Extrabiblical, Pre-Reformation Support For Eternal Security (Part 3)

In his translation of Augustine's work cited in my last post, Gregory Lombardo wrote the following about some of the individuals Augustine was responding to:

"Augustine, however, does not mention any names, and there is no evidence either here or in any other place that he is referring to these passages from the works of Jerome. Nevertheless, both Jerome and Ambrose seemed to have shared in the not uncommon error of their time, namely, that all Christians would sooner or later be reunited to God, an error which Augustine refutes here and in a number of other places." (St. Augustine: On Faith And Works [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 1988], n. 3 on pp. 64-65)

The kind of view under consideration, which Lombardo attributes to Jerome and Ambrose, goes by different names in different sources, which makes researching the subject more difficult. The view is sometimes referred to as mercyism or misericordism. I'll use the former term for the remainder of this post. Brian Daley, a Roman Catholic scholar, has argued that Maximus of Turin was a mercyist:

"He also seems to echo the 'misericordism' espoused by Jerome - the doctrine that all the baptized will be saved - in a long passage developing the idea that 'the water of baptism puts out the fire of Gehenna' (Serm 22a.3)….Demanding as Christian living seems to be in his sermons, Maximus seems to be confident that the members of his flock will ultimately realize its promise." (The Hope Of The Early Church [Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2010], 126)

I've also seen some other fathers cited as advocates of mercyism or something close to it. The only one I've studied much on this issue is Jerome. There are a lot of passages from his writings that have been cited on the topic, and I haven't read all of them. I've read some of them, though, and I think it's likely that Jerome was a mercyist. The large majority of scholars I've seen commenting on the subject have also reached that conclusion. The only exception I recall is Thomas Scheck. And Scheck recently translated Jerome's Letter 119 into English, which I believe is the first time there's been an English translation. It's due out next month. Jerome is supposed to have said a lot about issues related to mercyism in that letter. I've preordered Scheck's translation, and I'll probably comment on it here if there's anything significant in it.

One reason to think Jerome was a mercyist is the similarity between his comments and what Augustine attributes to the mercyists when he's responding to them. Here's Augustine:

"And they suppose that this conjecture of theirs is not hinted at in Scripture, for the sake of stimulating many to reformation of life through fear of very protracted or eternal sufferings, and of stimulating others to pray for those who have not reformed. However, they think that the divine oracles are not altogether silent on this point; for they ask to what purpose is it said, 'How great is Thy goodness which Thou hast hidden for them that fear Thee,' [Psalm 31:19] if it be not to teach us that the great and hidden sweetness of God's mercy is concealed in order that men may fear?...There are some, too, who found upon the expression of Scripture, 'He that endureth to the end shall be saved,' and who promise salvation only to those who continue in the Church catholic; and though such persons have lived badly, yet, say they, they shall be saved as by fire through virtue of the foundation of which the apostle says [1 Corinthians 3:11-15]" (The City Of God, 21:18, 21:21)

Here's Jerome, citing Psalm 31:19 (cited by Augustine above) after citing some other Biblical passages, followed by a reference to concealment (as in Augustine), followed by a reference to 1 Corinthians 3:11-15:

"And this is what is said in another passage, 'O how great is the multitude of your goodness, O Lord, which you have hidden for those who fear you!' [Ps 31:19]. They [mercyists] reflect upon all these things and long to affirm that after the tortures and torments, there shall be relief in the future. Now, they say, this has to be concealed from those for whom fear is advantageous, so that while they are fearful of punishments, they may stop sinning. We ought to leave this to the knowledge of God alone. Not only are his mercies in equilibrium, but so are his torments, and he knows whom he ought to judge, how, and for how long. And let us say only what befits human frailty: 'O Lord, do not rebuke me in your fury, nor chastise me in your wrath' [Ps 6:1]. And just as we believe in the eternal punishment of the devil and of all deniers and of the impious, who have said in their heart, 'There is no God' [cf. Ps 14:1]; so we think that the judge's sentence is moderate and mingled with mercy, as it pertains to sinners, wicked men, and even Christians, whose works must be examined and cleansed by fire. [1 Corinthians 3:11-15]" (in Thomas Scheck, trans., St. Jerome: Commentary On Isaiah [Mahwah, New Jersey: The Newman Press, 2015], p. 880, section 18:33 in the commentary)

Those are the final words of Jerome's commentary, which is more than 800 pages long in English. He at least gives mercyism a significantly respectful treatment, and he seems to accept it or something close to it himself. His closing appeal to 1 Corinthians 3 is common mercyist argumentation. Augustine gives a lot of attention to that passage and its use by mercyists in the document I discussed earlier, On Faith And Works. It's important to keep in mind that there are multiple lines of evidence to go by in judging what view was held by a given individual, like Jerome. It isn't just a matter of what he said when considered in isolation, but also how his scripture citations, argumentation, etc. line up with what we see in other sources. There are multiple indications that Jerome was a mercyist. If he wasn't one, he at least seems to have agreed with their views enough to be highly respectful of them and to agree with them to a large extent.

