What do you think?
Rate this book
Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews
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
480 pages, Kindle Edition
First published February 21, 2007
31 people are currently reading
92 people want to read
About the author
Herbert W. Bateman IV
20 books2 followersBorn in Camden, New Jersey, Herb Bateman grew up in Pennsauken, a suburb of Camden. He attended and graduated from Pennsauken High School in 1974. During those years, he played the trombone in the school’s orchestra and marching Band as well as wrestled for their athletic department.
After graduating from high school, Bateman worked as manager of Kushner’s Hardware Store in Pennsauken. He spent five years developing skills in retail business before attending college. Although skeptical about his academic abilities, he graduated from Philadelphia Biblical University (PBU) in 1982. It was there that he met his wife, Cindy Ann (nee Ohner), and was married 1 September 1979. They celebrated their first anniversary in Jerusalem where Herb was completing a one-year study program at Jerusalem University College in Israel (1980-1981).
After graduating from PBU, Herb and Cindy moved to Dallas, Texas in 1983 to attend Dallas Theological Seminary where he earned a four year masters degree and subsequent doctorate degree in New Testament Studies. After living in Dallas for twelve years, he accepted a teaching position in northern Indiana where he taught predominately at Grace Theological Seminary. In 2008, he accepted a position at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, left the Midwest, and returned to Texas where he currently resides.
After graduating from high school, Bateman worked as manager of Kushner’s Hardware Store in Pennsauken. He spent five years developing skills in retail business before attending college. Although skeptical about his academic abilities, he graduated from Philadelphia Biblical University (PBU) in 1982. It was there that he met his wife, Cindy Ann (nee Ohner), and was married 1 September 1979. They celebrated their first anniversary in Jerusalem where Herb was completing a one-year study program at Jerusalem University College in Israel (1980-1981).
After graduating from PBU, Herb and Cindy moved to Dallas, Texas in 1983 to attend Dallas Theological Seminary where he earned a four year masters degree and subsequent doctorate degree in New Testament Studies. After living in Dallas for twelve years, he accepted a teaching position in northern Indiana where he taught predominately at Grace Theological Seminary. In 2008, he accepted a position at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, left the Midwest, and returned to Texas where he currently resides.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews
March 21, 2024
This book is helpful in outlining the various positions Christians take on these passages, with mostly good exegesis supporting each view. I say "mostly" because everyone approaches the issues in these chapters with presuppositions, and these presuppositions always affect exegesis.
The book would have been better titled "Three Views," as two of the authors are Arminians, and their contributions basically repeated each other.
There are three components to the warning passages: the spiritual state of the recipients, the action warned against, and the penalty prescribed for failing to heed the warning.
The Arminian view is that the recipients are true believers, the action warned against is loss of salvation, and the penalty is eternal damnation.
The counter to the Arminian view is the overarching doctrine of salvation in the Scriptures, and indeed in the book of Hebrews itself. Salvation is eternal. When someone becomes a true believer, he cannot lose eternal salvation. The Arminian view is untenable on its face.
The Calvinist view is that the recipients (of the warnings) are not true believers, but seem to be, the action warned against is final rejection of the gospel (apostasy), and the penalty is eternal damnation.
The counter to this view is simply this: What would the Calvinist have the recipients do? Continue in the state they are in? That is what the author of Hebrews seems to want them to do. If the Calvinist is right about them, and they continue in the state they are in (not true believers, but seem to be), they will ultimately be eternally damned anyway. What good is the warning to them?
The third view is not widely held, but seems to me to be correct. It is called a "modified Reformed view" in the book, but this seems to be a misnomer. In this view, the recipients are true believers, the action warned against is taking a "safe" way out from the persecution directed at Christians (ie, slip back into Judaism), and the penalty is that anyone who takes this course sets himself on a course for absolute misery and pain (and perhaps death) in this present life. They themselves will be saved, in the words of 1 Corinthians, "so as by fire."
