Hello,
I stared to read William Barclays Daily Study Bible since I read that he was a universalist.
I was curious why he was or became a universalist and I found this post:
zwingliusredivivus.wordpress.co … ersalists/
It basicly says that people do not become universalist because it is true
but because it is a necessity to cope with tragic situatians like in Barclay’s case: his daughter’s death.
So what do you think? Is it true that Barclay turned to universalism just after his daughter’s death or did he already before?
Thank you.
Greetings
Dani
I don’t know about Barclay particularly, but I think tragic circumstances can soften hearts and open them to the idea. The idea of hell tormented me because I truly believed it and I knew many who were not saved and never would be in this life. I believed the Bible taught eternal torment, so I didn’t think I had any other options. But I desired and hoped for the salvation of all, so when presented with evidence that the Bible might teach otherwise, I was eager to investigate.
Sonia
My experience lines up with Sonia’s.
As it has been often said, The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing. The important thing there is, the heart DOES have reasons. The belief in EU has, I believe, many roots, many reasons, that are more than the product of basic rationality, that include the whole person.
As an aside, that is why I left Calvinism - whole parts of my thought life and emotional life would have to have been sacrificed to embrace it. EU grasps all of me.
For me, it wasn’t anyone specific that led me to EU. All of my family is saved. My lament was for the world at large. I just cannot reconcile the thought that God would subject the majority of the world to eternal conscious torment, especially knowing fom scripture that He is a God of love. And that His Arm is not short that He cannot save.
And the accusation that someone who thinks universalism is true because they “didn’t care enough to share the truth with others” is patently false. There is still a hell for people to endure, even if it’s not eternal. And as Christians we ought to warn people of God’s RIGHTEOUS judgement just as much as if it was forever. God still has something to save.
Hi Dani
I’d agree with Dondi, Dave and Sonia. The death of my best friend a few years ago - a really good man but an avowed atheist - was a factor in me exploring Universalism, yes. But to extrapolate from that, as the arrogant, obnoxious idiot who wrote the orignal post you linked to did, to the conclusion that Universalism is false is both offensive and ridiculous.
By that logic you could argue that orthodox, ECT Christianity is itself false, mere wishful thinking - people believe in it not because it’t true, but out of fear of hell! (Although this is probably true of at least some Christians.)
I believe Universalism is true for (largely) the same reasons I believe Christianity itself is true: a) because the Bible teaches it; b) because my heart and conscience demand I believe it; c) because it makes far better moral and philosophical sense than does ECT; and d) because it glorifies God infinitely more than ECT. And yes, I believe it because I *want *it to be true. I also want it to be true that England will thrash the Aussies at the WACA in the next Test, but that doesn’t make any difference to whether they will or not - not being the likelier outcome!
I don’t believe in eternal hell, thank God. But if I did it’s fatuous ignoramuses like the OP I’d expect to find there 
.
All the best
Johnny
I know that the really sad thing about Barclay is that after he ‘came out’ as a universalist he received quite a lot of hate mail from people purporting to be ECT believers scoffing at him about his dead daughter’s eternal destiny 
The author on Dani’s link states:
What about the billions upon billions of non-believers apparently roasting at this very moment? Does the author mean to imply that Christians need only be concerned about those in their immediate circle of family and friends?
ECT seems to greatly point to a mindset of denial. As the old saying goes “birds of a feather flock together.” That is, Christians gather with other Christians. Therefore, I’d guess that most ECT-ers haven’t given much thought to the idea of hell at all, because they can dismiss the notion as something not affecting themselves or those close to them.
What first pushed me to question the idea of hell was increased knowledge about the Holocaust and hearing some Christians say that Hitler could possibly be in heaven, because he had severe mental instability. But the Jews he tortured? I wondered. Did they endure a lifetime of man’s cruelty only to face an eternity of divine torture? Christians tend to ignore that subject, but I think most of them would agree that Anne Frank is not suffering eternal conscious torment.
In short, I think you could classify universalists as coming from two general groups:
-
Those who, as Sonia said, have personally faced tragic circumstances that soften their hearts to the idea. Perhaps some of these individuals accept the doctrine blindly as a hope of last resort, but I believe many first look into it with great doubt about universalism’s truthfulness. (As Sonia also said, many universalists are former ECT Christians, who were taught eternal hellfire as the only option.) When they do find solid biblical commentary supporting the idea of universal reconciliation, they are eager to investigate. (I know I was!)
