Both on his own blog as well as the aomin site, Jamin Hubner plugged recent Gareth Cockerill’s commentary on Hebrews. I find that a little strange inasmuch as Cockerill is Arminian.
I’m not suggesting that we should never read Arminian commentaries. Arminian scholars can produce fine exegesis. And it’s important to know how they interpret their prooftexts.
Nevertheless, the apostasy passages Hebrews are the Arminian locus classicus against the perseverance of the saints. What’s more, those passages are a controlling feature of Hebrews. How you interpret those passages will impact your general reading of Hebrews. So I wouldn’t recommend Cockerill’s commentary as a “great” exegetical “resource.” And you don’t have to buy a whole commentary to find out how he deals with the apostasy passages. He contributed to one of the Four Views series on that very topic.
Surely there are better available commentaries on Hebrews, such as Peter O’Brien’s 2010 commentary. Moreover, Buist Fanning, Douglas Moo, and D. A. Carson all have commentaries on Hebrews in the pipeline which ought to be preferable to Cockerill’s.
This is somewhat off topic but I see Hubner also mentions Colin Kruse's new Romans commentary. I've been thinking of buying it when it's released in the UK. Any thoughts on it?
ReplyDeleteI was skimming it this afternoon, but haven't read enough to form an opinion as of yet.
ReplyDeleteOnly if you think that the apostasy didn't occur when Jesus said it would do you get into arguments about its application post first century.
ReplyDeleteHebrews is not about what Jesus said concerning apostasy. And the author of Hebrews is clearly dealing with potential apostates in a 1C house-church. Your objection is acontextual.
ReplyDeleteBy your own admission, the writer of Hebrews is speaking in a first-century context about apostasy. What makes you think the application is identical when the awaited day has since come (Heb 10:25)? Or do you believe the NT writers erred in thinking they were ushering in the eternal age of the kingdom of God during that century?
DeleteI understand that we have an intellectual duty to believe whatever is true, but what practical difference does it make whether one believes in “perseverance of the saints”?
ReplyDeleteFrom the Arminian point of view, if you don’t persevere, you are not justified. From the Calvinist point of view, if you don’t persevere, you are not justified.
It makes a practical difference whether you believe salvation ultimately depends on your own strength or God's strength. The former is discouraging whereas the latter is encouraging.
ReplyDeleteIt is hardly “encouraging” knowing that if you don’t persevere, God’s strength was never protecting you in the first place.
ReplyDeleteWhy should those who don't persevere expect to be encouraged?
ReplyDeleteWouldn't an Arminian ask the same question?
ReplyDeleteThe reprobate don't have the same experience as the elect. So the comparison is equivocal.
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDelete"It makes a practical difference whether you believe salvation ultimately depends on your own strength or God's strength. The former is discouraging whereas the latter is encouraging."
Another strawman. Provide a citation from classical literature where your "own strength" dictum is reflective of Arminianism?
Don't play dumb. In Arminianism, final salvation ultimately depends on the libertarian cooperation of the Christian with God's resistible grace. So, yes, it comes down to your own strength as the deal-maker or deal-breaker. Not God's will, but your willpower to hold out (or not).
ReplyDeleteSteve,
ReplyDeleteYou keep piling on strawman. Here, I'll make it easier. Quote an Arminian scholar in any paramount contemporary exegetical commentary series where such conclusion is made. Can you try not to be irresponsible, and misrepresent a position as it is classicaly understood.
If your next comment cannot responsibly offer a credible source to vouch for your vacuous claims, then you're either outright lying, or you imagine these positions to make it easier for yourself to bolster Calvinism.