Diodorus of Tarsus's contradictory views on Baptismal regeneration and asking God for grace reveal a deeper matter

I discovered he had rather contradictory views on Baptismal regeneration.

His beliefs on the Baptismal regeneration is rather contradictory.

“What kind of sin will not have dominion? That which was before baptism, which the grace of Christ forgives” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 6:12-14

How is the grace of Christ given to a sinner according to Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus? Asking and praying for it.

“Necessarily he set forth ‘those who call upon him.’ For God does not give grace without discernment, extending it even to those who are unwilling to offer so much to the Benefactor as at least to ask and pray with him. And lest anyone say that many fail to call upon the Lord Jesus out of ignorance rather than unbelief and ingratitude, he shows through what follows that God took away even the excuse of their ignorance, sending evangelists and heralds who urge and invite them to ask for the gift. Therefore he added what follows.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 10:11-13.

So, if your sins before baptism are forgiven by the grace of Christ, which is given to you by asking and praying, not by being baptized, why do pre-baptism or post-baptism sins matter? You’re given grace according to Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus, by asking and praying, not by being baptized.

“Because of this [only being able to be baptized a single time] we must live more safely.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 6:9-11

Logically, there is no difference between pre-baptism and post-baptism sins. I feel convicted to re-state what I have said, as I believe this might go over some people’s heads.

“For God does not give grace without discernment, extending it even to those who are unwilling to offer so much to the Benefactor as at least to ask and pray with him.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 10:11

“What kind of sin will not have dominion? That which was before baptism, which the grace of Christ forgives” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 6:12-14

So, we have established that grace is given by asking and praying to God, and pre-baptism sin is forgiven by the grace of Christ, which is achieved by asking and praying to God. He then links post-baptism sins to being dangerous and living carefully after baptism, despite his theology dictating that grace is given by asking and praying to God, and not water baptism. “which the grace of Christ forgives” is in reference to the grace given in asking and praying to God, and not water baptism. His views contradict.

His views on baptism are very contradictory, and underdeveloped. Here is the thing, we must assume logically that whatever Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus was drawing upon was Christian interpretation, school of thought, and then he was pulled to another direction by another school of thought.

Then it is possible to infer that there was another school of thought teaching that grace is given by asking and praying. Who or what this school of thought was, or how it originated, is beyond me, aside from the fact that Diodorus of Tarsus, who studied in Athens and became a monk in Antioch, was exposed to this school of thought, and this school of thought was so important to Diodorus that he tried to blend the well-established Christian tradition of baptismal regeneration with the salvific idea of asking and praying God.

According to Jerome, he wrote of Diodorus of Tarsus.

“Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus enjoyed a great reputation while he was still presbyter of Antioch. Commentaries of his On the epistles are extant, as well as many other works in the manner of Eusebius the great of Emesa, whose meaning he has followed, but whose eloquence he could not imitate on account of his ignorance of secular literature.”

So, logically, we can see whether there was another school of thought or not by reading what Eusebius of Emesa wrote on post-baptismal sins and contrasting that with Diodorus of Tarsus. If Diodorus of Tarsus differed, then he was influenced by a different school of thought on baptism, and so there must exist a reason for his views on asking and praying God for salvation.

“Nevertheless this above all, if you had asked us, we could show from the Scriptures, namely, that there is forgiveness and remission after baptism. For it is not necessary to contradict in such a way that we may choose the easy ones: but against those things which appear to be strong, we must rise up with a contrary word. For as long as obstinacy is not removed from the mind, the patient cannot be cured. But there is no room for sweetness in things steeped in salt, so now we bring forth words from the Old Testament; let us compare what they oppose against what is said from the Old. For they say that “if you read to us something from the Old Testament about penance, before the Saviour’s passion, before that sacred blood was shed for us, we say that in the Old Testament sins were forgiven, but in the New because of the passion there will be no forgiveness.” But if we show from the New Testament that after baptism and the participation of the Spirit, that he who has sinned is called back by the grace of repentance, it is clear that there is a place for penitence even after baptism for those who have fallen away, so that what is read in the Old Testament will have strength and authority to build onto repentance.” - Eusebius of Emesa.

But hold on, I hear you saying “Isn’t that not enough proof of another school of thought for a petitionary Romans 10?”

Ay, let’s look at what a western presbyter contemporary wrote on Romans 10.

