Take a photo of a barcode or cover
A review by leswag97
Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews by
4.0
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.