To me, this view answers the writing of Hebrews best. The book does a good job laying out the various views as I said, but with the weakness of repeating itself in having two Arminian views. The other weakness of a book like this is simply the plethora of Scriptures brought to bear in discussing the topic. One can get lost in the many Scripture references, it being hard to look them all up and think about them in their context as the various writers are citing them in support of their positions. This can't be helped, but it makes this kind of writing a little harder to follow (at least to me) and fails to bring to bear the full meaning of the passages cited.
The book would have been better titled "Three Views," as two of the authors are Arminians, and their contributions basically repeated each other.
There are three components to the warning passages: the spiritual state of the recipients, the action warned against, and the penalty prescribed for failing to heed the warning.
The Arminian view is that the recipients are true believers, the action warned against is loss of salvation, and the penalty is eternal damnation.
The counter to the Arminian view is the overarching doctrine of salvation in the Scriptures, and indeed in the book of Hebrews itself. Salvation is eternal. When someone becomes a true believer, he cannot lose eternal salvation. The Arminian view is untenable on its face.
The Calvinist view is that the recipients (of the warnings) are not true believers, but seem to be, the action warned against is final rejection of the gospel (apostasy), and the penalty is eternal damnation.
The counter to this view is simply this: What would the Calvinist have the recipients do? Continue in the state they are in? That is what the author of Hebrews seems to want them to do. If the Calvinist is right about them, and they continue in the state they are in (not true believers, but seem to be), they will ultimately be eternally damned anyway. What good is the warning to them?
The third view is not widely held, but seems to me to be correct. It is called a "modified Reformed view" in the book, but this seems to be a misnomer. In this view, the recipients are true believers, the action warned against is taking a "safe" way out from the persecution directed at Christians (ie, slip back into Judaism), and the penalty is that anyone who takes this course sets himself on a course for absolute misery and pain (and perhaps death) in this present life. They themselves will be saved, in the words of 1 Corinthians, "so as by fire."
To me, this view answers the writing of Hebrews best. The book does a good job laying out the various views as I said, but with the weakness of repeating itself in having two Arminian views. The other weakness of a book like this is simply the plethora of Scriptures brought to bear in discussing the topic. One can get lost in the many Scripture references, it being hard to look them all up and think about them in their context as the various writers are citing them in support of their positions. This can't be helped, but it makes this kind of writing a little harder to follow (at least to me) and fails to bring to bear the full meaning of the passages cited.
June 2, 2008
This is a very good book on a hotly debated topic. It fills a major lacuna. Besides the traditional Calvinist/Arminian debate, this book is also a valuable reference for dealing with other hotly debated topics, e.g., the Federal Vision.
After an excellent introduction by Bateman, the rest of the book proceeds along the popular point/counterpoint style. A position is presented and defended, and then the other contributors offer critiques.
First up is the "classical Arminian view" presented by Osborne. He presents a very good case, and though I don't agree with him that the elect can fall away, much of his insights were valuable for someone such as me who holds to an internal/external view of the covenant.
Next, Buist Fanning presents the "classical Calvinist" case. He argues that the author is writing to a mixed community and if a member falls away he gives evidence that he was never one of the elect in the first place. His argument about Jesus' role as high priest for those he died for, and what he does for them, seals the deal from my perspective.
Gareth Cockerill presents and defends the Wesleyan-Arminian view. I found his position to be basically the same as Osborne's. It was highly generalized too. Osborne even pointed out that he would have liked to see more detail.
Lastly, Randall Gleason presents what he calls the "modified Calvinist" view. He argues that the punishments and judgments believers receive are temporal punishments, not eternal. He offers a good defense of an uncommon view. I don't think he succeeds, but he should get an A for effort!
George Guthrie concludes the discussion, and rightly notes that this is a fascinating field of theological inquiry, further study is needed. Also a paradigm shift for Americans is perhaps needed. The warnings should be read in the context of community; which, though I don't follow any New Prespective tendencies here, fits right in with arguments and defenses of the classical Reformed view of a mixed covenant community.
This book is a valuable addition to the warning passages debate, and sticks its fingers into many other debates as well.
After an excellent introduction by Bateman, the rest of the book proceeds along the popular point/counterpoint style. A position is presented and defended, and then the other contributors offer critiques.
