Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews
Introduction
The book Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, edited by Herbert W. Bateman IV, gives a quick overview of the four central beliefs concerning these warning passages. However, the heart of the debate is the "balance between the sovereignty of God and the free will of mankind."[1] This balance has been debated for generations and is still being debated to this day.
In sight of this dilemma, there are two main schools of thought; one follows after the teaching of Calvin, while the other follows after the teaching of Arminius. Calvin believed that God was sovereignly active in people's lives and decided who would be saved and those who would not be saved. Then, the "elect" would be so overwhelmed by the irresistible grace that they would choose Christ, which takes free will out of the equation.
On the other hand, Arminius believed that God still did act sovereignly, but instead of choosing the "elect," he sent his Spirit to convict the world of sin; some would choose to follow Christ, and some would not. Since God is all-knowing, he already knows beforehand who will choose him and who will not, and it is that foreknowledge that he predestines them “to be conformed to the likeness of his Son” (Rom. 8:29).[2] So, in the Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, the authors focus on these two schools of thought and show how they impact the interpretation.
The four main views that are looked at are a Classical Arminian View, a Classical Reformed View, a Wesleyan Arminian View, and a Moderate Reformed View. After each author, since there is a different author for each view, defends his beliefs then, the other three positions get to write a rebuttal; the rebuttals are not written with a fighting mentality but rather in an inquiring tone.
Summary
A Classical Arminian View
Grant R. Osborne is the first to defend a view, the Classical Arminian View. He points out that both the Arminian and Calvinists hold to the doctrine of total depravity, that if man had to choose to accept Christ, he would reject him.[3] The differences start to show when one focuses on who the warning passages refer to.
To begin this discussion, Osborne holds to the position that the situation the Hebrew church found themselves in was a triumphant endurance during Roman persecution. However, in later years, when the persecution has heightened, people are beginning to grow lazy, which will lead them to apostasy.[4] So those who are being warned in these passages are not "pretend Christians," but rather, they are referring to regenerated believers.
The three-fold warning in 6:4-5 is to keep believers from full-scale apostasy[5], which is a possibility for a regenerated believer and can lead to a loss of salvation. As Osborne would point out, this loss of salvation results from committing the unpardonable sin since the passage speaks about it being impossible for those to be brought back to repentance.[6] While the threats are natural, they are possible to avoid, which is why the author of Hebrews encourages after the warnings (6:9-12; 10:32-39).
A Classical Reformed View
Buist M. Fanning defends the Classical Reformed view of the warning passages. He does agree that a literal or straightforward reading of the warning passages would probably refer to regenerated believers.[7] On the other hand, he claims that these passages do not refer to regenerated believers but only use phenomenological language to describe how these people act or appear rather than who they are. The warnings are irrevocable judgments that will follow. The passage could not refer to true believers, even though the text may make it seem that they are, because of the many passages about a Christian's assurance.
A Wesleyan Arminian View
Much like the Classical Arminian view, this view, defended by Gareth L Cockerill, believes that the author of Hebrews refers to true believers, not those who act or claim to be Christians. Both agree that the punishment relates to eternal judgment, not just temporary punishment. Their only disagreement comes with the fate of the wilderness generation; one believes that they faced eternal loss, while the other thinks they faced physical death.
A Moderate Reformed View
This view, defended by Randall C. Gleason, seems to think that the Hebrews author refers to true believers. The difference is in the judgment that they will face and the eternal perseverance that the Classical Reformed holds to. The Moderate Reformed view denies the eternal perseverance of the "elect," but it does go on and hold eternal security even for those who never go out of a stagnate state or maybe even deny Christ. So the punishment that these will face is not an eternal judgment or a loss of salvation, but rather, it is referring to a judgment of death, much like those in the wilderness faced.
Critique
To keep from repetition between each one of the views, it would be best to break them down into two different categories and critique each category instead of critiquing all four and running the risk of repetition. So, the four main views are broken down even more into just two schools of belief. These are the Arminians and the Calvinists.
Arminian
As a rebuttal to this position, many will hold to the idea that a believer has eternal security. They will claim that to think any other way would be to contradict the promises made throughout the Scriptures and especially here in Hebrews (e.g., 7:25; 9:14-15; 10:14). The problem with a response like that is like a revolving door. Everything comes back to the same point. For instance, in 7:25, the Scripture talks about Jesus being able to save the uttermost those who draw near to him. While that is true, couldn't the opposite be true, that they could pull away from him even to the point of apostasy? But the rebuttal to this would be that if they were saved to the uttermost, then there would be that irresistible grace that they would never turn away, and if they did, then they were never "true" Christians to begin with. The question remains then: how do you prove if someone is a genuine Christian or not? The Scripture teaches us that if one stays true till the end, they will receive the prize. So, the only way to tell if someone is a true Christian is by waiting until they die. So, while one group will say Christians can lose their salvation, the other group will say no, but if they stray away, then they were never Christians. So, hence the revolving door metaphor.
Reformed/Calvinist
In response to the Calvinist look at the warning passages, a few questions need to be brought up. The first one is, "Why are these warning passages?" If God has already chosen his elect and everyone else is condemned, even if they are "acting" like Christians or not, then why are these warnings? Warnings are usually placed there to change someone's direction, but why warn if a course of direction cannot be changed? Instead of warning passages, these should be statements that express the un-elect's future of eternal punishment since they have no way of changing. So, a warning passage is cruel or unneeded in sight of no choice to change.
The second thing that comes to mind is the passage in 1 Timothy 2:4, which says, "…who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." How can God desire all men to be saved but only choose a certain amount of people? If there were no free will and God chose his elect, this passage would be false, destroying the trustworthiness of the rest of the Scriptures.
Still, if these passages were true, then that would mean that God did not choose his elect. Instead, he has done everything he could to draw men to him, and now he is watching to see who comes and strengthening those who do come. So, with those two questions in mind, it is difficult to believe that God has chosen his elect, and there is no way that any of them could fall away.
Personal Stance
As inferred from the earlier statement, this author tends to hold more to the Classical Arminian view. The reasons are as stated earlier. First, it is challenging to reconcile 1 Timothy 2:4 with the other Calvinist approaches. One of the things that every hermeneutical scholar must understand is that one cannot take a single passage and form a belief system around it. Still more, he must take the Scriptures and reconcile one passage with another. Some may say that this author needs to do the same with his belief, but he feels confident that he has done so.
The second is that God's love does not seem to make up with a Calvinist approach, which might sound ironic coming from someone who claims one can lose their salvation. The reason is that belief holds to the idea that God only chooses the "elect," which means all others are condemned. But then why would God send his son into the world because of his love for the world if Christ was only going to save a few? That does not even give some the option to be saved. But if one holds to the belief that someone gets to choose to follow him, then that leaves open the option that someone can, in turn, decide to stop following him and turn entirely against him.
Conclusion
The warning passages in Hebrews have been a source of debate for centuries, and it does not look like this debate will end anytime soon. This book, though, gives an excellent survey of the different views of the warning passages. It also does a good job of challenging the other views by allowing a rebuttal time for each. So, this book is essential for anyone who wants to understand the warning passages better.