“Because if you confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. 10:10 For one believes with the heart unto righteousness, but confession is made with the mouth unto salvation. Everything the apostle discussed above he has stated clearly here, namely, that this is the rule of faith: to believe that Jesus is Lord and not to be ashamed to profess that God raised him from the dead and led him in bodily form17 into heaven, from which he had come to be in an incarnate form.18 With this rule of faith one is preserved from the censure of the gospel: Many of the rulers believed in Jesus, but they did not profess this openly on account of the Jews; for they preferred the praise of people to the praise of God (John 12:42–43).” Ambrosiaster, 4th-century Western presbyter, Romans commentary.

As my Brother in Christ, Ed Carson has said. There is a difference between confession and profession.

Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus taught confession not profession.

“Necessarily he set forth ‘those who call upon him.’ For God does not give grace without discernment, extending it even to those who are unwilling to offer so much to the Benefactor as at least to ask and pray with him. And lest anyone say that many fail to call upon the Lord Jesus out of ignorance rather than unbelief and ingratitude, he shows through what follows that God took away even the excuse of their ignorance, sending evangelists and heralds who urge and invite them to ask for the gift. Therefore he added what follows.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 10:11-13.

He did teach baptismal profession, but that is not the same as logically not the same as “as at least to ask and pray with him.”

“What then shall we say?” he says. “Shall we continue in sin, so that grace may increase? By no means.” He added “By no means” safely. For those who sin maliciously are not worthy of forgiveness, but those who through carelessness and inattention receive the schemes of the devil, these are just to be pitied by God. “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Since those who are baptized confess that they have died to the world and renounced sin and the devil.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 6:1-4

Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus, taught a unique view on Romans 10 that is confession and not profession.

He abandoned his teacher’s views Eusebius of Emesa on post-baptismal sins being forgiven for a harsher view that post-baptismal sins could not be forgiven, yet in this process, he mixed another school of thought that taught grace was given through confession and not baptism.

“ἡ πρὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος, ἥνπερ ἀφίησιν ἡ χάρις τοῦ Χριστοῦ.”

ἡ πρὸ τοῦ βαπτίσματος = The [sin] before baptism

ἥνπερ = which

ἀφίησιν = forgives (Verb)

ἡ χάρις τοῦ Χριστοῦ = the grace of Christ (Subject)

And the school of thought that mixed confession and profession, I.E Justin Martyr is clearly different from how he taught Romans 10.

“He promised to confess before His Father those who should confess His name before men; but declared that He would deny those who should deny Him, and would be ashamed of those who should be ashamed to confess Him.” - Justin Martyr

Which leads us to the problem of this.

Diodorus of Tarsus has a view on Baptism that is harsher then Eusebius of Emesa, and is so not in the school of thought of Eusebius of Emesa, but yet does not directly teach baptismal regeneration the school of thought of Justin Martyr, and teaches rather that pre-baptismal sins are forgiven by the grace of Christ YET he teaches that post-baptismal sins are more dangerous despite grace according to being given by asking and praying God.

The asking and praying of God is different from what Justin Martyr and Ambrosiaster taught that Romans 10 meant profession and not confession. And in teaching that grace is obtained through asking and praying, and not through baptismal regeneration, he has forsaken both his teacher’s views on baptism, which he abandoned, and the harsher school of thought, which he also abandoned.

Which leads us to the million dollar question of what school of thought was there, that taught grace was given through asking and praying and not Baptismal regeneration.

It is believed Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus taught universalism.

“For the wicked there are punishments, not perpetual, however, lest the immortality prepared for them should be a disadvantage, but they are to be purified for a brief period according to the amount of malice in their works. They shall therefore suffer punishment for a short space, but immortal blessedness having no end awaits them, the penalties to be inflicted for their many and grave sins are very far surpassed by the magnitude of the mercy to be showed them. The resurrection, therefore, is regarded as a blessing not only to the good, but also to the evil.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Joseph Simon Assemani’s Bibliotheca Orientalis

This is obviously the Origen school of thought on Universalism.

“For God governs the souls of men, not, if I may so speak, according to the scale of an earthly life of fifty years, but by the measure of eternity; for He has made the intellectual nature incorruptible and akin to Himself; and the rational soul is not debarred of healing, as if the present life were all.”

— The Philocalia of Origen

This is another problem, though.

Diodorus of Tarsus has become a Universalist who teaches baptismal regeneration, except he doesn’t fully, and teaches grace is given through asking, yet he teaches post-baptismal sins are a very bad thing in spite of him teaching there is effectively no difference in pre-baptismal and post-baptismal sins, as grace is obtained through asking.

The existence of another school of thought which taught that grace is obtained through asking is not random speculation, but a logical inference.

”He meant baptismal vows when he wrote asking and praying.”

He already discussed baptismal vows.