First up is the "classical Arminian view" presented by Osborne. He presents a very good case, and though I don't agree with him that the elect can fall away, much of his insights were valuable for someone such as me who holds to an internal/external view of the covenant.
Next, Buist Fanning presents the "classical Calvinist" case. He argues that the author is writing to a mixed community and if a member falls away he gives evidence that he was never one of the elect in the first place. His argument about Jesus' role as high priest for those he died for, and what he does for them, seals the deal from my perspective.
Gareth Cockerill presents and defends the Wesleyan-Arminian view. I found his position to be basically the same as Osborne's. It was highly generalized too. Osborne even pointed out that he would have liked to see more detail.
Lastly, Randall Gleason presents what he calls the "modified Calvinist" view. He argues that the punishments and judgments believers receive are temporal punishments, not eternal. He offers a good defense of an uncommon view. I don't think he succeeds, but he should get an A for effort!
George Guthrie concludes the discussion, and rightly notes that this is a fascinating field of theological inquiry, further study is needed. Also a paradigm shift for Americans is perhaps needed. The warnings should be read in the context of community; which, though I don't follow any New Prespective tendencies here, fits right in with arguments and defenses of the classical Reformed view of a mixed covenant community.
This book is a valuable addition to the warning passages debate, and sticks its fingers into many other debates as well.
February 4, 2020
This book is one the multi-view books that is such a great place to start any kind of topical research on a theological dispute. There are four viewpoint authors, highlighting the Calvinist/Arminian divide in interpretation of the warning passages in Hebrews. Each author is also given the chance to respond to the essays of the other three authors, and this adds to the helpful nature of the book.
As a general rule, Calvinists believe that, since the believer cannot fall from grace, and so these warning passages had the purpose of targeting a mixed audience of believers and non-believers and are largely aimed at the non believing portion of that audience. Arminians, on the other hand, by and large believe that someone who is saved can lose that salvation and that these warning passages are stern and pointed warnings for those who are beginning to drift away from the salvation that they had once believed.
This book has two Arminian perspectives and two Calvinist perspectives, painting in finer shades of doctrinal difference between the two perspectives and within the two camps.
For the Arminian perspective:
1. Grant Osborne, giving a classic Arminian view of the passage
2. Gareth Cockerill, shading in a more Wesleyan-Arminian interpretation
These two perspectives are so similar that it is truly difficult to distinguish them. They also both, unfortunately, take the approach of going through each passage and exegeting the individual verses, making their essays similar enough to feel a little repetitive for the reader. Osborne has the stronger of the two essays, and had I been the editor, I probably would have only included his perspective and called the book "three views" instead of four.
For the Calvinist perspective:
1. Buist Fanning, giving the classic Calvinist perspective
2. Randall Gleason, giving a more moderated Calvinist perspective.
Fanning's perspective probably resonates with me the most because he does a great job balancing the idea of the warning passages with the context of the reassurance and exhortation that runs thematically throughout the entire book. It's very classically Calvinist, and I think most readers will find the perspective that they have heard preached in their churches and taught through their Bible studies to be some variation on Fanning's theme.
Gleason gives a view here that I was entirely unfamiliar with. He claims that the audience was Jewish Christians living in Palestine and that these warnings are temporal loss as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple were soon to come and that those who clung to Judaism and the temple traditions would suffer loss in the judgment on the city. I really enjoyed his use of the Old Testament and many of the things that he said, but on the whole, he argument has so many holes that it is ultimately untenable.
The book also contains an introduction to the passages by Herbert Bateman that is helpful for setting context and explaining the content of the passage. George Guthrie's conclusion struck exactly the right note for the reminder that doctrinal differences on minor areas of theology or on tertiary differences are not worth losing our relationships with our Christian brothers and sisters over. As Osborne states in one of his response essays, the evidence for Arminianism and for Calvinism are almost equal in the Bible, and perhaps that is a sign that God wants us to live in the tension rather than to cling to desperately to one perspective.
I can't say that my perspective was changed by this book, but I can say that it was clarified. I can also say that I have notes for further thoughts and that I will be thinking more on these passages in the future as they are truly puzzling on many levels.
