Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews [Paperback]

Herbert Bateman IV (Editor)

Book Description

Publication Date: February 21, 2007

Using the popular four-views format, this volume explores the meaning of the five warning passages in the book of Hebrews to both the original readers and us today. Each of the four established New Testament scholars present and defend their view and critique the view of their interlocutors. This unique volume will help readers better understand some of the most difficult passages in all of Scripture

Editorial Reviews

From the Back Cover

Can believers lose their salvation if they fall away from God’s grace? 

Is there no restoration for a backslidden believer?

Does salvation involve past, present, and/or future dimensions?

These and other questions challenge readers of the five warning passages in Hebrews (2:1–4; 3:7–4:13; 5:11–6:12; 10:19–39; 12:14–29), verses that deliver both stern warnings and positive encouragement. Using the popular four-views format, this volume explores the original and contemporary meaning of these difficult passages, and promises to become a definitive resource for readers in both the academy and the local church.

Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews brings together four internationally known biblical scholars—Gareth Cockerill, Buist Fanning, Grant Osborne, and Randall Gleason, all of whom have previously written on Hebrews. After each contributor presents and defends his position, it is critiqued by the other three contributors. Additional features include an introduction by the editor and a conclusion by George H. Guthrie, who summarizes the issues and offers pointed questions for further reflection.

Herbert W. Bateman IV (Ph.D., Dallas Theological Seminary) is professor of Bible at Moody Bible Institute. He is the author or editor of several books, including Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism (Kregel). Before teaching at Moody, Dr. Bateman was professor of New Testament studies at Grace Theological Seminary.

About the Author

Herbert W. Bateman IV has taught beginning and intermediate Greek for more than twenty years. He is the editor of Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, Three Central Issues in Contemporary Dispensationalism, and Authentic Worship.

Product Details

• Paperback: 480 pages
• Publisher: Kregel Academic & Professional (February 21, 2007)
• Language: English
• ISBN-10: 0825421322
• ISBN-13: 978-0825421327
• Product Dimensions: 8.5 x 5.5 x 1 inches
• Shipping Weight: 1 pounds (View shipping rates and policies)
• Average Customer Review: 4.2 out of 5 stars  See all reviews (5 customer reviews)
• Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #127,330 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)

Customer Reviews

Most Helpful Customer Reviews

62 of 64 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A healthy discussion of the warnings, May 15, 2007

By 

Cabe M. Pillette (Plano, TX United States) - See all my reviews
(REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Paperback)

This book thoroughly updates any reader interested in understanding what God has said through the warnings in Hebrews. The Arminian and Calvinistic views come closer to a purely Biblical theology on the platform this book has provided. Although space constraints forced the responses to each view to be critical, each author graciously and honestly declares the immense common ground found among them all. The very nature of a "four-views" book is somewhat combatant, but as several of the authors mentioned, a healthy debate is the most helpful as opposed to agreeing to believe basically nothing.

Osborne's defense of the Arminian view of the warnings in Hebrews was excellent. His work was pleasently surprising as he presented no straw men, but in a very detailed exegetical manner defended what might well be considered to be a literal/historical/gramatical interpretation of the warnings. No reader will be able to dismiss his work but will be required to sincerely struggle with what he presented. He has a healthy view and use of the OT in his interpretation which is a breath of fresh air as most scholarship seems to have their thoughts stolen by an "immediate-context-only" hermeneutic, i.e., they are unwilling or too cautious to step out into the broader context (especially since Hebrews is THE Old Testament user). He very generously spends time discussing the implications of all the encouragement/assurance passages in Hebrews as well. He concludes that the language is too strongly in favor of the Arminian view that he must lean in that direction. I can't imagine any reader being unaffected by his exposition of the warnings.

Fanning's classic reformed view was just as well presented. Fanning's style of presentation is a rebuke to us all for the way we treat each other in our own theological debates. His words are rarely if ever overstated, and he also is quite careful to remove all straw men. His defense is powerful as well because his control of grammar exeeds all others, and hence his attention to linguistic detail is unsurpassed. It is difficult to argue with a textual/grammatical argument as opposed to a general theological statement (and he rightly exposes this tendency in the other authors' works). He appears to hinge a significant portion of his argument based on the conditional statements in 3:6 and 3:14, arguing for a change in interpretation from a cause-to-effect to an evidence-to-inference paradigm. His argument is unarguably plausible. Fanning also argues for the presence of absolute eternal security found in Hebrews based on the person and work of Christ our High Priest. He concludes that the warnings are given to a mixed community which consists of believers and unbelievers, and that if a member falls away, that person gives evidence that the normal evidences of belief were not genuine.