John O'Connell, who wrote a doctoral thesis on Jerome's eschatology, said the following about this passage in Jerome's Isaiah commentary. It's noteworthy that Scheck offers no counterargument, but instead allows O'Connell to have the last word:

"In themselves these words are susceptible of many meanings; e.g., a gradual mitigation of the punishments of hell, complete cessation after a time of the punishments imposed by the Judge, or the imposition of a sentence to eternal punishments less severe than those deserved. However, the context makes it clear that the meaning is something short of eternal torments. For it is with eternal torments that the moderate sentence is contrasted….To say that [this passage] is a clear and irrefutable proof that Jerome taught mercyism would be to go beyond the certain meaning of the text. On the other hand, to say that it refers only to venial sinners or to repentant sinners is to choose a possible but questionable hypothesis. The text lacks the clarity required to reach a certain conclusion concerning its meaning. But it probably teaches mercyism." (n. 72 on p. 1022)

In his book cited above, Daley says of this passage in the Isaiah commentary, "It is Jerome at his most generous, and perhaps at his most profound." (104)

Update On 11/12/25: Since posting what I did above, I've read a collection of Maximus of Turin's sermons. While I agree with Brian Daley that some of what Maximus says seems to support eternal security, I think some of his other comments seem to go against it if not interpreted in a larger context. My citations of Maximus that follow will be taken from Boniface Ramsey, trans., The Sermons Of St. Maximus Of Turin (Mahwah, New Jersey: Newman Press, 1989).

In the passage cited by Daley above, Maximus does seem to refer to the ongoing extinguishing of hell's fires brought about by the water of baptism, after the time of baptism (Sermon 22A:3, pp. 56-57). He keeps referring to what happens after the application of water to the fire, and he cites John 4:14, which is about ongoing life in Christ, not just some kind of initial justification. Maximus seems to support some type of eternal security in other places as well. Commenting on the interest referred to in Matthew 25:27, he describes the production of that interest as "a conversion of manners", which he considers "the fundamental principle of salvation" (Sermon 27:2, p. 66). He seems to be saying that bearing some degree of profit to give the master (the interest in Jesus' parable) inherently goes with salvation, which seems to be a form of the perseverance of the saints. He goes on to refer to how the talent given "cannot be lost" (Sermon 28:1, p. 67).

On the other hand, Maximus refers to heretics as having lost the grace of the Holy Spirit (Sermon 26:4, p. 65). He refers to "you who had been a Christian" and an eclipse of salvation like an eclipse of the moon (Sermon 30:3, p. 74). He refers to the danger of "[letting your] salvation go by" through immoral behavior (Sermon 98:1, p. 222).

What should we make of Maximus' view as a whole? There are ways to reconcile some form of eternal security with references to loss of salvation. For example, somebody could hold a view in which salvation can be lost, even though it's certain to be regained at some point afterward. Universalists often allow for people who will eventually be in heaven to be referred to as fallen, lost, unredeemed, and such prior to a final reconciliation with God. There's also the possibility that some or all of the passages that seemingly refer to eternal security or the loss of salvation should be interpreted otherwise. The reference to how the talent a person receives can't be lost may only have this life in mind, given that Matthew 25:28 refers to a talent being lost in the afterlife. Under that scenario, Maximus wasn't affirming eternal security. Or, to cite an example on the other side, the references to losing the grace of the Holy Spirit or letting salvation pass you by may just be referring to individuals who are close to salvation, not those who possess it. So, those alleged references to loss of salvation aren't actually referring to that. It's also possible that Maximus was inconsistent, as people often are. For example, most people haven't worked out much of a reconciliation between Divine sovereignty and human responsibility, so they may make comments on such issues that are inconsistent. Whatever conclusion we reach about Maximus' view, there's a substantial amount of ambiguity and not much to go by in his comments on the relevant issues, so I don't think we can be confident in either direction. With that qualification in mind, I agree with Daley that Maximus seems to have held some form of eternal security. For one thing, the concept of the loss of salvation can be reconciled with eternal security, as explained above. Losing salvation is inconsistent with some forms of eternal security, but not all of them. Second, I think the material that seems supportive of eternal security is harder to explain otherwise than the material that seems to go against eternal security. Third, given the popularity of concepts like justification through works and the rejection of eternal security, there's more significance accordingly when somebody makes comments that seem supportive of eternal security. You're going against the crowd. Maximus probably wouldn't have made some of the comments he did suggesting eternal security if he didn't believe in the concept, given how unpopular it was and is. But I could easily be wrong in how I'm interpreting him, given how little evidence there is to go by.