What do you think?
Rate this book
Essentials: A Liberal-Evangelical Dialogue
The book is a back and forth between the late John Stott and liberal church historian David Edwards. In each of the six chapters, Edwards presents his views about various controversial topics, and John Stott responds. Edwards retired in 1994 as Provost of Southwark Cathedral in London. John Stott was born in London, England on April 27, 1921. He converted to Christianity in 1938. He graduated with a double first in French and theology from Trinity College, Cambridge University. He was ordained in the Church of England in 1945.
- GenresTheology
354 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1988
1 person is currently reading
70 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews
July 16, 2012
Long, and at times a bit drawn out, but very useful for the thinking Christian.
The book is a back and forth between the late John Stott and liberal church historian David Edwards.
In each of the six chapters, Edwards presents his views about various controversial topics, and John Stott responds.
1.
2. The accuracy of the Bible.
3. The meaning of the cross.
4. Miracles.
5. The moral teaching of the Bible and how it applies today.
6. Can people be saved without knowledge of the Gospel.
Edwards is a very liberal theologian. Because he does believe in the resurrection of Jesus and the incarnation, I cannot absolutely say that he is an explicitly condemned unbeliever. That said, his take on each issue, and the arguments he makes, are for the most part those of unbelievers against Christian teaching. For example, in Chapter 2, he expresses the belief that the Bible is not only not inerrant, but it is often innaccurate about science, history, and morality alike, full of legends (i.e. lies) and not really in any way authoritative in the Christian life. Because of this view, he rejects the biblical teachings whenever he doesn't like them (since he doesn't believe that the Bible is the inerrant or even authoritative word of God). Miracles are, for the most part, clearly made up because, darn it, miracles are absurd and impossible (although he does make an exception for the resurrection). The Bible's moral teachings are good so long as they are not bad (and many are, he says). Although he is very right that the meaning of the cross is not so simple as just "penal substitution" or "christus victor," he goes as far as denying that part of Jesus' mission was even to die (that instead he died because he refused to not teach His godly message even though it would upset the authorities). Where the Bible teaches otherwise, he rejects it, not because he interprets it differently, but because of what he makes clear in Chapter 2.
If this were just David Edwards' contribution, it would be a terrible book, one more in the countless books by liberal theologians about why most or all of what Christians actually believe is wrong. However, in each section, John Stott gives responses, defending the Bible and its teachings. This makes this book useful for defending the faith. Most of Edwards' points are the same points made by unbelievers, so John Stott's generally astute responses are very useful for the thinking Christian. Given space limitations (Stott's responses are significantly shorter than Edwards' 30-50 page chapter contributions), Stott does not address every single point, but he addresses what is necessary. He doesn't refute every apparent contradiction in the Bible that Edwards points to, but he does point to some as examples of how others can be dealt with. He also defends the morality of the Bible's teaching, the viability of miracles, and the like. He accurately draws the distinction between the biggest distinction between them. For Stott (representing the "evangelical"), his ultimate authority is the Bible, whereas this is not the case with the liberal David Edwards, who judges the Bible in light of his own views.
Thus, what we have is objections to many biblical doctrines, objections that are quite common and that we have surely heard in our day to day lives, and good defenses of them. For this reason it is quite useful.
This book is also significant because it is the book where John Stott famously expressed his acceptance of the view of conditional immortality and the ultimate destruction (not eternal torment) of the unsaved in Hell.
Given its length, it does take a while to get through (which is probably why it never got as popular as some of Stotts other books, and its thus currently out of print). However, if you are a Christian looking to become familiar with other views and defend biblical doctrine, it is worth checking out if you find it at a library or something.
The book is a back and forth between the late John Stott and liberal church historian David Edwards.
In each of the six chapters, Edwards presents his views about various controversial topics, and John Stott responds.
1.
2. The accuracy of the Bible.
3. The meaning of the cross.
4. Miracles.
5. The moral teaching of the Bible and how it applies today.
6. Can people be saved without knowledge of the Gospel.
Edwards is a very liberal theologian. Because he does believe in the resurrection of Jesus and the incarnation, I cannot absolutely say that he is an explicitly condemned unbeliever. That said, his take on each issue, and the arguments he makes, are for the most part those of unbelievers against Christian teaching. For example, in Chapter 2, he expresses the belief that the Bible is not only not inerrant, but it is often innaccurate about science, history, and morality alike, full of legends (i.e. lies) and not really in any way authoritative in the Christian life. Because of this view, he rejects the biblical teachings whenever he doesn't like them (since he doesn't believe that the Bible is the inerrant or even authoritative word of God). Miracles are, for the most part, clearly made up because, darn it, miracles are absurd and impossible (although he does make an exception for the resurrection). The Bible's moral teachings are good so long as they are not bad (and many are, he says). Although he is very right that the meaning of the cross is not so simple as just "penal substitution" or "christus victor," he goes as far as denying that part of Jesus' mission was even to die (that instead he died because he refused to not teach His godly message even though it would upset the authorities). Where the Bible teaches otherwise, he rejects it, not because he interprets it differently, but because of what he makes clear in Chapter 2.
