN AND APOSTOLIC TRADITION TO SHOW, IS IPSO FACTO FALSE
"From this, therefore, do we draw up our rule. Since the Lord Jesus Christ sent the
apostles to preach, (our rule is) that no others ought to be received as
preachers than those whom Christ appointed; for “no man knoweth the Father
save the Son, and he to whomsoever the Son will reveal Him.” Nor does the Son
seem to have revealed Him to any other than the apostles, whom He sent forth
to preach — that, of course, which He revealed to them. Now, what that was
which they preached — in other words, what it was which Christ revealed to
them — can, as I must here likewise prescribe, properly be proved in no other
way than by those very churches which the apostles founded in person, by
declaring the gospel to them directly themselves, both via voce [voice], as the
phrase is, and subsequently by their epistles. If, then, these things are so, it is in
the same degree manifest that all doctrine which agrees with the apostolic
churches — those molds and original sources of the faith must be reckoned for
truth, as undoubtedly containing that which the (said) churches received from
the apostles, the apostles from Christ, Christ from God. Whereas all doctrine must
be prejudged as false which savors of contrariety to the truth of the churches
and apostles of Christ and God. It remains, then, that we demonstrate whether
this doctrine of ours, of which we have now given the rule, has its origin in the
tradition of the apostles, and whether all other doctrines do not ipso facto
proceed from falsehood. We hold communion with the apostolic churches
because our doctrine is in no respect different from theirs. This is our witness of
truth."
CHAPTER XXII
ATTEMPT TO INVALIDATE THIS RULE OF FAITH REBUTTED. THE APOSTLES SAFE
TRANSMITTERS OF THE TRUTH. SUFFICIENTLY TAUGHT AT FIRST, AND FAITHFUL IN THE
TRANSMISSION
"But inasmuch as the proof is so near at hand, that if it were at once produced
there would be nothing left to be dealt with, let us give way for a while to the
opposite side, if they think that they can find some means of invalidating this
rule, just as if no proof were forthcoming from us. They usually tell us that the
apostles did not know all things: (but herein) they are impelled by the same
madness, whereby they turn round to the very opposite point, and declare that
the apostles certainly knew all things, but did not deliver all things to all persons,
— in either case exposing Christ to blame for having sent forth apostles who had
either too much ignorance, or too little simplicity. What man, then, of sound
mind can possibly suppose that they were ignorant of anything, whom the Lord
ordained to be masters (or teachers), keeping them, as He did, inseparable
(from Himself) in their attendance, in their discipleship, in their society, to whom,
“when they were alone, He used to expound” all things which were obscure,
telling them that “to them it was given to know those mysteries,” which it was
not permitted the people to understand? Was anything withheld from the
knowledge of Peter, who is called “the rock on which the church should be
built,” who also obtained “the keys of the kingdom of heaven,”with the power
of “loosing and binding in heaven and on earth?” Was anything, again,
concealed from John, the Lord’s most beloved disciple, who used to lean on His
breast to whom alone the Lord pointed Judas out as the traitor, whom He
commended to Mary as a son in His own stead? Of what could He have meant
those to be ignorant, to whom He even exhibited His own glory with Moses and
Elias, and the Father’s voice moreover, from heaven? Not as if He thus
disapproved of all the rest, but because “by three witnesses must every word be
established.” After the same fashion, too, (I suppose,) were they ignorant to
whom, after His resurrection also, He vouchsafed, as they were journeying
together, “to expound all the Scriptures.” No doubt He had once said, “I have
yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot hear them now;” but even then
He added, “When He, the Spirit of truth, shall come, He will lead you into all
truth.” He (thus) shows that there was nothing of which they were ignorant, to
whom He had promised the future attainment of all truth by help of the Spirit of
truth. And assuredly He fulfilled His promise, since it is proved in the Acts of the
Apostles that the Holy Ghost did come down. Now they who reject that
Scripture can neither belong to the Holy Spirit, seeing that they cannot
acknowledge that the Holy Ghost has been sent as yet to the disciples, nor can
they presume to claim to be a church themselves who positively have no means
of proving when, and with what swaddling-clothes this body was established. Of
so much importance is it to them not to have any proofs for the things which
they maintain, lest along with them there be introduced damaging exposures of
those things which they mendaciously devise."
