What Diodore of Tarsus taught about salvation doctrine (Diodorus of Tarsus’s salvation theology)
We find in Diodorus of Tarsus’s commentary on Romans 10:11-13.
“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, Diodorus’s theology is this.
A person has to believe, and then “to ask and pray with him,” meaning that he taught a petitionary form of salvation.
He clearly taught that the person has to admit sin; after all, he says the gift is needed due to sin.
“Instead of corresponding to the one sin of Adam, the gift was great and abundant and surpassed the sins of all by its love for mankind, which he teaches by adding: “For the judgment from one resulted in condemnation, but the gracious gift from many trespasses resulted in justification.” For he means to say that Adam’s sin was one, but nevertheless, being one, from one sin it condemned the many because they imitated Adam. But the gracious gift of the Lord was not measured against one sin, but against the sins of all, which were many. So delivering them from many trespasses, he brought them into justification. For in this is the abundance of grace, that it not only delivered from trespasses, but also guided them into righteousness.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 5:16-17
So then, he taught that the gift was obtained through asking and praying.
“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.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 10:11-13.
The second realm of study is then about his views on grace.
“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.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 10:11-13.
Is this grace Salvific? (pertaining to salvation) Absolutely.
“Instead of corresponding to the one sin of Adam, the gift was great and abundant and surpassed the sins of all by its love for mankind, which he teaches by adding: “For the judgment from one resulted in condemnation, but the gracious gift from many trespasses resulted in justification.” For he means to say that Adam’s sin was one, but nevertheless, being one, from one sin it condemned the many because they imitated Adam. But the gracious gift of the Lord was not measured against one sin, but against the sins of all, which were many. So delivering them from many trespasses, he brought them into justification. For in this is the abundance of grace, that it not only delivered from trespasses, but also guided them into righteousness.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 5:16-17
“By saying “so that it might increase,” he showed that even before the law there were trespasses and men knew they were stumbling. They did not, however, recognize everything they stumbled in as trespasses, but the law, when given, stripped them bare and showed that the things they considered lawful were more numerous. And he spoke accurately with the word “came in alongside.” For in the interval between the disobedience of Adam and the coming of the Savior, the law made an entrance into life. “But where sin increased, grace abounded all the more.” Where, then, did sin increase? Where the law was. And if the law was among the Jews, there also grace abounded all the more. For from there came the evangelists and apostles and the very head of salvation, Christ.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 5:20-21
“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
“Do not present,” he says, “your members as instruments of unrighteousness to sin,” meaning do not give instruments against yourselves to the evil one, gaining strength to sin. “For sin shall not have dominion over you, for you are not under law but under grace.” What kind of sin will not have dominion? That which was before baptism, which the grace of Christ forgives. But this the law could not do. You are not under a law that is unable to save but rather punishes.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 6:12-14
”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, Diodorus teaches a form of Baptismal regeneration. But notice this, sins before baptism is forgiven by the Grace of Christ which is received through confessing.
He did hold to a form of Baptismal regeneration, such as Martin Luther did.
“If it were possible, he says, for Christ to die two and three times for those who sin, perhaps it would be safe to run back again to the old habit of sins, having always the same hope of his lovingkindness. But if having died once he dies no more, so also we who have been buried with him and raised with him no longer die to sins. For there is no second baptism, nor a second death of Christ. Because of this we must live more safely. “For the death he died, he died to sin once for all,” that is, for the sins of men. “But the life he lives, he lives to God,” that is, he lives forever, inasmuch as he is God. So therefore you also consider yourselves to be dead to sins, but live to God, through whom you live.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 6:9-11
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 praying and asking God.
The praying and asking 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.
