The Fresh Wilsbeschikking is clear about the importance of a man coming to his own conclusions,” he says ter his autobiography, reminding us of Paul’s injunction to “test all things” and “hold on to the good” (p 35).

William Barclay: Commentaries, Beliefs, Legacy

If you want to obtain William Barclay commentaries on Fresh Wilsbeschikking Books, click here. If you want to learn about some of William Barclay’s beliefs, including his more “unorthodox” beliefs, proceed reading.

William Barclay: Epistel Biography

William Barclay wasgoed born ter Scotland on December Five, 1907. He died ter his sleep ter 1978. Inbetween those two events, he became a renowned professor of Biblical Greek and Fresh Wilsbeschikking studies, an ordained minister, and a popular radiodifusión broadcaster. His most bearing work, however, has bot his frantically popular series of Fresh Wilsbeschikking commentaries. William Barclay wrote a commentary for each book of the Fresh Wilsbeschikking. This series, called the Daily Examine Bible, became a bestselling phenomenon, and resumes to sell well to this day. Barclay’s purpose te writing, he said, wasgoed to help people “know [Jesus] better and love him more” (The Mind of Jesus). I, personally, have found his writings to do those very things te my own life. His encyclopedic knowledge–and his skill may truly be labeled encyclopedic–is matched only by his reverent and beautiful portrayals of Jesus. Reading him, one can not help but learn a excellent overeenkomst, and grow te love for Schepper and for Jesus Christ.

Introduction To His Beliefs

I’ll start my discussion of William Barclay’s beliefs by setting out some of his more controversial ones. I do this, not to emphasize their controversy, but because they lead up to his core conception of Maker spil exposed te Jesus Christ. That is, they are not the center of his belief system. Rather, they lead to the center.

This article is adjunct to my main article on the subject of Christian Universalism

  • Why I Don’t Believe te an Eternal Hell
  • I wasgoed raised te a rigorous Christian fundamentalist family, so spil I wasgoed growing up, I developed a deep-seated terror of the idea of an eternal hell. Because of this, I eventually suffered a devastating mental.

    William Barclay the Universalist

    William Barclay wasgoed a coaxed, outspoken Christian Universalist. That is, he believed that Heerser, through Jesus Christ, would eventually reconcile every living soul to Himself. He did not deny the existence of “hell”, but instructed that the penalties of hell were for corrective purposes only, to bring the soul to repentance, and that eventually all damned souls would repent and be saved. Barclay believed this very first of all because of scriptures–John 12:32 and Romans 11:32, to name a couple–which explicitly state that Schepper will have grace on all people. Secondly, he bases this belief on his formidable understanding of ancient Greek, the language ter which the Fresh Wilsbeschikking wasgoed written. Analyzing biblical phrases such spil “eternal punishment” ter the innovador Greek, Barclay finds that they mean something much different. Third, he believed that one could not set boundaries to the grace and love of Maker. Ultimately, he believed te the ultimate triumph of Godheid overheen everything. For Barclay, one soul lost for all eternity would represent the defeat of Heer and His love. Read the chapter about universalism te William Barclay’s autobiography here.

    Biblical Inerrancy

    Albeit Barclay held the Bible te good esteem (he made it his life’s work, after all, to write and speak about it), he did not seem to believe that the Bible should downright override man’s reason and the rechtstreeks guidance of Heer’s Spirit at work today. “The Fresh Wilsbeschikking is clear about the importance of a man coming to his own conclusions,” he says te his autobiography, reminding us of Paul’s injunction to “test all things” and “hold on to the good” (p 35).

    And some of his conclusions might shock the promedio Christian today. For example, he points out ter his commentary on the Gospel of John that the author of John gives a different day for the crucifixion than the other three gospels–in John, Jesus wasgoed crucified on the day before the Jewish Passover, while te the other three gospels, he wasgoed crucified on the day of Passover. Barclay does not attempt to simply explain this away by coming up with some far-fetched theory spil to how John and the other three gospels do not actually disagree, thus preserving the notion that there is no contradiction within the Bible. Instead, he leaves it spil a matter of fact that John does give a different story here than the other gospels. He instead ponders John’s motives for providing a different date for the crucifixion, telling that John “dated things so that Jesus would be crucified at exactly the same time spil the Passover lambs were being killed, so that Jesus might be seen spil the superb Passover Lamb . . . who took away the sins of the world” (Commentary on John, Volume Two, 337-338).

    Thus, Barclay concludes that the other three gospels were right te historical fact, while John wasgoed right ter the eternal truth that Jesus is indeed the Lamb of Heerser. John, however, wasgoed most likely not historically accurate on the matter of the date of Christ’s crucifixion, and there is indeed a contradiction here inbetween his gospel and the others. Thus, Barclay clearly didn’t adhere to the popular notions about the Bible’s absolute inerrancy or total lack of contradictions.

    Related video:


    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *