The Oldest Hymn to Mary (early christian worship)

Patheos Standing on my head ^ | November 6, 2015 | Fr. Dwight Longenecker

[NYer]

Papyrus in the Rylands Library, Manchester UK

One of the things that maddens and amuses me about Protestants is something called “primitivism”. I’ve written about it here. “Primitivism” is the ambition to return the church to the simplest form as it was in the “early church”.

The little fundamentalist church in which I grew up worked on this assumption. They were going back to basics and getting rid of all those “man made traditions”. They were cutting out the denominations and prayers read out of books and all that fancy stuff and it would be just the Bible.

Their idea of the “early church” was, of course, what their church was like. They were actually ignorant of the facts about the early church, which is understandable as they were Bible only Christians. Consequently they assumed that the early church was just a group of Christians meeting in someone’s home or a simple building to sing songs and have a Bible study.

One of the things they definitely did NOT have was any devotion to the Mother of God. That was a late, Catholic, man made abomination! That was a much later pagan interpolation into the simple Bible based religion!

Except it wasn’t. This blog post outlines the fascinating discovery of the manuscript of the oldest hymn to the Blessed Virgin.Their idea of the “early church” was, of course, what their church was like. They were actually ignorant of the facts about the early church, which is understandable as they were Bible only Christians. Consequently they assumed that the early church was just a group of Christians meeting in someone’s home or a simple building to sing songs and have a Bible study.

One of the things they definitely did NOT have was any devotion to the Mother of God. That was a late, Catholic, man made abomination! That was a much later pagan interpolation into the simple Bible based religion!

Except it wasn’t.

Thisoutlines the fascinating discovery of the manuscript of the oldest hymn to the Blessed Virgin.

The earliest text of this hymn was found in a Christmas liturgy of the third century. It is written in Greek and dates to approximately 250 A.D.

In 1917, the John Rylands Library in Manchester acquired a large panel of Egyptian papyrus including the 18 cm by 9.4 cm fragment shown at left, containing the text of this prayer in Greek.

C.H. Roberts published this document in 1938. His colleague E. Lobel, with whom he collaborated in editing the Oxyrhynchus papyri, basing his arguments on paleographic analysis, argued that the text could not possibly be older than the third century, and most probably was written between 250 and 300. This hymn thus precedes the “Hail Mary” in Christian prayer by several centuries.

Here's the text:

On the papyrus:
.ΠΟ
ΕΥCΠΑ
ΚΑΤΑΦΕ
ΘΕΟΤΟΚΕΤ
ΙΚΕCΙΑCΜΗΠΑ
ΕΙΔΗCΕΜΠΕΡΙCTAC
AΛΛΕΚΚΙΝΔΥΝΟΥ
…ΡΥCΑΙΗΜΑC
MONH
…HEΥΛΟΓ

Full text:
Ὑπὸ τὴν σὴν
εὐσπλαγχνίαν
καταφεύγομεν
Θεοτὸκε· τὰς ἡμῶν
ἱκεσίας μὴ παρ-
ίδῃς ἐν περιστάσει
ἀλλ᾽ ἐκ κινδύνου
λύτρωσαι ἡμᾶς
μόνη ἁγνὴ
μόνη εὐλογημένη.

In English:
Beneath your
compassion
we take refuge,
Theotokos! Our
prayers, do not despise
in necessities,
but from danger
deliver us,
only pure,
only blessed one.

Here it is set to music:

Sub tuum praesidium

Turns out the hymn to the Theotokos (the God Bearer) dates from 250 AD.

What is very interesting about these comparatively recent documentary and archeological discoveries is not only what we can gather from the scraps of text themselves, but how they become part of a much larger puzzle. We can piece things together to build up a better picture of the true facts.

The hymn is clearly a prayer to the Blessed Virgin asking for her intercession and assistance in time of trouble. This shows continuity with the belief of the church down through the ages. I’m thinking “Mary Help of Christians.”

Therefore, if this hymn to the Virgin dates from 250 AD we can deduce that it must be a written record of an earlier practice. Think about it, by the time something is written down for use in the liturgy it must already have been in use for some time. Furthermore, if this prayer is part of a document that is a copy of another document, then this also indicates that the actual practice is earlier than the manuscript itself.

