New evidence confirms Diodore of Tarsus split from Eusebius of Emesa on how grace is obtained

Jerome, however, was right that they do not have the same style.

Jerome wrote of Diodorus of Tarsus and his teacher, Eusebius of Emesa, in his De Viris Illustribus (Latin for On Illustrious Men).

"91. Eusebius of Emesa

Eusebius of Emesa, who had fine rhetorical talent, composed innumerable works suited to win popular applause, and writing historically he is most diligently read by those who practise public speaking. Among these the chief are, Against Jews, Gentiles and Novatians and Homilies on the Gospels, brief but numerous. He flourished in the reign of the emperor Constantius in whose reign he died, and was buried at Antioch." - Jerome

"119. Diodorus

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." - Jerome

Jerome writes that he followed the meaning of Eusebius of Emesa, but this is not true.

Diodorus of Tarsus taught this is how grace is obtained.

"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

Eusebius of Emesa taught this is how grace is obtained.

eusebe d'emese discours conserves en latin by e.m. buytaert, o.f.m. Discourse VI (De Martyribus), section 23 and some section 30. https://archive.org/details/bwb_S0-BYA-252_1

[23] Cum autem insanirent accipitres quia evolarunt palumbae, et pater productus apportaretur, invigilabat diabolus, quaerens iterum mulierem decipere. Isti, post multa quae in medio acta sunt, mittuntur qui caperent fugientes. Inveniunt matrem cum filiabus et comprehenderunt, ut putabant. Parabantur autem viri ad corruptelam; quam ut perficerent non sunt perpessae. Comprehensae itaque adducebantur mater et filiae. Timor erat ecclesiae: non enim latuit quod factum est. Mater ergo in sollicitudine, filiae in discrimine erant. Terrebat enim naturam diabolus in laetitiam, et qui eius erant participes parabant libidinis corruptelam, ut diu peccata fruerentur. Sanctae autem adducebantur, noctibus quidem ad orationem vigilantes, per dies autem non cessantes.

Cum igitur venissent ad quemdam locum, ubi fluvius habebatur, viderunt aquam et memores fuerunt aquae; viderunt aquam et memores factae sunt placiti. Et dixit mater ad filias, secundum vocem boni illius eunuchi:

« Filiae, ecce aqua: quis prohibet nos coronari? Haec est aqua per quam liberatae sumus a peccatis. Reddamus ei qui donavit. Gratiam per aquam accepimus: sit gratia pro gratia. Per aquam salvatae sumus; per aquam et coronemur. Non sustineamus impiorum manus, non carnificum gladios. »

[30] Apportatae igitur sunt et adductae illae sanctae mater et filiae; et, quia viderunt aquam, quia viderunt scalam, intuitae sunt et ascensionem ad caelum.

« Gratiam, inquiunt, debemus in aqua; pro baptismo gratiam reddamus, immo gratiam iterum accipiamus per aquam. »

Per noctem enim vigilantes forti animo et orantes ad Deum et solventes illam quaestionem et invocantes Dominum, petebant si licitum est et ita martyrium ferre. Scimus autem eum et antequam invocemus dicere: Ecce ego adsum. Ego ergo puto et credo quia revelatum est eis quo more uti deberent martyrio. Sed nullus hoc audivit, quia nec prodiderunt sacramentum Domini, quod revelatum est eis.

[23] But when the hawks (the persecutors) were raging because the doves had flown away, and the father (the devil) was brought forward, the devil kept watch, seeking again to deceive the woman. Those men, after many things had been done in the meantime, were sent to capture the fugitives. They found the mother with her daughters and arrested them, as they thought. The men were being prepared for corruption; however, they did not allow this to be accomplished. So, being arrested, the mother and daughters were brought in. There was fear in the church: for what had happened was not hidden. Therefore the mother was in anxiety, the daughters in danger. For the devil was terrifying their nature for his own pleasure, and those who were his accomplices were preparing the corruption of lust, so that they might long enjoy their sins. But the holy women were being brought in, keeping watch at night for prayer, and not ceasing during the days.

When they came to a certain place where there was a river, they saw the water and remembered the water; they saw the water and remembered the covenant. And the mother said to her daughters, following the voice of that good eunuch (the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8):

"Daughters, behold the water: who forbids us to be crowned? This is the water through which we have been freed from sins. Let us repay Him who gave. We have received grace through water: let there be grace for grace. Through water we are saved; through water let us also be crowned. Let us not endure the hands of the impious, nor the swords of the executioners.

[30] Therefore, those holy women, the mother and her daughters, were brought and led forth; and when they saw the water, when they saw the ladder (or "a stairway," i.e., the riverbank), they gazed upon it and upon the ascent to heaven.

"We owe a debt of grace," they said, "in the water; for baptism let us return grace; nay rather, let us receive grace again through water."

For throughout the night, they kept watch with strong resolve, praying to God and resolving that question, and calling upon the Lord, asking whether it was permissible to bear martyrdom in this way. But we know that He says, even before we call, "Behold, I am here." Therefore, I think and believe that it was revealed to them in what manner they should undergo martyrdom. But no one heard this, because they did not betray the sacrament of the Lord that was revealed to them.

What is most interesting is how Diodorus of Tarsus acquired this view.

He did not fully abandon water baptismal regeneration; however, he says that the grace is obtained through asking and praying, and he seems to have tried to synthesize a petitionary view of grace being obtained and the water baptismal view that post-baptismal sins are dangerous.

"What kind of sin will not have dominion? That which was before baptism, which the grace of Christ (obtained through asking and praying) forgives." - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 6:12-14

"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

If you don't understand how that contradicts, it's all good in the hood.

The standard baseline teaching is that grace is obtained through baptism, that is why post-baptismal sins are so dangerous. You can only be baptized once, and only receive grace once.

Constantine was afraid of sinning after baptism, so he refused to be baptized till his death bed.

But, Diodorus of Tarsus puts the receiving of grace through praying and asking, which means there is no difference pre-baptismal sins and post-baptismal sins because you didn't get grace through baptism.

Yet, he frames post-baptismal sins as still dangerous despite grace being obtained specifically through praying and asking.

So, then, Diodorus of Tarsus was attempting to synthesize two views: one of a petitionary way to be given grace, and one of post-baptismal sins being dangerous.

Of course, it is unsure whether Diodore of Tarsus's view on the petitionary way is solely his invention, or a view held in 4th-century Asia Minor.

In the 4th century, we have the forgeries of the long recension of Ignatius of Antioch, which were additions by a person to Ignatius's writing.

In that, we have this.

"It is better for a man to be silent and be [a Christian], than to talk and not to be one. 'The kingdom of God is not in word, but in power.' Men 'believe with the heart, and confess with the mouth,' the one 'unto righteousness,' the other 'unto salvation.'"

So, a person holding two conditions of Romans 10 soteriology, such as Diodore taught, was not a unicorn or black swan. We do not have any other writings on that, however, that is the other instance.

Of course, the 4th century forgery itself doesn't show a petitionary view on salvation. It simply shows a two conditions. The million dollar question is if the 4th century forgery meant confession or profession, as my brother in Christ Ed Carson would like to say.

I have to thank him for distinguish those two things.

At the very least, it shows that people as early as the 4th century held to Romans 10 as containing two soteriological conditions for salvation, which means it is not a modern-day or 19th-century invention.