“From this he establishes that while the law was in force before Christ, it was not permitted to be joined to another, that is, to grace, but once the law ceased and in a way died, it is then permitted to be joined as a church to the heavenly bridegroom. For he places both the law and Christ in the position of a husband. The latter is the husband of the church, since just as a husband is the head of a wife, so Christ is of the church, and the law was formerly of the synagogue. “The law,” he says, “has dominion over a man as long as he lives.” Who lives? The law. And just as he discusses a husband and the one who lives with him, he speaks concerning it.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 7:1-3
“Not that he is ignorant of sin as being sin, he says, but instead of saying “I do not perceive how I do it and how I am secretly deceived,” as if saying, “Many times having judged to master my anger, I was defeated by myself.” However, one must know that he is not accusing himself, but is sketching the common experience of mankind in himself, declining to place the burden upon another person. For he shows that we desire virtue, but are defeated by pleasure, as many of us as are under the law, though not as many as are under grace, who have also become outside of sin because of grace.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 7:15
He said “law of the Spirit” distinguishing it from the law of the letter, meaning the life-giving grace from Christ.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 8:2
He directly defines grace as saving.
“If indeed we suffer with him,” he says, “so that we may also be glorified with him.” To suffer with someone does not indicate feeling pain together and being grieved together with the one who has suffered, according to the customary use of the word. For Christ did not suffer anything against his will, nor was he too weak if he wished to defend himself against those who grieved him. What then is it to suffer with Christ? It is choosing to endure the same sufferings which Christ, being an ambassador for the truth, endured to suffer at the hands of the Jews. If we persevere being persecuted in the same way, if we do not bear it ill when dishonored, if we are ready for death for the sake of piety as having suffered with him, we shall also be glorified together with him in becoming children of God and joint heirs with Christ. And since he said that suffering with Christ becomes the cause for us of being glorified with him, and such a thing seemed to be a wage for labors and not a gift by grace, even though the gift above all grants amnesty for past sins. Correcting this, he added that the fruit of our way of life is not measured out to us by God in proportion to our labors, but is manifold and greatly surpasses the worthiness of those who have labored. For God, being both good and just, preserves justice in the case of those who sin by repaying the one who has sinned exactly as much as the matter of the sins demands, but his goodness is displayed in the case of those who do right, not only giving them what is according to their worthiness, but also surpassing with his gifts the proportion of how they lived.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 8:17-18
Though this appears to teach a faith-plus-works theology, he later teaches in Romans 11:6 that it is not by works, and in Romans 10:11-13, he teaches that grace (which he defines as saving) is given to a sinner by asking and praying.
"The just," the justified person, "shall live by faith," even now shall he live the life which is hid with Christ in God; and if he endure unto the end, he shall live with God for ever. "But if any man draw back," saith the Lord, "my soul shall have no pleasure in him;" that is, I will utterly cast him off; and accordingly the drawing back here spoken of is termed, in the verse immediately following, "drawing back to perdition." "But the person supposed to draw back is not the same with him that is said to live by faith." - John Wesley, Serious Thoughts Upon the Perseverance of the Saints
"By no means. God is unchangeably holy: Therefore, he always 'loveth righteousness and hateth iniquity.' He is unchangeably good: Therefore he pardoneth all that 'repent and believe the gospel.' And he is unchangeably just: Therefore, he 'rewardeth every man according to his works.' But all this hinders not his resisting, when they are proud, those to whom he gave grace when they were humble. Nay, his unchangeableness itself requires, that, if they grow high-minded, God should cut them off; that there should be a proportionate change in all the divine dispensations toward them." - John Wesley, Serious Thoughts Upon the Perseverance of the Saints
It is, then, the most charitable and harmonizing answer that he was very close to John Wesley that that a person can fall from grace..
We can directly see the similarity to John Wesley in this quote.
“30. The Sum of all is this. If the Scriptures are true, those who are holy or righteous in the Judgment of GOD himself: Those who are indued with the Faith that purifies the Heart, that produces a good Conscience: Those who are grafted into the good Olive-tree, the Spiritual, invisible Church: Those who are Branches of the true Vine, of whom CHRIST says, I am the Vine, ye are the Branches: Those who so effectually know CHRIST, as by that Knowledge to have escaped the Pollutions of the World: Those who see the Light of the Glory of GOD, in the Face of JESUS CHRIST, and who have been made Partakers of the HOLY GHOST, of the Witness and of the Fruits of the Spirit: Those who live by Faith in the Son of GOD: Those who are sanctified by the Blood of the Covenant; may nevertheless so fall from GOD, as to perish everlastingly.