“What then shall we say?” he says. “Shall we continue in sin, so that grace may increase? By no means.” He added “By no means” safely. For those who sin maliciously are not worthy of forgiveness, but those who through carelessness and inattention receive the schemes of the devil, these are just to be pitied by God. “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Since those who are baptized confess that they have died to the world and renounced sin and the devil.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 6:1-4

This is of the Justin Martyr type, he established.

“As many as are persuaded and believe that what we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are instructed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God, the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with water.” - Justin Martyr

“You are quote mining him to support your conclusion.”

I posted a translation of his complete Romans commentary in English, and the Koine Greek. Every single passage he made about baptism is in this article.

”But perhaps he meant the asking and praying to God is during baptism.”

εὐαγγελιστὰς καὶ κήρυκας (evangelists and heralds/preachers)

ἄγνοιαν (ignorance) and ἀπιστίαν (unbelief)

προτρέποντας καὶ καλοῦντας εἰς τὴν τῆς δωρεᾶς αἴτησιν (urging and calling them to the asking/request of the gift)

αἰτῆσαι καὶ δεηθῆναι (to ask and to pray/beseech)

There is not a single water motif, a single motif indicating baptism.

“Necessarily he set forth “those who call upon him.” For God does not give grace indiscriminately, and to those who do not wish it, he does not supply it so much that they do not at least ask and pray to the benefactor. But lest anyone say that many do not call upon the Lord Jesus not because of unbelief and ingratitude but because of ignorance, he shows through what follows that God also took away the excuse of their ignorance, sending evangelists and heralds exhorting and calling them to the request for the gift. Therefore he added what follows.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 10:11-13

If Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus has the universalist views from Origen, let us see what Origen taught on Romans 10.

“But also observe what he says: “That if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that he raised him from the dead, you will be saved.” To some this will seem to mean that even if a person lacks the adornment of good works, even if he falls short in one of the virtues, he will receive justification by this title alone, from which he will not perish but would be saved and would possess salvation, even though he does not confess in a way that is worthy of God.

But consider whether instead it ought to be understood that whoever truly, and not falsely, confesses with the mouth that Jesus is Lord, is confessing Christ Jesus as his Lord. And lest he first himself be subjected to the lordship of wisdom, righteousness, truth, and as many virtues as Christ is, he is declaring mammon not to be his lord any longer, that is to say, he is no longer to be subject to worldly desires and affections, nor to the lordship of sinning. Christ Jesus is the Lord; he is declaring publicly that he is free from the power of death and the devil. And whoever believes in his heart that God raised him from the dead, it is certain that he believes this through the power of God, and believes that God will raise him up together with him, so that he is not held down by death. It should not have been raised within himself, if he were still to be subject to death.

For the words of the Apostle to us are: “The words that follow agree with this view: As the Scripture says, ‘Everyone who believes in him will not be ashamed.’” But if anyone has sins, and is subject to them, he will certainly be ashamed; and anyone who has fear and dread will say to himself, “O wretched man that I am! Who will deliver me from the body of this death?” Anyone who still sustains the shame of sin seems not to believe.” - Origen of Alexandria

Origen then taught a proto-lordship salvation, or a works adjacent view of Romans 10 that confessing purely gets the person in the process. This is very comparable to the Orthodox view of theosis/deification. There is not enough to say whether his views on Romans 10 was a profession or not, so I will not put words in his mouth.

Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus did not teach a theosis/deification, grace was obtained through asking and praying, and it was immediately received.

This is from his Psalms commentary, 1-51, pages 146-147.

“All the glory of the King’s daughter is within (v. 13). He does well to refer to her in one place as bride, in another as daughter: to bring out that the bride is not united with the bridegroom by marriage law but by the law of approval and grace, in places he calls her bride in view of the union, in other places daughter in view of baptism and rebirth. So his meaning is, The bride herself, or the King’s daughter, possesses complete glory and wealth in the privileges of soul (hinting at the gifts of soul through mention of material things).” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus

So, in the Psalms commentary, he directly defines the difference between grace and baptism, which has a tension, since grace being given through asking and praying is not baptismal regeneration. Baptismal regeneration does not separate grace and being baptized. He is obviously drawing upon two school of thoughts and attempting to harmonize/combine them.

The only instance of baptism found in the book aside from the above, in his Psalms commentary, is also on page 147.

“In the place of your fathers your sons were born (v. 16). Since the church’s fathers were Jews, but were baptized in holy baptism and beneficiaries of the grace of mission, and so became actual sons of the church, he did well to say In place of your fathers sons were born. You will set them as princes over the whole earth: these you will appoint as priests and rulers over the whole earth. He prophesies that the message will be accepted everywhere and that the apostles will rule spiritually over the whole world.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus

Notice, he separates baptism and “beneficiaries of the grace of mission”. It could be argued that he believes baptism is how grace is achieved in the Psalm, however understand the obscure in light of the clear Romans commentary.

But, here’s the matter. I apologize if I have come off certain on this without giving you this first.

This is all from Christian Worship in 4th Century Jerusalem: Premodern Wisdom for Postmodern Times Lester Ruth Asbury Theological Seminary Carrie Steenwyk Calvin Institute of Christian Worship.

Let’s analyze 4th Century Eastern Practices.

“What if in 4th-century Christianity, “asking/praying” could be part of the catechetical and baptismal process without being identical to the vows themselves?”

Diodore describes Pagans being sent evangelists to be converted. That is not what a 4th century Christianity, catechical and baptismal process did.

This is the intensive process that took place before baptism.

“46.1 Now, ladies and sisters, I want to write something which will save you from thinking all this is done without due explanation. They have here the custom that those 5 who are preparing for baptism during the season of the Lenten first go to be exorcized by the clergy first thing in the morning, directly after the morning dismissal in the Anastasis. As soon as that has taken place, the bishop’s chair is placed in the Great Church, the Martyrium, and all those to be baptized, the men and the women, sit round him in a circle. There is a place where the fathers and mothers stand, and any of the people who 10 want to listen (the faithful, of course) 2 can come in and sit down, though not Catechumens, who do not come in while the bishop is teaching. His subject is God’s Law. During the forty days he goes through the whole Bible, beginning with Genesis. First, he relates the literal meaning of each passage, and then he 15 interprets its spiritual meaning. He also teaches them at this time all the resurrection 3 and the faith. And this is called catechesis. After five weeks of teaching they receive the Creed, which he explains article by article in the same way as he explained the Scriptures, first literally and then spiritually. Thus, all the people in these parts are able to follow the Scriptures when they are read in church, since there have been teaching on all 20 the Scriptures from six to nine in 4 the morning all through Lent, three hours of catechesis a day. At ordinary services when the bishop sits and preaches, ladies and sisters, the faithful utter exclamations, but when they come and hear him explaining the catechesis, their exclamations are far louder, God is my witness; and when it is related and interpreted like this they ask 25 questions on each point. At nine o’clock they are dismissed from Catechesis, and the bishop is taken with singing straight to the Anastasis. So the dismissal is at nine, which makes three hours of teaching a day for seven weeks. But in the eighth, known as the Great Week, there is no time for them to have their teaching if they are to carry out 30 5 all the services I have described. So when seven weeks have gone by, and only the week of Easter remains, the one which people here call the Great Week, the bishop comes early into the Great Church, the Martyrium. His chair is placed at the back of the apse, behind the altar, and one by one the candidates go up to the bishop, men with their fathers and women with their mothers, 35 6 and repeat the Creed to him. When they have done so, the bishop speaks to them all as follows: “During these seven weeks you have received instruction in the whole biblical Law. You have heard about the faith and the resurrection of the body. You have also learned all you can as Catechumens of the content of the Creed. But the teaching about baptism itself is a deeper mystery, and you have not the right to hear it while you remain 40 Catechumens. Do not think it will never be explained; you will hear it all during the eight days of Easter after you have baptized. But so long as you are Catechumens you cannot be told God’s deep mysteries.” 47.1 Then Easter comes. During the eight days from Easter Day to the eighth day, after the dismissal has taken place in the church and they have come with singing into the 45 Anastasis (it does not take long to say the prayer and bless the faithful), the bishop stands leaning against the inner screen in the cave of the Anastasis 2 and interprets all that takes place in Baptism. The newly baptized come into the Anastasis, and any of the faithful who wish to hear the Mysteries. While the bishop is teaching, no Catechumen comes in, and the doors are kept shut in case any try to enter. 50 The bishop relates what has been done, and interprets it. As he does so, the applause is so loud that it can be heard outside the church. Indeed, the way he expounds the mysteries and interprets them cannot fail to move his hearers. 3 In this province there are some people who know both Greek and Syriac, but others know only one or the other. The bishop may know Syriac, but he never uses it. He 55 always speaks in Greek and has a presbyter beside him who translates the Greek into Syriac, so that everyone can understand what he means.”

Compare that to what Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus described.

“Necessarily he set forth ‘those who call upon him.’ For God does not give grace without discernment, extending it even to those who are unwilling to offer so much to the Benefactor as at least to ask and pray with him. And lest anyone say that many fail to call upon the Lord Jesus out of ignorance rather than unbelief and ingratitude, he shows through what follows that God took away even the excuse of their ignorance, sending evangelists and heralds who urge and invite them to ask for the gift. Therefore he added what follows.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 10:11-13.

