The warning passages in Hebrews have always been one of the most arguable and controversial parts of the whole Scripture. Bateman IV (2007) even describes them with the word “exhausting” (24). The major sticking points are the following. Firstly, who are those passages about: believers, unbelievers, or both? How are we supposed to interpret the term of salvation and sanctification?
Secondly, how can the “true believers eternally secure in their salvation” deny or reject the God’s Son and deserve the punishment (Bateman IV 2007, 25)? Finally, what is probably the most important issue, will believers be deprived of their salvation if they reject God’s Son, or can it be given back to them in case of repentance?
A Brief Summary of the Book
In Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, Bateman IV analyzes the warning passages and the most controversial questions, which are generated by them, through the prism of four perspectives provided by four different people.
All of them are professors in various areas of theology and the authors of many works related to the Book of Hebrews. The detailed information about each of the contributors can be found at the beginning of the book, right after the Preface.
First of all, the author gives the introduction, where he identifies the warning passages, defines their main characteristics, and classifies them according to those characteristics. For example, passages 2:1-4 and 12:14-29 are aimed to explain the need to listen and hear the God’s word.
Another two of the warning passages are about the trust and obedience to God (3:7-4:13, 10:19-39). And, finally, parts 5:11-6:12 Bateman IV (2007) describes as the “heart” of all passages (28). All of fore mentioned passages later become the central focus of the book.
The first part of Four Views describe the Classical Arminian view presented by Grant R. Osborn. He reviews the relevant part of the Book of Hebrews and examines each of the fore mentioned passages in details. He states that apostasy is the biggest threat to the genuine believers as far as it deprives them of their salvation. Moreover, this happens once and for all. Then, the responds of the rest of the professors are presented.
The second part of the book is about the Classical Reformed view, which is given by Buist M. Fanning. This perspective is probably the greatest competitor of the previous one since it assumes just the opposite.
According to it, those believers who commit apostasy, have never been true believers at all. In other words, Fanning claims that there is a clear distinction between Christians and non-Christians. After Fanning’s essay, the representatives of the rest perspectives comment on this one.
The third viewpoint discussed in the book is Wesleyan Arminian, represented by Gareth Lee Cockerill. This view is very common to the first one, Classical Arminian. The difference is that Cockerill admits the possibility that those who commit apostasy can be actually restored. Again, three comments of the rest of the professors are presented.
The fourth part of the book describes the Moderate Reformed view by Randall C. Gleason. It is probably the most unusual interpretation of the warning passages. Gleason understands falling away in entirely different terms and uses the Old Testament parallels. After the representation of this view, the responds of other professors are provided.
The book ends with the conclusion that summarizes all points that have been mentioned above and determines the ways of further investigation. The conclusion is written be George H. Guthrie.
Analysis of the Concepts
The Classical Arminian View
Osborne assumes that the warning passages are addressed to believers. He proves his point using the parts of the participles in 6:4-6. Among those are the words: “having been once-for-all enlightened”, “having become partakers of the Holy Spirit”, “having tasted the heavenly gift”, and others (Bateman IV 2007, 111-112). Those indeed seem to address the believers, since only they are supposed to be enlightened.
So, Osborne states that the passages are aimed to warn real believers that even they can actually “fall away” one day (Bateman IV 2007, 112). He talks about this as about the biggest threat because once a believer commits apostasy he can never turn back, that is there is no chance for repentance. At this point, Osborne focuses on Hebrews 6, which refers to an unforgivable sin.
He says that an unforgivable sin here is apostasy. Additionally, he argues that the phrase “if they fall away” is the incorrect translation of the original participle, and suggests to replace the word “if” with the word “when” since many believers have already “fallen away” (Bateman IV 2007, 112).
The Classical Reformed View
Unlike the Classical Arminian perspective, the Classical Reformed one presumes that the warning passages have just the opposite goal and address the non-Christians, not believers. In this regard, Fanning refers to the fact that in the warning passages the third person is used while in the majority of others – only the first and second person. Thus, different groups of individuals are addressed.
Fanning states that people are split up on Christians and non-Christians from the very beginning, and those who commit apostasy have never been real believers at all. He also argues about the content of participles 3:6 and 3:14, saying that we should not talk about “what will be true” of those who fall away, but focus on “what is already true of them”, because it is actually the same (Bateman IV 2007, 207).
Therefore, a person is either a believer or an unbeliever, and only unbelievers can apostatize. This view is especially criticized by Osborn (which is predictably enough), who says that Fanning has overlooked “several portions of the passages” (Bateman IV 2007, 220).