In addition to this, if the hymn-prayer is included in the liturgy, then it must be something which is approved by the church and in practice on a fairly widespread basis. If it is included in the liturgy, then the term “theotokos” was not simply a theological term or a theological concept, but something which was integrated into the worshipping and devotional life of the church from the earliest days.

That argument also goes the other way: if the term “theotokos” was used in a hymn-prayer venerating the Blessed Virgin, then a high view of her significance in the plan of redemption must also have been prevalent in the theology of the early church.

You want primitive Christianity? You want to worship like the “early church” then Marian devotion had better be part of it!

[dangus]

>> And you’re presuming then that a prepubescent Jewish child knew enough about sex to take a perpetual vow of virginity? <<

The mechanics of it? Probably not.

[dangus]

>> If she had been expelled from the temple, why’d they accept her coming back to it? <<

She wasn’t exiled in punishment; she hit puberty, and could no longer be present within it without risking “defiling” it.

From the Infancy narrative of James, a Greek version of Mary’s history, from the early Second Century:

And Mary was in the temple of the Lord as if she were a dove that dwelt there, and she received food from the hand of an angel. And when she was twelve years old there was held a council of the priests, saying: Behold, Mary has reached the age of twelve years in the temple of the Lord. What then shall we do with her, test perchance she defile the sanctuary of the Lord? And they said to the high priest: Thou standest by the altar of the Lord; go in, and pray concerning her; and whatever the Lord shall manifest unto thee, that also will we do. And the high priest went in, taking the robe with the twelve bells into the holy of holies; and he prayed concerning her. And behold an angel of the Lord stood by him, saying unto him: Zacharias, Zacharias, go out and assemble the widowers of the people, and let them bring each his rod; and to whomsoever the Lord shall show a sign, his wife shall she be. And the heralds went out through all the circuit of Judaea, and the trumpet of the Lord sounded, and all ran.

This is believed to have come from later than the Age of the Apostles, and not to have been actually written by James. But there were so many similar versions of this story throughout the ancient world by the second century, it’s almost certain that they have a much earlier, common, and highly regarded origin.

[rwa265]

This is believed to have come from later than the Age of the Apostles, and not to have been actually written by James. But there were so many similar versions of this story throughout the ancient world by the second century, it’s almost certain that they have a much earlier, common, and highly regarded origin.

---

I have been learning many things that I did not know about the Orthodox Church. Mary’s entry into the Temple is one of those things. It is celebrated in the Holy Orthodox Church on November 21. Here is a link to the teaching:

http://www.orthodoxphotos.com/readings/LG/entry.shtml

As I was reading it, I was thinking of my 4-year-old granddaughter who my wife and I watched today. I cannot imagine her being sent away to live in a church.

My other thought was about the 80 year old Joseph. That would explain a lot.

[rwa265]

“- God created all of us; He could not possibly become one of us.” I am astonished that you would even try to make that syllogism.

---

Why did you not include the third part of the statement, (But He did.)

This is what is truly astonishing, that Jesus, being in the form of God, would come in human likeness.

[MHGinTN]

Saying Mary is the Mother of God is the broken syllogism. You response regarding the genes of Mary and the Chromosomes of Jesus was not an answer. Do you believe Jesus had genetic derivative from Mary for part, any part, of His chromosomes? ... And can the second give rise to the one from whom the second is arisen?

[MHGinTN]

Once again you appear to purposely 'missed the point'.

You wrote and it astonished me, "God created all of us; He could not possibly become one of us" Are you unable to see how you have constructed a straw man so you can topple it? is that the best reasoning you are capable of? ... If so, we really will never be able to have a coherent conversation. Do you know what a 'straw man' is?

[kinsman redeemer]

I think you just hit a thousand!
...a hat trick!
...in straight sets
...a perfect game
...all 10s
...skunked ‘em
...cleared the table

There’s more but that’s good for now.

[Springfield Reformer]

.. there were so many similar versions of this story throughout the ancient world by the second century ...

Similar in what way?  Can you point us to specific citations of these pre-pseudo-James narratives of Mary's alleged perpetual virginity?  Because everything I am finding suggests our friend pseudo-James was the first to come up with that fallacious idea.  Furthermore, it appears the patristic references to this fiction novel we now call Protoevangelium of James come very late in the Second Century, not early, as you suggest.  