CHAPTER XXIII
THE APOSTLES NOT IGNORANT. THE HERETICAL PRETENSE OF ST. PETER’S
IMPERFECTION BECAUSE HE WAS REBUKED BY ST. PAUL. ST. PETER NOT REBUKED
FOR ERROR IN TEACHING
"Now, with the view of branding the apostles with some mark of ignorance, they
put forth the case of Peter and them that were with him having been rebuked
by Paul. “Something therefore,” they say, “was wanting in them.” (This they
allege,) in order that they may from this construct that other position of theirs,
that a fuller knowledge may possibly have afterwards come over (the apostles,)
such as fell to the share of Paul when he rebuked those who preceded him. I
may here say to those who reject The Acts of the Apostles: “It is first necessary
that you shows us who this Paul was, — both what he was before he was an
apostle, and how he became an apostle,” — so very great is the use which they
make of him in respect of other questions also. It is true that he tells us himself
that he was a persecutor before he became an apostle, still this is not enough
for any man who examines before he believes, since even the Lord Himself did
not bear witness of Himself. But let them believe without the Scriptures, if their
object is to believe contrary to the Scriptures. Still they should show, from the
circumstance which they allege of Peter’s being rebuked by Paul, that Paul
added yet another form of the gospel besides that which Peter and the rest had
previously set forth. But the fact is, having been converted from a persecutor to
a preacher, he is introduced as one of the brethren to brethren, by brethren —
to them, indeed, by men who had put on faith from the apostles’ hands.
Afterwards, as he himself narrates, he “went up to Jerusalem for the purpose of
seeing Peter,” because of his office, no doubt, and by right of a common belief
and preaching. Now they certainly would not have been surprised at his having
become a preacher instead of a persecutor, if his preaching were of something
contrary; nor, moreover, would they have “glorified the Lord,” because Paul
had presented himself as an adversary to Him They accordingly even gave him
“the right hand of fellowship,” as a sign of their agreement with him, and
arranged amongst themselves a distribution of office, not a diversity of gospel,
so that they should severally preach not a different gospel, but (the same), to
different persons, Peter to the circumcision, Paul to the Gentiles. Forasmuch,
then, as Peter was rebuked because, after he had lived with the Gentiles, he
proceeded to separate himself from their company out of respect for persons,
the fault surely was one of conversation, not of preaching. For it does not
appear from this, that any other God than the Creator, or any other Christ than
(the son) of Mary, or any other hope than the resurrection, was (by him)
announced."
CHAPTER XXIV
ST. PETER’S FURTHER VINDICATION. ST. PAUL NOT SUPERIOR TO ST. PETER IN
TEACHING. NOTHING IMPARTED TO THE FORMER IN THE THIRD HEAVEN ENABLED
HIM TO ADD TO THE FAITH. HERETICS BOAST AS IF FAVORED WITH SOME OF THE
SECRETS IMPARTED TO HIM
"I have not the good fortune, or, as I must rather say, I have not the unenviable
task, of setting apostles by the ears. But, inasmuch as our very perverse cavilers
obtrude the rebuke in question for the set purpose of bringing the earlier
doctrine into suspicion, I will put in a defense, as it were, for Peter, to the effect
that even Paul said that he was “made all things to all men — to the Jews a
Jew,” to those who were not Jews as one who was not a Jew — “that he might
gain all.” Therefore it was according to times and persons and causes that they
used to censure certain practices, which they would not hesitate themselves to
pursue, in like conformity to times and persons and causes. Just (e.g.) as if Peter
too had censured Paul, because, whilst for-bidding circumcision, he actually
circumcised Timothy himself. Never mind those who pass sentence on apostles!
It is a happy fact that Peter is on the same level with Paul in the very glory of
martyrdom. Now, although Paul was carried away even to the third heaven,
and was caught up to paradise, and heard certain revelations there, yet these
cannot possibly seem to have qualified him for (teaching) another doctrine,
seeing that their very nature was such as to render them communicable to no
human being. If, however, that unspeakable mystery did leak out, and become
known to any man, and if any heresy affirms that it does itself follow the same,
(then) either Paul must be charged with having betrayed the secret, or some
other man must actually be shown to have been afterwards “caught up into
paradise,” who had permission to speak out plainly what Paul was not allowed
(even) to mutter."
