Scot,I am always surprised to see how easily most people ignore the historical context of Hebrews, and am pleased to see you encouraging your students to do so.What do you think of the possibility that the author was specifically addressing the first-century believers (the elect) “in these last days” simply in order to prepare them for the salvation that was “at hand,” which I believe was quite evidently manifested at the fall of the temple when humanity did enter “his rest” and “the age to come” which the believers were so much looking forward to?

virgil,I’m aware of what you are saying here, as I had lunch today with Tim King. I’d rather not get into transmillenialism on this blog.

Scot,I was just wondering about your take on it…not that I agree with Tim on everything he is presenting. Regardless, one must admit that if “the elect” was a first century-only occurence, Calvinism is faced with a lot of questions and has not so many answers to offer.

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Great postings on your thoughts about Calvinism. I struggled through the warnings passages and came to a similar (but in the end different) conclusion. But I do have a question or two – just to better understand your viewpoint:1. Do you understand “impossible to restore again to repentance” to mean the losing of salvation? Why?2. If you’re right that he talks to christians that can “lose their salvation” (you know what I mean), can they ever be restored again? Hebrews 6 says no!Enjoying your blog from Germany,Danny

Slightly as an aside, have you read Schreiner & Ware’s ‘The race set before us’? I found it quite helpful. I think it seeks to force too much into the model (as Calvinists seem prone to do) – and it leaves a fair bit out. But I did value it as a take on perseverance.On another note, I read a Phd Thesis a while back (maybe MTh, actually) that sought to suggest that Hebrews was actually written just *after* the Temple had fallen. The reference to being unable to repent was then taken in a ceremonial sense. Are you aware of the thesis (can’t think of the title or author for the life of me but I seem to remember it was later published by Sheffield Academic Press)?

This post has been removed by a blog administrator.

Scot,I have a deep appreciation for your exegetical approach to this issue, but haven’t you also placed a road-block already for people who do not agree? What I mean is, you have presented a (as far as I can tell) perfectly valid exegetical method, but you seem to demand that your method come to one conclusion. Also, it would be hard for me to disagree with you here because you have already stated that “Most (Calvinists) respond by dissecting this text carefully, isolating each expression, wondering if maybe it is not as bothersome as it really sounds, and end up (in many cases) walking away convinced this text doesn’t actually teach that a believer can “lose his or her salvation.”I have no intention here of saying that you are trying to shut Calvinists out of the discussion. It just seems like the way you set up your discussion already precludes me from making exegetical arguments to the contrary. I hope that I am not being oversensitive and reactionary. I don’t want to do that.

Scot,This is an interesting discussion because it seems that many people line up on one side of the fence (often according to denominational distinctives) without having seriously studied the doctrines and passages.TEDS has Peter O’Brien teaching a modular course on Hebrews. I took it two years ago, and he talked some about your ’92 article. He has an interesting take on the warning passages, which should appear in a book (?commentary) he’s writing. In our class discussions he presented his suggestion that each warning passage became more serious. He also offered the possibility that the presence of the warning (pictured as a road sign) did not suggest that people were recanting their faith. We also had some interesting discussion regarding the composition of the group receiving the sermon. So, I’m curious to see how the rest of the thread on Hebrews and Calvinism in general will unfold.Also notable . . . there’s a seminar at Trinity being taught by an Arminian (not Osborne but an ST guy) on Sovereignty and Salvation in Wesleyan and Arminian theology.

S.My policy is not to response to anonymous comments. Sorry. We are not nameless persons.Michael,Thanks for your comment, and I don’t think I have done what you are suggesting. I sure hope not.This series is not an academic discussion of all sides and all the evidence and all the ways to interpret them. Instead, it is my story of becoming Post-Calvinist. So, this is not a “fair and balanced,” but how I see things.The need for this is obvious: when was the last time you heard a pro-Arminian type interpretation of Hebrews (or chp 6) in an Evangelical church? My suggestion is that Evangelicals are not given the opportunity to make up their own mind because the pulpit leans toward a Calvinistic interptretation even when many are not all that Calvinistic.Let me emphasize something though: I consider our Wesleyan friends Evangelicals; many would exclude them from the group. Among them, you will hear this view often enough.So, this is a story format of how I came to believe what I believe. For more academic discussions, where people are given the chance to see all sides in order to make up their own mind, see the commentaries. Come to think of it, I’m not sure there is much of that in commentaries either. Maybe Ellingworth.I trust only that you will see that there is a place for this side to be heard in a simpler manner than one can find in academic tomes.

Michelle,Thanks for your comments. I haven’t seen O’Brien’s comments. I’d have to see how he sees development (I think the second one is about as thorough as they get) before I respond.Glad another Arminian gets a voice at TEDS. Over the years they’ve always had some; Clark Pinnock and Grant and I and others.EFCA, to be fair, has never been given to that side of the view. Grant used to call them all Calminians — assurance, eternal security and some sense of free will and not limited atonement.

I’m working through the passages in relation to your categories. As I was working through the passages it hit me that this would be really enjoyable to do w/ a group of High School students. So, guess what we’ll be doing in our High School Sunday school discussion tomorrow? Thanks!

Scot,Thanks for the response. Since a fair amount of my background has been in Wesleyan and Methodist churches I don’t always pick up on what you are saying about Calvinist leanings – but you are probably right. Looking forward to reading the rest of these posts.

I was glad to see that someone had raised the question of Ware and Schreiner’s book and would likewise be curious to hear your thoughts.I agree that many Calvinist interpretations of the Hebrews passages are forced, but “The Race Set Before Us” provided a much more tenable position.

Paeleo…I confess that I have not read it carefully, but when I got it and looked through it (Ardel was a student of mine), I saw too much of the hypothetical-rhetorical and not enough of the realism I think the author of Hebrews has in him.Well, have it got Ardel right there?