Talk:William Barclay (theologian)

message: The "Official site of the William Barclay Trust" link takes readers to the Billy Graham website.  No offense to BG, but this is an inappropriate link.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.15.112.142 (talk) 00:35, 15 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: I am deleting this link now.  Please do not put it back without discussing it here, first.  Thank you. Hazratio (talk) 15:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  bogus web link 

message: The article contains the statement "They are the only commentaries on the entire New Testament that have been written by one person." This is too general and is either not true or no longer true. There are other Bible commentaries (on NT or OT or the whole Bible) written by individuals, eg Warren W. Wiersbe, John F. MacArthur (just to name two I am aware of). And this is only counting the English language. Therefore I have deleted this statement from the main article.
VicHp (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Only commentaries? 

message: Barclay was not a theologian, but a biblical scholar. This would be a better label.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.70.80.6 (talk) 11:39, 8 March 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect that the above anonymous contribution may be correct, although most would see the distinction between biblical scholar and theologian to be a technical one. Does anyone know exactly what degrees he completed as Glasgow? And exactly what he studied whilst at Marburg University? Research17 (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Theologian? 

message: I am a little cautious about the assertion that Barclay is sceptical about the Trinity, on the basis that he purportedly wrote that nowhere does the NT identity Jesus with God. It all depends on what is meant by "Nowhere does the NT identify Jesus with God". On the surface that is an accurate statement, in that I don't think there is anywhere that the NT uses the words "Jesus is God". There are, of course, the numerous "I am" statements, which to Jewish ears would mean that the person saying this claiming divine status. That's why in the Gospels, one reads about such an extreme reaction to the "I am" statements. Similarly one can point to the logos Christology in the Fourth Gospel or to Paul's statement in Col. 2:9 about the Godhead dwelling fully in Jesus. I think that it is conventional theology that the divinity of Jesus is implicit in the NT, and that the formal articulation of this comes later in various the statements of church councils. Bottom line is that I am not sure if it is fair to say that Barclay was sceptical about the doctrine of the Trinity, based on his assertion that nowhere does the NT identify Jesus with God. Any thoughts from other editors on this? Research17 (talk) 16:47, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I've just made some changes to the Section entitled 'Religious Views', although I am still a little uneasy about this. I haven't read a huge amount of Barclay, and am really only familiar with a few of his commentaries, plus the book Ethics in a Permissive Society, based I recall on a radio broadcast. Barclay, however, is demonstrably a prolific religious author, and thus obviously he held views on a range of religious and theological topics. If we stand back from this Section, what we do see (I think) is an attempt to identify those of his views which conservatives might find questionable. As such, I think the treatment is quite selective. A more neutral approach might be to include a more complete summary of his views, and not just those views which conservatives might find problematic. For instance, even from the quotation, and if I cast my mind back this is also reflected in his writings generally, God's love is an important religious theme for Barclay. Why not include this the importance of the God's love as one of his religious views? I am sure there are also other religious views which conservative not find problematic which he did hold. In other words, as part of a neutral approach, the Section should not merely concentrate upon those religious views with which conservatives might take issue. Research17 (talk) 08:39, 17 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  (I will avoid commenting about the evidence in the Bible per WP:NOTFORUM.)  I don't have access to the cited source other than the searchable bits here.  Searching for part of the quote there or for Trinity, trinitarian, trinitarism, etc, does not match material to verify the claim.  I've found a few other biographies and could also not find material about nontrinitarian views.  I support your edit.  Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 21:03, 18 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scepticism about purported scepticism