For the armchair theologian: Books of this ilk are written for the layman as much as for the pastor/scholar. If these passages are of an interest to you or if you are not sure how your should interpret them, this is a great book to pick up. While I cannot promise that the book will give you clarity on where to stand on these passages, it will give you a view of how the passages have been interpreted and why the various Arminians/Calvinists in your life interpret the passage.
As a general rule, Calvinists believe that, since the believer cannot fall from grace, and so these warning passages had the purpose of targeting a mixed audience of believers and non-believers and are largely aimed at the non believing portion of that audience. Arminians, on the other hand, by and large believe that someone who is saved can lose that salvation and that these warning passages are stern and pointed warnings for those who are beginning to drift away from the salvation that they had once believed.
This book has two Arminian perspectives and two Calvinist perspectives, painting in finer shades of doctrinal difference between the two perspectives and within the two camps.
For the Arminian perspective:
1. Grant Osborne, giving a classic Arminian view of the passage
2. Gareth Cockerill, shading in a more Wesleyan-Arminian interpretation
These two perspectives are so similar that it is truly difficult to distinguish them. They also both, unfortunately, take the approach of going through each passage and exegeting the individual verses, making their essays similar enough to feel a little repetitive for the reader. Osborne has the stronger of the two essays, and had I been the editor, I probably would have only included his perspective and called the book "three views" instead of four.
For the Calvinist perspective:
1. Buist Fanning, giving the classic Calvinist perspective
2. Randall Gleason, giving a more moderated Calvinist perspective.
Fanning's perspective probably resonates with me the most because he does a great job balancing the idea of the warning passages with the context of the reassurance and exhortation that runs thematically throughout the entire book. It's very classically Calvinist, and I think most readers will find the perspective that they have heard preached in their churches and taught through their Bible studies to be some variation on Fanning's theme.
Gleason gives a view here that I was entirely unfamiliar with. He claims that the audience was Jewish Christians living in Palestine and that these warnings are temporal loss as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple were soon to come and that those who clung to Judaism and the temple traditions would suffer loss in the judgment on the city. I really enjoyed his use of the Old Testament and many of the things that he said, but on the whole, he argument has so many holes that it is ultimately untenable.
The book also contains an introduction to the passages by Herbert Bateman that is helpful for setting context and explaining the content of the passage. George Guthrie's conclusion struck exactly the right note for the reminder that doctrinal differences on minor areas of theology or on tertiary differences are not worth losing our relationships with our Christian brothers and sisters over. As Osborne states in one of his response essays, the evidence for Arminianism and for Calvinism are almost equal in the Bible, and perhaps that is a sign that God wants us to live in the tension rather than to cling to desperately to one perspective.
I can't say that my perspective was changed by this book, but I can say that it was clarified. I can also say that I have notes for further thoughts and that I will be thinking more on these passages in the future as they are truly puzzling on many levels.
For the armchair theologian: Books of this ilk are written for the layman as much as for the pastor/scholar. If these passages are of an interest to you or if you are not sure how your should interpret them, this is a great book to pick up. While I cannot promise that the book will give you clarity on where to stand on these passages, it will give you a view of how the passages have been interpreted and why the various Arminians/Calvinists in your life interpret the passage.
September 7, 2020
I read this book for a Grad course on the Epistle to the Hebrews, and would recommend it to anyone taking a deep dive into Hebrews. This book compiles the different views of four leading biblical scholars on the topic of the "warning passages" in Hebrews. These passages scattered throughout the Epistle have been the topic of heated debate for centuries, as both Arminians and Calvinists come to these texts with seemingly different perspectives. It is important to recognize that whatever tradition you bring to this text can and most likely will color your interpretation of them. It is best to recognize that these preconceived notions are present, and to try to approach the biblical text with an honest and open mind.
