One of the oddities in the Classic Calvinist chapter in the 4-views-of-warnings-in-Hebrews book is that the writer spends time trying to refute Thomas Schreider and Ardel Caneday and their views on the warning passages.
I found it odd because, on first read, I didn’t think the reader would ever discover from what was written that Schreider and Caneday are also Calvinists. I thought the reader would infer that Schreiner and Caneday were two more Arminian opponents.
I went through more carefully and notice footnote 71 would indicate a different picture. Also Schreiner’s relation to Still Sovereign was acknowledged.
But if you read the book, it is important to not miss the fact nor the implications. Keep in mind that they are true predestinarians. There simply isn’t one single “Classic” Calvinist position on the warnings, though that seems to be what the four-views book would lead readers to believe.
I know one of the contributors to Four Views on Eternal Security who remarked that he was disappointed in Horton’s chapter (he took a covenantal approach) because it wasn’t a ‘classical’ Calvinist position. As though there were a classical Calvinist position.