Hebrew Warning Passages: Arminian View

A Classical Arminian View: Outline[1]

1. Introduction: Humanity decides whether to let the Spirit works or lives within.
2. First Warning Passage: The Dangers of Drifting Away: Hebrews 2:1-4
3. Lesser to Greater: Old revelation at Sinai points to a greater revelation of the gospel.
4. Drift Away: Believers who ignore or disregard the truth are those who drift.
5. Punishment: Those who ignore the new covenant face the greater eternal punishment.

Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews

III. Second Warning Passage: The Greater Danger of Losing God’s Rest: Hebrews 3:7-4:11

1. Past Model: Unbelief leads to evil resulting in falling away and eternal hell.
2. Present Model: Rest through faith, death, and consummation is already inaugurated.
3. Power of the Word: The Word penetrates human nature as a whole.
4. Third Warning Passage: The Danger of Apostasy: Hebrews 5:11-6:12
5. Problem: Author exhorts a sluggish audience to spiritual maturity.
6. Danger: Some may commit apostasy and thus impossible that God would restore.
7. Encouragement: The readers will not commit apostasy, but the danger exists.
8. Fourth Warning Passage: The Consequences of Apostasy: Hebrews 10:19-39
9. Exhortations: Keep both the horizontal and vertical relationships.
10. Corporate Fellowship: The primary deterrent to apostasy.
11. Apostasy Defined: True believers completely denying the faith.
12. Fifth Warning Passage: Facing the Consuming Fire: Hebrews 12:14-29
13. Context: The heroes of the faith provide models of faithful perseverance.
14. Contrast: Encounter the indwelling God of Zion rather than the God of Sinai.
15. Warning: Readers have a choice to be removed or remain eternally in God’s hands.

VII. Conclusion: A real danger of apostasy exists for true believers with no possibility of return.

A Classical Arminian View: Summary and Critique

Grant Osborne adopts the classical Arminian view of the Hebrew warning passages. He begins by asserting that individuals have the choice to choose Christ but quickly cautions that faith is a “passive surrender” to the active agent of the Holy Spirit, and thus, faith is not considered a “work.”[2] Concerning the first warning passage, Hebrews 2:1-4, Osborne highlights the lesser to greater argument and the idea of drifting away. Osborne suggests that since salvation under the new covenant is greater than the old covenant, then the punishment will also be greater, which is eternal damnation.[3] Osborne then asserts that drifting away pertains to authentic believers disregarding the truth.[4] Concerning the second warning passage, Hebrews 3:7-4:11, regarding the rebellion at Kadesh, Osborne engages the author’s exposition of Psalm 95 and notes two results, which include God’s wrath and the Israelites never entering God’s rest: the Promised Land.[5] Also regarding the topic of rest, Osborn follows Lincoln Hurst, who suggests that rest is accomplished in three ways: through faith, in death, and at final consummation.[6] Importantly, Osborne recognizes the inaugurated thrust of rest.

The third warning passage, Hebrews 5:11-6:12, focuses primarily on the danger of apostasy. The key passage within the pericope is Hebrews 6:4-8 where Osborne suggests that, when authentic Christians fall away, it is impossible that God “would” not (rather than “could” not) restore them back into His grace.[7] Regarding the fourth warning in Hebrews 10:19-39, Osborne focuses his attention on the corporate community. The purpose of corporate fellowship should be to spur one another on to good works and to use as a “deterrent to apostasy,” which Osborne defines as intentionally and willfully denying the faith.[8] Regarding the fifth and final warning passage, Hebrews 12:14-29, Osborne highlights the call to holiness and recognizes the warning against returning to the religion of Judaism noting that individuals have a choice to determine whether they are “eternally ‘removed’ or ‘remain.’”[9] Osborne concludes by reiterating that true believers are in danger of apostasy, the unpardonable sin of denying the faith for which there is no recovery and only eternal judgement.[10]

The strengths of Osborne’s perspective are numerous. First, Osborne takes exegesis seriously, engages the theological issues in an even-handed way, and acknowledges when issues are not conclusive. Second, Osborne provides a strong argument from the text that the recipients of the sermon are authentic believers. Third, Osborne’s assertion that apostasy pertains to those who deny the faith not only aligns with the book of Hebrews but also with the remainder of the canon. Although the debate continues to rage, most, if not all, evangelical believers would agree that no Baal worshippers will exist in heaven. Fourth, Osborne’s broad semantic view of rest appears to provide the most reasonable perspective in light of the concept of inaugurated eschatology.

The weaknesses of Osborn’s analysis revolve around his inability to clarify important arguments contra his perspective. First, although Osborne asserts that apostasy is a denial of the faith, he also appears to assert that apostasy means willfully sinning, which is a “repudiation of everything the Godhead has done in salvation.”[11] It is difficult to read Hebrews 11 without recognizing that many of the men and women of faith struggled with willful sin throughout their lives. Second, Randall Gleason appropriately recognizes that many individuals in the Old Testament, such as Moses, “failed to enter ‘rest’ without forfeiting ‘eternal life.’”[12] Although Osborne recognizes various aspects of rest, he does not explain exactly how and when rest may not have an eternal aspect. Finally, Osborne states that believers “must maintain their relationship with Christ” and to do so they must “hold firm.”[13] Osborne argues that faith is a passive surrender and not a work, but if the believer is responsible for maintaining their relationship with Christ by holding firm, then it appears that the believer could be responsible for his or her own salvific outcome. In sum, Osborne could have enhanced his arguments by clarifying and addressing several critiques that he certainly knew existed from the Reformed perspective.

_____________________________________

[1] See Gareth L. Cockerill et al., Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, ed. Herbert W. Bateman (Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007), 86–128.

[2] Ibid., 86–87.

[3] Ibid., 94.

[4] Ibid., 93.

[5] Ibid., 96–101.

[6] Lincoln Hurst, The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought, Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 65 (Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990), 71.

[7] Cockerill et al., Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews, 114.

[8] Ibid., 119–12.

[9] Ibid., 124–126.

[10] Ibid., 128.

[11] Ibid., 120–121.

[12] Ibid., 165.

[13] Ibid., 100.

Bibliography

• Cockerill, Gareth L., Buist M. Fanning, Randall C. Gleason, and Grant R. Osborne. Four Views on the Warning Passages in Hebrews. Edited by Herbert W. Bateman. Grand Rapids: Kregel, 2007.
• Hurst, Lincoln. The Epistle to the Hebrews: Its Background of Thought. Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series 65. Cambridge: Cambridge University, 1990.