Cockerill defends what is called the Wesleyand Arminian view. It takes a real student to tease out the difference between that and the classic Arminian view presented by Osborne. Cockerill's part was much broader in argumentation and seemed less helpful since he did not confront imminent and specific issues, but merely outlined Hebrews and weaved his view within it. Osborne, in his response, merely points out that he would have liked to see more specificity. Both presentations are so similar they do not seem to gain any new ground by Cockerill's.

Finally, Gleason's defense of the view that Zane Hodges (and Dillow) have defended concludes the views. Actually, just as Osborne comments, Gleason has done a very impressive job in defending this position (that the warnings are against believers who lapse into imaturity and suffer temporal punishment and loss of rewards), being very exegetical and thorough. Although this position is not held by many (and seems to be becoming even less common), Gleason's view must be considered. In fact, it seems that his attention to the Old Testament (though maybe misdirected - see Cockerill's critique) is well placed, given the immense attention that the author of Hebrew's himself places on it. As Guthrie and Osborne comment, this route must be more thoroughly explored in understanding the warnings (Cockerill's critique is a bit overzealous).

Osborne's responses to all of the authors were gracious and attentive. His summaries of each view are impressive (along with his attention to details). His critique of Fanning's defense of the encouragement/assurance passages in Hebrews is probably well placed, and oddly enough his critique of Gleason's view is much less negative (possibly because it was less damaging to Osborne's own view?).

Fanning's responses are much like his chapter - technical, precise and forceful. He as well should be applauded for his 'irenic' (as they all put it) spirit. He does seem quite fair and level headed, willing to converse with all sides with an open heart. Fanning was most forceful with Cockerill's presentation for reasons already mentioned, and his comments seem well placed.

Cockerill's responses are much the same as Osborne's and Fanning's except for his critique of Gleason. There he was much less gracious. Perhaps his comments were rigthly elicited, but he could have been more irenic.

Gleason's comments were also kind and thoughtful. His entrance into the debate seems to come from a very different direction making his comments all the more interesting (or as Guthrie states, "Gleason's contributions offer another perspective more off the beaten path" p.430).

Guthrie concludes the book in a wonderful fashion, summarizing well the outcome and encouraging further study. His two main points are very helpful: 1) more work on Old Testament usage needs to be done (as well as Pauline echoes) and it's influence on the warnings, and 2) more attention must be paid to Tom Wright's critique of American Christianity - we must see beyond the individualism to a corporate view of the church as well. With these comments, Guthrie ends.

21 of 21 people found the following review helpful:

5.0 out of 5 stars A really helpful discussion, January 11, 2008

By 

Daniel R. Streett (Dallas, TX) - See all my reviews
(VINE VOICE)    (REAL NAME)   

This review is from: Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Paperback)

I teach a course in the exegesis of Hebrews every other year and I used this the past semester. I think it was a little bit challenging reading for college students, but would be not hard at all for seminary students. Overall, it is a really excellent collection. The interaction between the viewpoints is very substantive. In my opinion, it advances the discussion of the warning passages and will be a standard reference on this topic for years to come.

Here are a few of my thoughts:
1. There was not much difference between Osborne and Cockerill. I'm not sure why both of them were included.
2. Gleason's defense of the Moderate Reformed view was a bit idiosyncratic. He holds that the judgment threatened in the warning passages refers to the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70. While I am all for interpreting texts in their historical contexts, Gleason really has to stretch the very slender evidence to position Hebrews in that specific of a context. The editors would have done better to select someone who is more representative of the loss-of-rewards view than Gleason. Most of those who think Hebrews is threating temporal judgment (suffering, death) or loss of rewards (either in the millennium or heaven) do not think the destruction of Jerusalem is in view.
3. The font in the book is ridiculously large. Reduce it, and the book would be half the number of pages!
4. I would have like to see some discussion in Bateman's introduction of Schreiner and Caneday's view in The Race Set Before Us. It is a very nuanced Calvinist view. It would also have been helpful if he could have summarized the rising Federal Vision perspective on these passages, which provides a real alternative to the other views.
5. Don't skip the response chapters. It is when the various viewpoints come under criticism that the strengths and weaknesses are really exposed.

2 of 2 people found the following review helpful:

4.0 out of 5 stars Was Hebrews really only addressing one danger?, March 2, 2011

By 

K Watson (OR United States) - See all my reviews

Amazon Verified Purchase

This review is from: Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews (Paperback)

First off, I really appreciated this book. It was extremely thought provoking and helped my exploring of the challening texts in question. I appreciate the mostly respectful spirit of the debaters.

All of the writers agree that the Hebrews warning passages all address one danger. However, they disagree WIDELY about what that danger is. I have found the same thing to be true in other literature I have read on the subject.

No one seems to have concluded that Hebrews addresses a complex of various dangers, perhaps including all of the dangers focused on by the authors of this book. If you know of an author that has reached the same conclusion I have, please make a comment to this review.

Here are my observations about the warning texts after reading this book:

2:1-4
The danger here is drifting away through ignoring the great salvation found in Christ. If the drifting away occurs, the person will not escape punishment (the nature of the punishment is unspecified, so it probably includes discipline AND even damnation). I believe this passage serves as a general encompassing introduction to the theme which is expanded so powerfully and more specifically as the book continues.

3:7-4:13
The danger here is to have a sinful, unbelieving heart (3:12) that turns away prior to the new birth. Warning signs that this danger is present are heart-hardening through sin's deceitfulness, loss of confidence, and lack of effort (4:11). The passage warns of the possibility of apparent, self-identified, non-genuine "brothers" being shown to have fallen short of truth faith. This often happens when the "coming-to-faith" experience is faulty or incomplete and corresponds to the rootless plants sown on rocky soil in Christ's Parable of the Sower. The purpose of the warning is to encourage the completion of the person's coming to faith. The pivotal verse may be 3:14, perhaps questioning the genuineness of belief which will be shown, if it exists, through the believer's perseverance (also, elsewhere, through fruitfulness, love, etc.). The "showing" is to the people themselves and secondarily to the brothers, since God has known the heart all along (4:12-13).

5:11-6:12
The heart of the passage, 6:4-8, describes ultimate apostasizing of true believers turning away from faith. If the turning away is final and ultimate, cursing and eternal destruction will be the result. Elsewhere in Hebrews less ultimate turning away is in view, either through false conversion as in 3:14, or in cases of discipline as in 12:7-11.
The Greek word translated "impossible" in 6:4 doesn't mean all we think of in the word "impossible". "Adunatos" is also in the New Testament translated "impotent" or "weak" (Romans 15:1). Literally, it means "not able" or "not strong". It does NOT mean "not permitted".
"Fall away" in 6:6 doesn't mean "fall into sin" or "be entangled in sin" (as in 12:1 and in Galatians 6:1), but to turning away from faith (which may LOOK much the same--sin may RESULT FROM such a turning, the case here, or sin may RESULT IN such a turning).
The big question is, does 6:4-6 refer to saved or unsaved people? Troubling this issue of the "saved" apostasizers, note that we do apparently see apparently apostate Christians repent (which was Wesley's observation during revival in England). How do we reconcile that with 6:4-6? Were they not originally true believers, or did they not truly apostasize/"fall away"/"turn away"? The explanation might be (1) that the repentant ones were disobedient but not ultimately apostate, (2) that they had previously been false believers who following an apparent apostasy have now come to true faith, or (3) that although it is unusual and difficult, there actually IS a possibility of some ultimately apostate person being "brought back to repentance", but the point of Hebrews is that no one should lightly plan on it but, rather, be warned away from such a perilous course.

10:19-39
The continual deliberate sinning of 10:26 appears to be one of three possibilities: a case of false conversion, such as in 3:7-4:13 or in James's "faith without works", contrasting with the true faith of 10:22-24, OR, alternatively, perhaps 10:26-31 describes the ultimate apostasizer of 6:4-7, OR, alternatively, perhaps what is described is the severe TEMPORAL discipline of God turning sinful believers aside from the eternal punishment which would otherwise result from ultimate apostasy. Perhaps all three dangers are included within this one text. Added is the warning against separating from fellowship, coupled with an exhortation for the Christian community to counteract the dangers by their encouragement.

12:14-29
This passage warns against unholiness. Joyful and gracious aspects of the gospel must not dull us to the moral imperatives of God, and the dangers of sin. We must worship God acceptably, which is to say with reverence, awe, and fear of His consuming holiness. I see this passage as a continuation and conclusion of one unit along with 10:19-39 with the intervening emphasis of faith and a God focus that welcomes discipline. With this interpretation, 10:19-12:29 bring to conclusion the introductory warning of 2:1-4 that took two distinct specific focuses in 3:7-4:13 and in 5:11-6:12 with the addition of the new distinct possibility in 12:5-13.

Overall
It isn't necessary or correct to require that all of the above warning passages address the same single variety of spiritual ill. The commentators that I have read, including the four in this book, have each concluded that all the warning passages ARE supposed to be taken together in addressing the same ill, and then argued about whether or not the ill is false conversion, ultimate apostasy, or non-ultimate sin/error. I disagree with this approach. It's more likely that differing commentators with their different understandings of the spiritual illness(es) in question may ALL be right in reference to one or more of the Hebrews warnings. I see Hebrews warning of many dangers, including outright rejection of the gospel before the new birth, outright rejection of the gospel after the new birth, presumptive sinning, lackadaisical spiritual life, compromise in the face of opposition, doubts, lack of genuineness, discouragement, and apathy. There are even more dangers than that, if we include the testimony not just of Hebrews but of all scripture. The only common-denominator, the CURE-ALL, is vital and ongoing faith/obedience in Jesus Christ!

Send me your comments and suggestions for additional reading!