Therefore, let him that standeth, take heed lest he fall.” - John Wesley, “Serious Thoughts Upon the Perseverance of the Saints”
“Fulfill, he says, the work of love, knowing the time is urgent and demands virtue. For those previously ignorant of the truth and living in the darkness and night of error were reasonably, like those sleeping, in a state of inactivity regarding good works. But those now, since they have been enlightened by the memory of the Savior and have come to be in the day, owe it to rise from the idleness of sleep and take hold of good works. “For now our salvation is nearer than when we believed,” that is, when we knew the more profitable of works, it has become easier for us to be saved than when we were being instructed in the word of faith. For at the same time as believing in Christ, we did not also have an accurate comprehension of what should be done, nor was it manifest to us from which actions to abstain, and which to pursue.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 13:11
The above makes his notes on Roman 10:11-13 and Romans 11:6 nonsensical, assuming his theology is faith + works.
“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
“And it has already been foretold that faith brought an end to the law, and grace prevailed over works. Therefore he says: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer by works.” For grace indicates the philanthropy toward the one being graced, but works demand recompense according to the worth of the works.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 11:6
If that is to be assumed, it makes it absolutely illogical. We know that a person has to believe and ask God for grace and then work to be saved, but grace prevailed over works. Either grace is a gift or it did not prevail.
The logical and most harmonizing answer is that he taught, like Martin Luther and John Wesley, that salvation was a gift and it could be lost.
“For testimony of the remnant, he takes up the things according to Elijah, from which he shows him confessing God, that he did not save his people in a great multitude but in seven thousand men, according to the likeness of which it also turned out in the time of the Savior, with only the remnant receiving the grace of the promise.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 11:3-5
“And it has already been foretold that faith brought an end to the law, and grace prevailed over works. Therefore he says: “But if it is by grace, it is no longer by works.” For grace indicates the philanthropy toward the one being graced, but works demand recompense according to the worth of the works.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 11:6
“Lest anyone suppose the word of exhortation to be human, he showed that he also speaks and teaches through grace. Since therefore arrogance is a terrible disease, in which the Romans were especially entangled, he leads them to moderate themselves to the excellent state of humility, guiding them consequently by the teaching of the Spirit. He who, knowing the arrogance of human nature, washed the feet of the disciples to educate them to be humble-minded, so that having partaken of grace and performed signs they might not be puffed up by the grace and fall from the gift.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 12:3a
Romans 12:3a clearly shows that he taught you can lose your salvation “the gift”, but how was this gift obtained? By asking and praying God for it.
Though the New Perspective on Paul defines works as the law, we see Diodorus of Tarsus, some say Diodore of Tarsus’s usage of works as using the definition most commonly used today: a person’s actions.
”Or also “he committed them to disobedience” is instead of “he convicted them as being disobedient,” and as it were shut off all defense from them, so that they might perceive that it is no longer by works, but they are saved by the philanthropy and mercy of God.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 11:30-32
As with scripture, the obscure must be understood in the light of the clear, and this clear verse explains the vague commentary of Romans 8:17-18.
“Since the Jews did not keep the law, the coming of Christ through grace was necessary. Our Lord therefore came forgiving trespasses by grace. But not all the Jews received Christ nor the grace from him, but only the remnant, and the rest, as if loving strife so as never to be saved, thrust the grace away to the Gentiles. And through their trespass they granted wealth to the world, that is, the multitude of those being saved. But if their falling away enriched the nations, how would it not be a greater good and most perfect wealth for the world if the fullness of their lacking were added when the Jews change their minds, so that both the Gentiles and the Jews run together toward one perfect piety. For “fullness” is the apostle’s custom to call the system fulfilled with piety and the knowledge of God.” - Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus, Romans 11:12
So, his definition of grace in Romans 10:11, according to Diodorus of Tarsus/Diodore of Tarsus’s commentary on Romans 10:13, is absolutely talking about salvation, and he endorsed the petitionary form of salvation.