CHAPTER XXV
THE APOSTLES DID NOT KEEP BACK ANY OF THE DEPOSIT OF DOCTRINE WHICH
CHRIST HAD ENTRUSTED TO THEM. ST. PAUL OPENLY COMMITTED HIS WHOLE
DOCTRINE TO TIMOTHY
"But here is, as we have said, the same madness, in their allowing indeed that
the apostles were ignorant of nothing, and preached not any (doctrines) which
contradicted one another, but at the same time insisting that they did not
reveal all to all men, for that they proclaimed some openly and to all the world,
whilst they disclosed others (only) in secret and to a few, because Paul
addressed even this expression to Timothy: “O Timothy, guard that which is
entrusted to thee;” and again: “That good thing which was committed unto
thee keep.” What is this deposit? Is it so secret as to be supposed to characterize
a new doctrine? or is it a part of that charge of which he says, “This charge I
commit unto thee, son Timothy?” and also of that precept of which he says, “I
charge thee in the sight of God, who quickeneth all things, and before Jesus
Christ who witnessed a good confession under Pontius Pilate, that thou keep this
commandment?” Now, what is (this) commandment and what is (this) charge?
From the preceding and the succeeding contexts, it will be manifest that there is
no mysterious hint darkly suggested in this expression about (some) far-fetched
doctrine, but that a warning is rather given against receiving any other
(doctrine) than that which Timothy had heard from himself, as I take it publicly:
“Before many witnesses” is his phrase. Now, if they refuse to allow that the
church is meant by these “many witnesses,” it matters nothing, since nothing
could have been secret which was produced “before many witnesses.” Nor,
again, must the circumstance of his having wished him to “commit these things
to faithful men, who should be able to teach others also,” be construed into a
proof of there being some occult gospel. For, when he says “these things,” he
refers to the things of which he is writing at the moment. In reference, however,
to occult subjects, he would have called them, as being absent, those things,
not these things, to one who had a joint knowledge of them with himself."
CHAPTER XXVI
THE APOSTLES DID IN ALL CASES TEACH THE WHOLE TRUTH TO THE WHOLE
CHURCH. NO RESERVATION, NOR PARTIAL COMMUNICATION TO FAVORITE
FRIENDS
"Besides which, it must have followed, that, for the man to whom he committed
the ministration of the gospel, he would add the injunction that it be not
ministered in all places, and without respect to persons, in accordance with the
Lord’s saying, “Not to cast one’s pearls before swine, nor that which is holy unto
dogs.” Openly did the Lord speak, without any intimation of a hidden mystery.
He had Himself commanded that, “whatsoever they had heard in darkness”
and in secret, they should “declare in the light and on the house-tops.” He had
Himself fore-shown, by means of a parable, that they should not keep back in
secret, fruitless of interest, a single pound, that is, one word of His. He used
Himself to tell them that a candle was not usually “pushed away under a bushel,
but placed on a candlestick,” in order to “give light to all who are in the house.”
These things the apostles either neglected, or failed to understand, if they
fulfilled them not, by concealing any portion of the light, that is, of the word of
God and the mystery of Christ. Of no man, I am quite sure, were they afraid, —
neither of Jews nor of Gentiles in their violence; with all the greater freedom,
then, would they certainly preach in the church, who held not their tongue in
synagogues and public places. Indeed they would have found it impossible
either to convert Jews or to bring in Gentiles, unless they “set forth in order” that
which they would have them believe. Much less, when churches were
advanced in the faith, would they have withdrawn from them anything for the
purpose of committing it separately to some few others. Although, even
supposing that among intimate friends, so to speak, they did hold certain
discussions, yet it is incredible that these could have been such as to bring in
some other rule of faith, differing from and contrary to that which they were
proclaiming through the Catholic churches, — as if they spoke of one God in
the Church, (and) another at home, and described one substance of Christ,
publicly, (and) another secretly, and announced one hope of the resurrection
before all men, (and) another before the few; although they themselves, in their
epistles, besought men that they would all speak one and the same thing, and
that there should be no divisions and dissensions in the church, seeing that they,
whether Paul or others, preached the same things. Moreover, they remembered
the words): “Let your communication be yea, yea; nay, nay; for whatsoever is
more than this cometh of evil;” so that they were not to handle the gospel in a
diversity of treatment."