So the problem is, if a cardinal Marian dogma must be built on a book whose author lied about being James the Just, brother of Jesus (I suspect just to get an audience for his warped retelling of the nativity story), does that not suggest a degree of desperation?   And if details of the Protoevangelium flatly contradict what we know to be inspired truth from the canonical Gospels (which they do), why is this book treated with any respect at all? It is apparently little more than an early effort at religious pulp fiction, loosely based on characters of the true nativity story, but with no commitment to telling the truth. A sorry source indeed to get support for soul-binding dogma.

Peace,

SR

[Springfield Reformer]

 preemince of works

Preeminence in relation to what?  If, as you concede, a work is the product of faith working by love, then it sounds in my ears as if you are saying the sail is greater than the wind which drives it. Both work together, but faith precedes a work in time and motive.  Saying the effect is greater than the cause is to diminish the cause without reason.  

And that is why proof-texting is such a high risk activity. The passages in Revelation do not say that individuals will lose their salvation for a failure to produce x, y, z works.  That is not the narrative.  It is the congregation, the assembly, from which Christ threatens to remove the candlestick.  Yes, individuals are admonished to be overcomers, and remain true to the faith, but their basis of justification remains what the Apostle declares it to be, faith.

Which is one of the problems I have with these debates, and why I try to avoid going in infinite circles with someone over this issue.  Having explained an uncounted number of times that we evangelicals believe the faithful will persevere in good works, we are still presented, over and over again, in this caricature, that we diminish works.  We do not.  We simply try to acknowledge and reconcile the entire body of Biblical teaching on how we may be justified unto salvation.  

This means we cannot look at any given work as the basis upon which God will save us.  It does NOT mean we avoid the works of love. Quite the opposite.  Our identity in Christ is that of adopted children, who know and are secure in their relationship with their Heavenly Father, and as such, we love the Father and seek to do His commandments with all our heart.  We are not arms-length employees trying to make sure we don't get fired.

For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:
(Romans 8:15-16)

Now I have seen that spirit of bondage again to fear:

Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love.
(Galatians 5:4-6)

So when Paul speaks of "love working by faith," it is not to discuss the "preeminence of works," but to set aside the false notion that anyone will be justified before God by anything but faith. To seek justification by works, or some hybrid of works and faith, is to abandon grace.  We are to be holy, as our Father is holy.  But we are not to imagine that our efforts to be holy are what justify us. Our justification was bought with a price, and we cannot add to it.  But we can, by grace working in us through the Spirit, live lives worthy of the faith to which we have been called.

Peace,

SR

[dangus]

i cited James just to explain why Mary was expelled from the temple. the infancy narrative of James is not the source of the Catholic doctrine. in fact as I noted several times it reflects the Greek believe, not the Catholic one; Catholics reject the theory expressed in james that Joseph had sons older than Jesus.the multitudinous versions of the story throughout literally hundreds of ancient churches is one reason why the gospel of James was not accepted as canonical. but the vast number of versions also demonstrates a far older tradition than the book of James.

[dangus]

As for sources older than the gospel of James, the great difficulty is that the persecution of Christians during the early Christian era leaves us with relatively few documents. However, Jerome for instance cites as his authority for the perpetual virginity of Mary, Ignatius who, in context, appears to refer to the 1st century bishop of Antioch, who reigned even during the lifetime of John the disciple. he also cites a number of other extremely ancient Church Fathers as his source. While we don’t have the writings that he cites, how could anyone in his day have taken him seriously where are they not well known?

[rwa265]

Saying Mary is the Mother of God is the broken syllogism. You response regarding the genes of Mary and the Chromosomes of Jesus was not an answer. Do you believe Jesus had genetic derivative from Mary for part, any part, of His chromosomes? ... And can the second give rise to the one from whom the second is arisen?

---

Do you agree with the definition of mother that I provided? That a mother is a woman in relation to a child to whom she has given birth? Do you believe that the child to whom Mary had given birth is God? This is what I believe.

I do not know about the genetic stuff. As far as that give rise to stuff, Mary did not give birth to a pure spirit Who existed before she did. The holy thing which was born of Mary was the Word made flesh, God in the person of Jesus.

And it is because this child is God that Mary is the mother of God.