-
There are those who recognize the billions upon billions of individuals who, according to ECT taken point blank, must inherently be in eternal torment. And the idea just doesn’t sit right. And I don’t think many Christians really believe ECT fully and wholeheartedly. Otherwise, there would be a much greater push – perhaps even reaching the point of violence – for the conversion of nonbelievers.
It is obvious that from an analysis of the Bible you cannot derive universalism.
If you are not careful with the way you analyse phrases from the OT you end up with eternal conscious torment, otherwise anihilationism.
It is true that the inductive and deductive consequences of some verses point towards universal salvation.
But much more verses point towards the utter destruction of the wicked.
Given the fact that the dominant Biblical view bespeaks conditional immortality, universalism can only stem from emotion and philosophical grounds.
I, and many here and elsewhere, beg to differ. 
You claim an analysis of the Bible cannot point to universalism. A basic analysis? Yes,this is true. An complete analysis including historical, linguist, and cultural contexts? Thankfully, not true at all.
universalism can only stem from emotion and philosophical grounds.
Lotharson - On the contrary my friend - EU can only stem from the involvement of the whole person, mind emotions will - unlike, I will add, your position on the matter. That is my opinion, Ok?
But hey - there is a wealth of information answering your ridiculous statement above already on the Forum - read it. If you still like your position, fine, be happy with it, and just drop the accusations that we’re a bunch of ignorant emotional philosophers. You’re not going to change the minds of people that are as knowledgable as you are.
Yes Lotharson - I agree with Dave. Why do you want to break bread with us against New Atheists etc. if you think this 
As evidenced, you’ll meet with much disagreement on this point here, Lotharson! But you’re entitled to your opinion. 
Sonia
True - it never hurts to say “This is my opinion, that…” instead of a forthright statement that sounds like it’s coming from God. 
Hey guys
Let’s cut the son of Lothar a little slack here . He told us straight off he isn’t a Universalist. Yet. (And God has sooooooooooooooooooo much time ). He also doesn’t have English as a first language - and personally I detect a slightly Teutonic ‘directness’ in his posts?
Lotharson, the majority of us here believe that it is not only possible to derive Universalism from the Bible, but that the Bible clearly teaches Universalism - far more so than it teaches ECT or annihilationism. We are all happy to debate this with you - you just need to rein back a little on the baldly dogmatic statements .
All the best
Johnny
Hey folks, please do not take too much offense at my provocative statement
Since I do not believe in inerrancy myself, it is perfectly acceptable to use philosophy to build up one’s theology.
But I find it very hard (if not impossible) to believe that if the synoptic Jesus thought that, he would not also have clearly stated it, instead of leaving us with the impression that the wicked will be destroyed.
It is up to you to convince me I am wrong, I am quite open.
Okay, I guess it will most likely be hard to still have good interactions on this forum, but I hope that in the end, we will be universally reconciled
Dick: why can I not criticize fundamentalists and their atheist counterparts with you?
We certainly have many things in common and we both believe that a God eternally torturing his creatures CANNOT be good.
And you forget this sentence I wrote:
"It is true that the inductive and deductive consequences of some verses point towards universal salvation. "
Jesus teaching us to forgive our enemies certainly means He will do the same and that people who will cease to exist will have themselves chosen NOT to be with God.
One more thing: I like bold statements, I’m sorry this is just the way my brain has been wired.
With time, people progressively get accustomed to my character (or they expel me from their forum )
You are right my friend - I was being very touchy there. Sorry 
Well, so far you’re in no danger of being expelled. We don’t censor for “boldness” or theological stances – just incivility (mostly).
Sonia
DaveB : it is certainly a bit rude to call my statement ridiculous. You have perfectly the right to think so, but there are other ways to convey this idea while fostering a conversation and not hurting the other person.
I was probably too simplistic with my statement (and I apologize if it bothered you), but this is unfortunately the way I am, since I have a pretty impulsive personality.
Our God-given moral emotions are very important and the worst atrocities commited during the course of human history stem from people disregarding their moral intutions.
“You have perfectly the right to think so, but there are other ways to convey this idea while fostering a conversation and not hurting the other person.”
Well, I see it like this. If you are impulsive and like strong statements, you should not complain too much if what you get back is a plain, strong statement. If you were ‘hurt’, think how we felt being called “emotional philosophers” as if that is the basis of our belief.
I’m just saying - you will in large part receive back what you give, in the same spirit. Reap what you sow. That is true for all of us.
That is the way my brain is ‘wired’.
I extend the same welcome to you the others do. Just don’t call us names, or treat us as less thoughtful or educated than yourself. We’re all pretty much equal around here. We will all get along just fine.