The Wesleyan Arminian View
The perspective presented by Cockerill is very similar to Classical Arminian. Cockerill agrees with Osborn on the point that the warning passages are directed to the believers and warn them about apostasy. However, unlike Osborn, who denies the possibility of those who have fallen away to repent and become believers again, Cockerill allows for such a possibility.
Actually, instead of focusing on the status (a believer or an unbeliever, in or out of the God’s Kingdom), Cockerill mainly pays attention to the process, which leads to that status, that is whether a person is moving towards God or in the opposite direction. The main drawback of this view is that Cockerill does not consider several participles, such as 6:9-12 or 10:19-25, for example, and that seems to be an oversight.
The Moderate Reformed View
Gleason’s contribution is indeed a unique one. He understood the passages in terms of the Old Testament and said that those concerned Jewish believers who were facing persecutions before the Jerusalem was destroyed.
He also says that falling away is a “serious act of unfaithfulness toward God”, and the punishment for it, based on the OT background, is physical (Bateman IV 2007, 220). However, this interpretation is very specific and depends on many presumptions and variables, and in case those are not right, this view becomes much weaker.
The “Best” Explanation
As it has already been said before, the warning passages are extremely difficult and controversial, that is why it is hard to determine, which one of the four perspectives is actually right. Every one of them has a grain of truth and is valuable for the further investigation of the passages.
However, the third viewpoint seems to be the closest to the truth. The Moderate Reformed view has a significant drawback because of its close connection with the Old Testament.
The Classical Reformed perspective can be criticized as far as it divides people only into two groups (either believers or unbelievers), without any possibility of intersections between them. It is a very radical proposition because the world can never be so black and white.
So, this leaves us with two very similar views: Classical Arminian and Wesleyan Arminian. Both of them state that the controversial passages warn believers about apostasy and imply that it is the biggest threat to them. However, the classical perspective is much more radical since it says that anyone who apostatizes can never turn back to being a believer through repentance.
The Wesleyan Arminian view is more realistic for that matter. Besides, it focuses on the action instead of the state, and it seems to be right. Even those people who have committed apostasy in their past can move towards God in the present, what makes them believers. Therefore, the process has much more value than the state.
General Analysis of the Book
First of all, Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews has a valuable introduction. Unlike many other books, where an introduction is only a vague representation of the further content, this one gives all principal concepts explained from the very beginning. The introduction is aimed to orient readers in the topics, which are discussed in the subsequent parts of the book, and it definitely succeeds in this task.
However, the author also discusses several issues there, which are not needed for the further debate and analysis and only distract readers’ attention from the central theme. So, those could be easily omitted. Still, the advantages of the introduction outweigh this insignificant drawback.
Another strength of the book is that its structure is simple and clear. After every contributor explains their point of view, the rest of them have the opportunity to comment on it, giving their critical analysis. While reading this book, you have a feeling that you are present at the real debate.
It seems like you listen to the presentation made by each professor, and then the rest of them respond to it and argue, relying on their own interpretation of the warning passages. However, due to a written form, readers have enough time to analyze and think over every statement.
Besides, such kind of structure gives readers the opportunity to compare one of the perspectives with the rest of them without reading the whole book. You just need to open the relevant chapter and examine the responses of all contributors.
The book is scholarly and is about complex and arguable concepts. Nevertheless, both the author and the contributors try to make its ideas as clear and comprehensible as possible. Besides, every part of the book is written in a moderate tone.
Each author realizes that the warning passages are difficult and can not be interpreted in only one way. That is why they admit that all theories have a right to exist and do not dismiss each other’s view as wrong or heretical. All of this makes the book easy and pleasant to read.
One more important feature of Four View is an impressive functionality. While discussing the warning passages from different perspectives, the book contains numerous links to encyclopedias, dictionaries, and various other resources.
Therefore, it provides readers with a solid theoretical basis and gives all necessary possibilities to conduct the further research. Frankly speaking, the book even motivates readers to conduct the research because when you learn these four perspectives, you want to know even more.
To conclude, Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews has a significant value, both for the comprehension of the topic and the further investigation. Everything in the world is relative, and the best way to understand something is through comparison. At this point, Four Views provides readers with everything they need.
Besides, the book is unique and impossible to replace because it gives relatively easy explanations for extremely complicated concepts. The book is organized in such a way that it is a pleasure to read it. It captures attention and makes you believe that you are a part of a real debate.
References
Bateman IV, Herbert. 2007. Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews. Grand Rapids: Kregel Academic and Professional.