That does not describe the baptismal practices of the 4th century.

“After this you were led to the holy pool of sacred baptism, just as Christ was taken from the cross to the tomb which stands before you. Then you were each asked if you believed in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. You made the saving profession of faith and three times you were immersed in the water and came up from it again.” - Cyril of Jerusalem

Notice, it is a public profession of faith, not a prayer asking God.

Nowhere in the process does Cyril of Jerusalem describe a baptized person praying and asking God for salvation.

“We experienced these things only in symbols and representations; but salvation we experienced literally. Christ was really crucified and really buried and literally rose again, and all of this he did for our sake, so that by sharing his sufferings in imitation, we might gain salvation in truth.” - Cyril of Jerusalem.

It was not standard practice in fourth-century Eastern Christianity to separate salvation and baptism. Diodorus of Tarsus separated them not in one commentary only, but in two manuscripts. And the Psalms commentary which we have is not a catena, but a long manuscript covering Psalm 1 to Psalm 51.

“Nonetheless you hear a voice telling you to stretch out your hand and say to him as if he were there before you: ‘I renounce you, Satan.’ I want to tell you why you stand facing west, for you need to know.” - Cyril of Jersualem

Diodore of Tarsus directly references this in Romans 6:1-4.

“What then shall we say?” he says. “Shall we continue in sin, so that grace may increase? By no means.” He added “By no means” safely. For those who sin maliciously are not worthy of forgiveness, but those who through carelessness and inattention receive the schemes of the devil, these are just to be pitied by God. “How shall we who died to sin still live in it?” Since those who are baptized confess that they have died to the world and renounced sin and the devil.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 6:1-4

So, Diodorus of Tarsus had direct experience and knowledge of the baptismal theology of his day, which taught salvation was premised upon baptismal regeneration.

However, Diodorus of Tarsus taught that grace and the gift of salvation is achieved by asking and praying to God. And that pre-baptismal sins are forgiven by the grace of God, I.E a person is forgiven by asking and praying to God for salvation.

These are two earlier Romans commentaries. Compare them to Diodore of Tarsus's soteriology, I am not going to form any conclusions on them.

The source is from Karl Staab's Pauluskommentare aus der griechischen Kirche, same source as the Diodorus of Tarsus's commentary.

1. Akazius of Caesarea (died 366 AD)

Romans 10:10 (p. 110; Cod. Vat. 762, f. 152v)

See, this is public profession not confession.

2. Apollinaris of Laodicea (died 382 AD)

Romans 10:4 (p. 124; Cod. Vat. 762, f. 151r)

Romans 10:14–15 (pp. 124–126; Cod. Vat. 762, ff. 154r–155r)

3. Gennadius of Constantinople (died 471 AD) (ALSO School of Antioch)

Romans 10:6–10

Romans 10:14–15

That then leads us to the conclusion.

Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus, taught that grace was achieved through asking and praying, and taught that this grace was obtained before baptism. He was, however, drawn towards a baptismal regeneration view. Yet he did not fully go through with it, as he taught that grace was given before baptism, but that post-baptismal sins were dangerous, which rejects his teacher’s view both that baptismal regeneration forgave sins and that post-baptismal sins could be forgiven, a la the old testament. He then taught the Origen school of thought of Universalism, specifically the Origen school of thought. However, he rejected Origen’s views on Romans 10, and the contemporary views on Romans 10 being a profession not a confession/prayer to God that his western contemporary Ambrosiaster taught, and that Justin Martyr taught, with whom Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus, was logically familiar.

The most logical harmonization is that there was another school of thought that Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus, believed in so strongly that it overwhelmed his harsher baptismal regeneration beliefs, and for this school of thought he forsook the beliefs of his teacher in two ways. He first forsook them to teach a harsher view of post-baptismal sins, and he then partially forsook the harsher baptismal regeneration for a soteriology where grace was given through asking and praying, not through being baptized. If it was surely an idea that came to Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus, then logically he wouldn’t have tried to harmonize either school of thought. If it was an idea he came up with, he would’ve surely seen that there were logical conclusions, as the entire school of baptismal regeneration is against the idea that grace is given by asking and praying. There is only so much you can handwave with regard to 4th-century Christian doctrine not being fully established. Men were still capable of thought and reason, and of realizing if something contradicted.

The preemptive arguments I have made, and the logical counter-arguments which can be argued against this view, are all either far more speculative than this, or they ignore what Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus, thought.