[af_vet_1981]

Preeminence in relation to what? If, as you concede, a work is the product of faith working by love, then it sounds in my ears as if you are saying the sail is greater than the wind which drives it. Both work together, but faith precedes a work in time and motive. Saying the effect is greater than the cause is to diminish the cause without reason.

Preeminence in the last message, good news, gospel, of the LORD Jesus Christ to those who believe in his name; in chapters two and three, addressed to the angels of seven churches (which are real, genuine, body of the Messiah churches unlike the myriad of spurious congregations evident today), the word "works" is spoken twelve times. The word "faith" is used once. That is the preemince I intend; it is what the Messiah cared most about, and everyone who has "ears to hear" should listen to Him. He told us this before many times in the Gospel books, warning of those who had faith but not works, or lost their works.

And that is why proof-texting is such a high risk activity. The passages in Revelation do not say that individuals will lose their salvation for a failure to produce x, y, z works. That is not the narrative. It is the congregation, the assembly, from which Christ threatens to remove the candlestick. Yes, individuals are admonished to be overcomers, and remain true to the faith, but their basis of justification remains what the Apostle declares it to be, faith.

How does one imagine there is an assembly with a candlestick that can remember from whence they are fallen, repent, and do the first works, but not suffer as individuals who are the temple of the Holy Spirit ? Is the salvation you envision corporate or individual ? Is the Messiah speaking to the whole but not the individual ?

Which is one of the problems I have with these debates, and why I try to avoid going in infinite circles with someone over this issue. Having explained an uncounted number of times that we evangelicals believe the faithful will persevere in good works, we are still presented, over and over again, in this caricature, that we diminish works. We do not. We simply try to acknowledge and reconcile the entire body of Biblical teaching on how we may be justified unto salvation.

I agree that faith without works is dead, and that the Messiah warned his disciples to maintain good works. In Revelation, those works are preeminent, the evidence or fruit of faith, if you would.

This means we cannot look at any given work as the basis upon which God will save us. It does NOT mean we avoid the works of love. Quite the opposite. Our identity in Christ is that of adopted children, who know and are secure in their relationship with their Heavenly Father, and as such, we love the Father and seek to do His commandments with all our heart. We are not arms-length employees trying to make sure we don't get fired. For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father. The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: (Romans 8:15-16)

There are many people who think the Spirit is bearing witness with their spirit, that they are the children of God. How does one know ? The Gospels, First John, Revelation clearly indicate how. I think there are many people who think are saved by believing they are saved, and for them the doubts that intrude would certainly terrify. However the fear may be just the impetus they need to pay attention to the warning of the Messiah, and do what He said.

Now I have seen that spirit of bondage again to fear: Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace. For we through the Spirit wait for the hope of righteousness by faith. For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love. (Galatians 5:4-6) So when Paul speaks of "love working by faith," it is not to discuss the "preeminence of works," but to set aside the false notion that anyone will be justified before God by anything but faith. To seek justification by works, or some hybrid of works and faith, is to abandon grace. We are to be holy, as our Father is holy. But we are not to imagine that our efforts to be holy are what justify us. Our justification was bought with a price, and we cannot add to it. But we can, by grace working in us through the Spirit, live lives worthy of the faith to which we have been called.

No, I see no Sola Fide in the Apostle Paul's work. The word "works" appears seven times in Galations, six as "works of the law" and once as "works of the flesh." I think the Apostle Paul is covering "works of the law" in the context of works without faith. Works of the law without faith cannot save. He does show that mortal sins, if you would, are those sins that prevent one from inheriting the kingdom of God. Salvation is by grace alone, which is efficacious in those who are obedient in faith and works unto death, walking in the Spirit.

For, brethren, ye have been called unto liberty; only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another. For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. But if ye bite and devour one another, take heed that ye be not consumed one of another. This I say then, Walk in the Spirit, and ye shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh: and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye cannot do the things that ye would. But if ye be led of the Spirit, ye are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God. But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law. And they that are Christ's have crucified the flesh with the affections and lusts. If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit.

Galations, Catholic chapter five, Protestant verses thirteen to twenty five,
as authorized, but not authored, by King James
bold emphasis mine

[rwa265]

Once again you appear to purposely ‘missed the point’.