CHAPTER XXVII
GRANTED THAT THE APOSTLES TRANSMITTED THE WHOLE DOCTRINE OF TRUTH,
MAY NOT THE CHURCHES HAVE BEEN UNFAITHFUL IN HANDING IT ON?
INCONCEIVABLE THAT THIS CAN HAVE BEEN THE CASE
"Since, therefore, it is incredible that the apostles were either ignorant of the
whole scope of the message which they had to declare, or failed to make
known to all men the entire rule of faith, let us see whether, while the apostles
proclaimed it, perhaps, simply and fully, the churches, through their own fault,
set it forth otherwise than the apostles had done. All these suggestions of distrust
you may find put forward by the heretics. They bear in mind how the churches
were rebuked by the apostle: “O foolish Galatians, who hath bewitched you?”
and, “Ye did run so well; who hath hindered you?” and how the epistle actually
begins: “I marvel that ye are so soon removed from Him, who hath called you as
His own in grace, to another gospel.” That they likewise (remember), what was
written to the Corinthians, that they “were yet carnal,” who “required to be fed
with milk,” being as yet “unable to bear strong meat;” who also “thought that
they knew somewhat, whereas they knew not yet anything, as they ought to
know.” When they raise the objection that the churches were rebuked, let them
suppose that they were also corrected; let them also remember those
(churches), concerning whose faith and knowledge and conversation the
apostle “rejoices and gives thanks to God,” which nevertheless even at this day,
unite with those which were rebuked in the privileges of one and the same
institution."
CHAPTER XXVIII
THE ONE TRADITION OF THE FAITH, WHICH IS SUBSTANTIALLY ALIKE IN THE
CHURCHES EVERYWHERE, A GOOD PROOF THAT THE TRANSMISSION HAS BEEN
TRUE AND HONEST IN THE MAIN
"Grant, then, that all have erred; that the apostle was mistaken in giving his
testimony; that the Holy Ghost had no such respect to any one (church) as to
lead it into truth, although sent with this view by Christ, and for this asked of the
Father that He might be the teacher of truth; grant, also, that He, the Steward of
God, the Vicar of Christ1, neglected His office, permitting the churches for a time
to understand differently, (and) to believe differently, what He Himself was
preaching by the apostles, — is it likely that so many churches, and they so
great, should have gone astray into one and the same faith? No casualty
distributed among many men issues in one and the same result. Error of doctrine
in the churches must necessarily have produced various issues. When, however,
that which is deposited among many is found to be one and the same, it is not
the result of error, but of tradition. Can any one, then, be reckless enough to say
that they were in error who handed on the tradition?"
CHAPTER XXIX
THE TRUTH NOT INDEBTED TO THE CARE OF THE HERETICS; IT HAD FREE COURSE
BEFORE THEY APPEARED. PRIORITY OF THE CHURCH’S DOCTRINE A MARK OF ITS
TRUTH
"In whatever manner error came, it reigned of course only as long as there was
an absence of heresies? Truth had to wait for certain Marcionites and
Valentinians to set it free. During the interval the gospel was wrongly preached;
men wrongly believed; so many thousands were wrongly baptized; so many
works of faith were wrongly wrought; so many miraculous gifts, so many spiritual
endowments, were wrongly set in operation; so many priestly functions, so many
ministries, were wrongly executed; and, to sum up the whole, so many martyrs
wrongly received their crowns! Else, if not wrongly done, and to no purpose, how
comes it to pass that the things of God were on their course before it was known
to what God they belonged? that there were Christians before Christ was
found? that there were heresies before true doctrine? Not so; for in all cases
truth precedes its copy, the likeness succeeds the reality. Absurd enough,
however, is it, that heresy should be deemed to have preceded its own prior
doctrine, even on this account, because it is that (doctrine) itself which foretold
that there should be heresies against which men would have to guard! To a
church which possessed this doctrine, it was written — yea, the doctrine itself
writes to its own church — “Though an angel from heaven preach any other
gospel than that which we have preached, let him be accursed.”"