After each view is presented, each other "camp" is able to give a detailed response to the view, pointing out areas of agreement or disagreement. I appreciated this back-and-forth dialogue between the authors, because it allowed for each view to have a right to speak. Ultimately, I found myself more aligned with the Wesleyan Arminian View espoused by Gareth L. Cockerill. Cockerill's view is not too different from Grant R. Osborne's Classical Arminian View, since they are both Arminian, but I found Cockerill much more persuasive in his argument. Randall C. Gleason's Moderate Reformed View is fascinating, as he does not view these passages as speaking about apostasy and about eternal judgment, but about a relinquishing of divine blessings in light of the imminent danger of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70; while Gleason brings up some important points to consider, his overall argument depends too much on the location of Hebrews' audience being in Palestine. Buist M. Fanning (representing a Classical Reformed View) is persuasive, but draws some conclusions specifically about the eternal security of believers that are not conclusive from the Epistle to the Hebrews; it seems to me that the rhetorical strength of the warning passages dissolves if eternal security is in view.
After each view is presented, each other "camp" is able to give a detailed response to the view, pointing out areas of agreement or disagreement. I appreciated this back-and-forth dialogue between the authors, because it allowed for each view to have a right to speak. Ultimately, I found myself more aligned with the Wesleyan Arminian View espoused by Gareth L. Cockerill. Cockerill's view is not too different from Grant R. Osborne's Classical Arminian View, since they are both Arminian, but I found Cockerill much more persuasive in his argument. Randall C. Gleason's Moderate Reformed View is fascinating, as he does not view these passages as speaking about apostasy and about eternal judgment, but about a relinquishing of divine blessings in light of the imminent danger of the destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple in AD 70; while Gleason brings up some important points to consider, his overall argument depends too much on the location of Hebrews' audience being in Palestine. Buist M. Fanning (representing a Classical Reformed View) is persuasive, but draws some conclusions specifically about the eternal security of believers that are not conclusive from the Epistle to the Hebrews; it seems to me that the rhetorical strength of the warning passages dissolves if eternal security is in view.
June 4, 2018
I actually enjoyed this book. I would have given it five stars were it not for the fact that it got somewhat repetitive and plodding. When you present four views on the same passages and then give each of the other views a rebuttal on each view, the approach produces the repetition. Basically, how do we understand the warning passages in Hebrews? Apostasy, backsliding, immaturity, refusal to grow? And what are the consequences? Eternal damnation, loss of reward, physical death, unsettling? This book calls all of us to follow Jesus with all of our hearts no matter which view we take.
October 21, 2018
For interesting views of the warning passages in Hebrews. While not changing my mind on the meaning, my views have definitely been given more nuance.
October 17, 2024
Solid. Good perspectives from a lot of angles along with responses to each from those varying opinions. Written with good faith.
November 13, 2016
The Christian life is filled with ebbs and flows. But what happens if we get stuck in the ebb? Hebrews has answers. A famous passage comes in chapter 6 verse four. Those who fall away can never be renewed to repentance. Or how about chapter 10? What is the fate of those who "deliberately keep on sinning"? How do we interpret these passages?
According to Four Views, it comes down to whether you think
1) those addressed in Hebrews are believers
2) the extent of the penalty for their apostasy
That is, are we discussing false professors who show their true selves? Or Christians who forfeit rewards? Or worse, Christians who fall back to damnation?
The good news is, whichever position you take, you're in good company. You'll be able to justify it from the text. Bad news? I'm persuaded the Wesleyan perspectives are most sound. Their hermeneutic is more consistent with that used to glean the great doctrines of the Christian faith; salvation by grace, the Trinity, the depravity of man. I'm at a crossroads. I'm forced to reconsider long-held assumptions about these passages.
According to Four Views, it comes down to whether you think
1) those addressed in Hebrews are believers
2) the extent of the penalty for their apostasy
That is, are we discussing false professors who show their true selves? Or Christians who forfeit rewards? Or worse, Christians who fall back to damnation?
The good news is, whichever position you take, you're in good company. You'll be able to justify it from the text. Bad news? I'm persuaded the Wesleyan perspectives are most sound. Their hermeneutic is more consistent with that used to glean the great doctrines of the Christian faith; salvation by grace, the Trinity, the depravity of man. I'm at a crossroads. I'm forced to reconsider long-held assumptions about these passages.
Displaying 1 - 8 of 8 reviews