Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
The review on Barcklay.....Our church library had a full set of William Barclay's commentaries. I found his commentary on John particularly helpful. Romans also.
No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides inThe review on Barcklay.....
His grasp of history is phenomenal. His discussion of the background of every NT passage is absolutely filled with interesting and applicable information. His use of Greek is also excellent, yet judicious. There is no need to know any Greek/Hebrew to understand his comments. Reading this commentary can help to unlock the literal, historical, grammatical meaning of the text.
However, his theology is - at best - inconsistent, and occasionally downright heretical. You can read this review of his theology if you’re interested.
Eat the chicken, spit out the sticks
Thanks brother
J.
No one born of God commits sin; for God's nature abides in
him, and he cannot sin because he is born of God.
Taken at its face value this means that it is impossible for the man who is born of God to sin. Now John has already said, "if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us"; and "if we say that we have not sinned, we make God a liar"; and he urges us to confess our sins (1Jn_1:8-10). He goes on to say, "if we do sin, we have an advocate with the Father in the person of Jesus Christ." On the face of it there is contradiction here. In the one place John is saying that man cannot be anything other than a sinner and that, there is an atonement for his sin. In the other place he is saying equally definitely that the man who is born of God cannot sin. What is the explanation?
(i) John thinks in Jewish categories because he could do no other. We have already seen that he knew and accepted the Jewish picture of the two ages, this present age and the age to come. We have also seen that it was John's belief that, whatever the world was like, Christians by virtue of the work of Christ had already entered into the new age. It was exactly one of the characteristics of the new age that those who lived in it would be free from sin. In Enoch we read: "Then too will wisdom be bestowed on the elect, and they will all live and never again sin, either through heedlessness or through pride" (Enoch 5: 8). If that is true of the new age, it ought to be true of Christians who are living in it. But, in fact, it is still not true because Christians have not even yet escaped from the power of sin. We might then say that in this passage John is setting down the ideal of what should be and in the other two passages he is facing the actuality of what is. We might put it that he knows the ideal and confronts men with it; but also faces the facts and sees the cure in Christ for them.
(ii) That may well be so but there is more to it. In the Greek there is a subtle difference in tenses which makes a very wide difference in meaning. In 1Jn_2:1 it is John's injunction that you may not sin. In that verse sin is in the aorist tense which indicates a particular and definite act. So what John is saying is quite clearly that Christians must not commit individual acts of sin; but if they do lapse into sin, they have in Christ an advocate to plead their cause and a sacrifice to atone. On the other hand, in our present passage in both cases sin is in the present tense and indicates habitual action.
Is this William Barclay?
I have e sword, with a couple of commentaries.
Which ones are good, to help us get a better understanding on to make Scriptures applicable in our lives?
Please don't comment to those who don't "like" secondary resources.
I looked this up and this commentary is very liberal.There is only one I have found that doesn't agree with all the doctrines of demons, but only what the Bible actually means, and that is The Abingdon Bible Commentary. c. 1929
Interesting review. The reviewer is spot-on about Barclay's historical and lexical strengths. I didn't take note of Barclay's overall theology because at the time (many, many years ago) because I was specifically looking for insights for a group Bible Study I was involved in. In retrospect, I can see why the reviewer would get the impression that Barclay was inconsistent. I would instead attribute it to Barclay trying to avoid (as much as is possible) injecting his own personal theology and instead giving multiple perspectives.The review on Barcklay.....
His grasp of history is phenomenal. His discussion of the background of every NT passage is absolutely filled with interesting and applicable information. His use of Greek is also excellent, yet judicious. There is no need to know any Greek/Hebrew to understand his comments. Reading this commentary can help to unlock the literal, historical, grammatical meaning of the text.
However, his theology is - at best - inconsistent, and occasionally downright heretical. You can read this review of his theology if you’re interested.
Eat the chicken, spit out the sticks
Thanks brother
J.
I don't recognize it directly; the last time I read Barclay's commentary on John and the Johannine letters was two decades ago. (Library books do have to be returned.) The framing of 1 John in terms of a hypothetical conflict with the Gnostics is familiar and characteristic of Barclay. I also recognize the interpretation of the present tense in those key passages on sin we recently debated as being from Barclay. But I recall Barclay had a different interpretation of the Gnostic understanding of sin: That the body was unimportant, so any sins committed by the body were irrelevant because they did not affect the soul or the spirit. It makes me wonder if you've got a different book than the one I had. Or maybe I'm conflating Barclay with someone else. Twenty years is a long time.Is this from Barcley @Lambano?
That long ago? lol!Interesting review. The reviewer is spot-on about Barclay's historical and lexical strengths. I didn't take note of Barclay's overall theology because at the time (many, many years ago) because I was specifically looking for insights for a group Bible Study I was involved in. In retrospect, I can see why the reviewer would get the impression that Barclay was inconsistent. I would instead attribute it to Barclay trying to avoid (as much as is possible) injecting his own personal theology and instead giving multiple perspectives.
I don't recognize it directly; the last time I read Barclay's commentary on John and the Johannine letters was two decades ago. (Library books do have to be returned.) The framing of 1 John in terms of a hypothetical conflict with the Gnostics is familiar and characteristic of Barclay. I also recognize the interpretation of the present tense in those key passages on sin we recently debated as being from Barclay. But I recall Barclay had a different interpretation of the Gnostic understanding of sin: That the body was unimportant, so any sins committed by the body were irrelevant because they did not affect the soul or the spirit. It makes me wonder if you've got a different book than the one I had. Or maybe I'm conflating Barclay with someone else. Twenty years is a long time.
The problem I have with commentaries is that I don't want someone else doing my thinking for me.I have e sword, with a couple of commentaries.
Which ones are good, to help us get a better understanding on to make Scriptures applicable in our lives?
Please don't comment to those who don't "like" secondary resources.
Oh, but I like the input. You don't have to believe, but sometimes others share thoughts we hadn't had before. This is why Bible studies are good.The problem I have with commentaries is that I don't want someone else doing my thinking for me.
Yes, I can see how a commentary might be helpful on occasion, and I enjoy a good Bible study, but letting other people do our thinking for us can get us into trouble.Oh, but I like the input. You don't have to believe, but sometimes others share thoughts we hadn't had before. This is why Bible studies are good.
Your loss, no offenseThe problem I have with commentaries is that I don't want someone else doing my thinking for me.
I hope you aren't letting other people do your thinking for you.Your loss, no offense
J.
I looked this up and this commentary is very liberal.
Don't know if you are aware of this.
J.
Your loss, no offenseThe problem I have with commentaries is that I don't want someone else doing my thinking for me.
Here we go, Calvin versus Arminian.What theology do you think is not liberal? What do you like? Reformed?
I'm neither, so what are you? Be honest.Your loss, no offense
J.
Here we go, Calvin versus Arminian.
J.
I use Bible Hub, and for any help from commentaries Matthew Henry and John Gill are generally sound (though they hold to Reformed Theology). Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown also help.Which ones are good, to help us get a better understanding on to make Scriptures applicable in our lives?
Your commentary is very liberal, check the reviews sister, don't allow your stephanos laurel to slip...since, in your holiness, you have already recieved your crowns.....Just the opposite. Doctrines of demons are LIBERAL. This one is Weslyn and is the basis for HOLINESS, the opposite of LIBERAL.
What theology do you think is not liberal? What do you like? Reformed?
I hope you aren't letting the commentators do your thinking for you.Your loss, no offense
J.