You wrote and it astonished me, “God created all of us; He could not possibly become one of us” Are you unable to see how you have constructed a straw man so you can topple it? is that the best reasoning you are capable of? ... If so, we really will never be able to have a coherent conversation. Do you know what a ‘straw man’ is?

---

I truly do not know what astonished you about my statement. It is not on purpose, I just don’t know what you thought I meant.

It was not my intent to construct a straw man. The idea that God would become one of us was incomprehensible to the Jews, even though the prophets foretold that this would come to be. When Jesus tried to tell them this, they said He blasphemed. In fact, when Jesus said to them, “Before Abraham came to be, I Am,” they tried to kill him. And they eventually did put Him to death because they did not believe He was God. But we as Christians do believe that Jesus is God. Or at least I think you believe this.

I believe that when Mary conceived of the Holy Spirit, God entered the womb of Mary in the person of Jesus. I believe that when that holy thing which shall be called the Son of God was born of Mary, Mary gave birth to God in the person of Jesus. Based on the definition of mother that you told me to look up and write down (a mother is a woman in relation to a child to whom she has given birth), this birth established a maternal relationship between Mary and God in the person of Jesus.

Do you believe God entered the womb of Mary when she conceived Jesus?
Do you believe that Mary gave birth to God when Jesus was born?

[MHGinTN]

Your 'questions':

Do you believe God entered the womb of Mary when she conceived Jesus?

Do you know what 'conceived' means? It refers to implantation of the already alive embryonic aged HUMAN BEING. The Embryonic aged human named Jeshua implanted in Mary Uterine wall, for gestational growth in her body. By asking these peripheral questions, you appear to think you can avoid answering the question of genes and chromosomes. Readers are so easily distracted.

Do you believe that Mary gave birth to God when Jesus was born? And the resounding answer is and has always been NO! God gave rise to Mary thus she could not give rise to God, He already existed before AMry was a twinkle in her father's eye. Since none of Mary's genes were mingled with 'God's genes', Mary gave birth to the human being known as Jeshua. You really cannot tell me when a spirit enters the gestating body of a human being, can you! You have no earthly idea when the Spirit of God, God's seed. entered into the body Mary gestated for nine months. We are told by Paul that the Man Jesus could not sin because His seed remained within Him ... the seed referred to is the Holy Spirit of God, thus Jeshua was and is GOD with us. Mary gave birth to the human vehicle but could not possibly be the mother of GOD because God existed before Mary and is of a completely different genera than Mary.

Do cows birth dogs? Do rats birth cows? ... Different genera, doesn't happen.

[metmom]

How ironic that you should complain about mentioning bad leaders.

FWIW, I did notice that you put the word bad in quotation marks.

Do you not consider those popes to be bad?

Or are they good Catholics after all?

[metmom]

Excellent, as usual.

[rwa265]

Do you know what ‘conceived’ means? It refers to implantation of the already alive embryonic aged HUMAN BEING. The Embryonic aged human named Jeshua implanted in Mary Uterine wall, for gestational growth in her body. By asking these peripheral questions, you appear to think you can avoid answering the question of genes and chromosomes. Readers are so easily distracted.

Do you believe that Mary gave birth to God when Jesus was born? And the resounding answer is and has always been NO! God gave rise to Mary thus she could not give rise to God, He already existed before AMry was a twinkle in her father’s eye. Since none of Mary’s genes were mingled with ‘God’s genes’, Mary gave birth to the human being known as Jeshua. You really cannot tell me when a spirit enters the gestating body of a human being, can you! You have no earthly idea when the Spirit of God, God’s seed. entered into the body Mary gestated for nine months. We are told by Paul that the Man Jesus could not sin because His seed remained within Him ... the seed referred to is the Holy Spirit of God, thus Jeshua was and is GOD with us. Mary gave birth to the human vehicle but could not possibly be the mother of GOD because God existed before Mary and is of a completely different genera than Mary.

---

The questions I ask are not peripheral. I ask them to help me understand how you can believe Mary is not the mother of God. I now get it. You do not believe that Mary gave birth to God when Jesus was born.

One thing though. The answer has not always been no. From the early days of Christianity, the answer was yes, and for many Christians (Catholics, Orthodox, some Anglicans), the answer has always been yes.

Nevertheless, I will not pester you anymore about it.

Peace,
Rich

[af_vet_1981]

Do you believe that Mary gave birth to God when Jesus was born? And the resounding answer is and has always been NO!

Nestorianism (5th Century)

This heresy about the person of Christ was initiated by Nestorius, bishop of Constantinople, who denied Mary the title of Theotokos (Greek: "God-bearer" or, less literally, "Mother of God"). Nestorius claimed that she only bore Christ’s human nature in her womb, and proposed the alternative title Christotokos ("Christ-bearer" or "Mother of Christ").

Orthodox Catholic theologians recognized that Nestorius’s theory would fracture Christ into two separate persons (one human and one divine, joined in a sort of loose unity), only one of whom was in her womb. The Church reacted in 431 with the Council of Ephesus, defining that Mary can be properly referred to as the Mother of God, not in the sense that she is older than God or the source of God, but in the sense that the person she carried in her womb was, in fact, God incarnate ("in the flesh").

There is some doubt whether Nestorius himself held the heresy his statements imply, and in this century, the Assyrian Church of the East, historically regarded as a Nestorian church, has signed a fully orthodox joint declaration on Christology with the Catholic Church and rejects Nestorianism. It is now in the process of coming into full ecclesial communion with the Catholic Church.

[Springfield Reformer]

Preeminence in the last message, good news, gospel, of the LORD Jesus Christ to those who believe in his name

Again, I think this is setting things at odds with each other that are not in conflict, either in Scripture, or in the evangelical understanding of Scripture. Works are not in opposition to faith.  They are the expression of faith. You yourself have said as much. So I cannot understand what you hope to gain, as between you and me, by talking this approach that seems to set the two, faith and works, in opposition to each other.  

As for a methodology of counting words, word counts can have meaning, but not in a vacuum.  The Lord knew His apostles would also be read in all the assemblies for centuries to come.  The context has been set by that apostolic teaching. Justification is not by works but by faith, because that is the only means of acquiring it, according to practically everything Paul wrote, and others as well. The Apocalypse cannot possibly contradict that.  Jesus is the Author of both.

Therefore, the emphasis on deeds in Revelation 2-3 must be understood in that context.  It is not about individual justification but the life of the local assembly as a whole.  We do indeed want our light to shine before men, that they may see our good works, and praise God and be drawn to Him through our witness.  Israel was that city on a hill that could not be hid, the light of the world. But even though the nation as a whole rejected their Messiah, yet there was a remnant.  God judged Israel, took away her ability to give light, very like removing a candlestick.  But He still saved the elect who lived within her borders.

So you see, it is important to be able to make these distinctions, and it cannot be done by playing "Scriptural Gotcha."  What Jesus clearly cared about most was us, even while we were still sinners:

But God commendeth his love toward us, in that, while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us. Much more then, being now justified by his blood, we shall be saved from wrath through him.
(Romans 5:8-9)

Consider a beloved child.  You tell your child they must behave, or there will be unpleasant consequences.  You are serious.  It is very important. But now the misbehaving child, who is still your child, is about to be run over by an oncoming train.  You would be willing, if your love was true, to give up your own life to ensure the child lived.  That's how you know what is really important to God: Christ died for you.  That's the Good News.  

I think there are many people who think are saved by believing they are saved

I have heard you say this before, and as an evangelical, I have to tell you, I don't know any evangelical who believes that.  It just sounds goofy. We are not saved because we believe in our own belief. We are saved because we believe in Jesus.  He's the reliable one.  Not us.  

And I've been through great doubt.  I tried repeatedly to make things right between God and me by my own efforts. You know where it led? Despair. Giving up. A point came where I knew I needed a miracle, and I got one:

If a son shall ask bread of any of you that is a father, will he give him a stone? or if he ask a fish, will he for a fish give him a serpent? Or if he shall ask an egg, will he offer him a scorpion? If ye then, being evil, know how to give good gifts unto your children: how much more shall your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to them that ask him?
(Luke 11:11-13)

God is generous with us.  Far more generous than we expect Him to be, because we are so often dull to the greatness of His goodness.  Don't underestimate what God is willing to do in response to even the tiniest amount of faith. All sins are mortal, in that our life is in God, and sin separates us from that life, and so kills us, if we stand on our own. But Jesus has paid the price for every one of those sins. We do not stand on our own.  We stand in Him by faith.

Peace,

SR