If this were just David Edwards' contribution, it would be a terrible book, one more in the countless books by liberal theologians about why most or all of what Christians actually believe is wrong. However, in each section, John Stott gives responses, defending the Bible and its teachings. This makes this book useful for defending the faith. Most of Edwards' points are the same points made by unbelievers, so John Stott's generally astute responses are very useful for the thinking Christian. Given space limitations (Stott's responses are significantly shorter than Edwards' 30-50 page chapter contributions), Stott does not address every single point, but he addresses what is necessary. He doesn't refute every apparent contradiction in the Bible that Edwards points to, but he does point to some as examples of how others can be dealt with. He also defends the morality of the Bible's teaching, the viability of miracles, and the like. He accurately draws the distinction between the biggest distinction between them. For Stott (representing the "evangelical"), his ultimate authority is the Bible, whereas this is not the case with the liberal David Edwards, who judges the Bible in light of his own views.
Thus, what we have is objections to many biblical doctrines, objections that are quite common and that we have surely heard in our day to day lives, and good defenses of them. For this reason it is quite useful.
This book is also significant because it is the book where John Stott famously expressed his acceptance of the view of conditional immortality and the ultimate destruction (not eternal torment) of the unsaved in Hell.
Given its length, it does take a while to get through (which is probably why it never got as popular as some of Stotts other books, and its thus currently out of print). However, if you are a Christian looking to become familiar with other views and defend biblical doctrine, it is worth checking out if you find it at a library or something.
February 18, 2026
A WRITTEN DISCUSSION, THAT INCLUDES STOTT’S FRANK OPINIONS ABOUT HELL
John Robert Walmsley Stott (1921-2011) was an English Anglican cleric and theologian who was a leader of the worldwide evangelical movement. He was one of the principal authors of the Lausanne Covenant in 1974. David Lawrence Edwards (1929-2018) was an Anglican priest, scholar and church historian, who was the former provost of Southwest Cathedral in London.
The Preface to this 1988 book explains, “David Edwards asked John Stott if he might write a book based on his published works. As a church historian, he wanted to explore the dynamics of the current worldwide Evangelical revival. He also hoped to persuade his liberal friends to read Evangelical books, and his Evangelical friends to face liberal criticisms… he wished to pose a question and invite John’s reply: how ‘conservative’ do Evangelicals have to be, if they are to be faithful to… the Gospel? John agreed that a liberal-Evangelical dialogue would be useful…”
Edwards argues, “Matthew repeatedly shows that biblical quotations spring naturally to the mind of a devout Jew but that the Hebrew text as later accepted by Jews and Christians need not be quoted accurately---and that the original meaning can be altered. [e.g., Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:23] (Pg. 63) “Dr. Stott, having wrongly claimed that the New Testament in its original Hebrew as the inerrant word of God … also claims that ‘Jesus made provision for the writing of the New Testament’… [But] that is not a claim which can be based on the instructions to the apostles given in the gospels.” (Pg. 65)
Stott responded, “For 35 years I have felt it right to repudiate the label ‘fundamentalist’… In desiring to dissociate myself from fundamentalists, I shall try neither to caricature them… nor to repudiate them (for they are true---if sometimes embarrassing---brothers and sisters in Christ…)." (Pg. 89-90)
He continues, “I also wonder why you seem to anxious to persuade me that inerrancy is untenable? Is it entirely your concern for intellectual integrity? … Could it be that you think submission to biblical authority is incompatible with intellectual freedom?” (Pg. 105)
Edwards asserts, “All the eloquence of … Christian theories of the atonement, cannot obscure the simple and elementary fact that it is immoral to punish anyone who is not guilty.” (Pg. 149) He goes on, “Dr. Stott’s theory suggests that God has done something which would be crazy or wrong for a good man or woman to do. A judge would not be respected if having convicted a criminal and sentenced him to death or imprisonment… he underwent execution or served the sentence himself. He would be thought to be perverting the course of justice.” (Pg. 153)
He states, “despite the teaching of Dr. Stott that Matthew and Luke were writing ‘prose not poetry, history not myth’… in the whole of the New Testament there is no other reference to the virginal conception. Paul’s surviving letters do not refer to it. They do not even name the mother of Jesus. Instead they accept that Jesus, [was] ‘born of a woman’ (Gal 4:4)… Mark’s gospel does not even record the name of the legal father of Jesus.” (Pg. 190)
He says, “The earliest list of the [resurrection] appearances… is found in 1 Cor 15:1-11, probably written about 25 years after the death of Jesus…. The appearances to women, so important in the gospels, either are not known or are ignored… the long dispute of the scholars shows that it is uncertain whether or not Paul believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus. My own belief is that he did, but that he insisted that his own ‘vision from heaven’… fully entitled him to equality with the other apostles… What mattered decisively for Paul was the internal, spiritual experience although that experience was connected with the historical Jesus who was buried and who was raised in a ‘spiritual’ or ‘glorious’ body.” (Pg 202-203)
He asks about the Second Coming, “Since there has already been this immense delay, nowadays many Christians do not seriously expect him to ‘return’ physically during the two thousand million years that scientists say are possible for the further survival of human life on this planet. So what is left of the Christian hope?” (Pg. 279)
But certainly the most interesting commentary by Stott is about Hell. He states, “You rightly say that I have never declared publicly whether I think hell, in addition to being real, terrible and eternal, will involve the experience of everlasting suffering… Do I hold it[?]. Well, emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can lie with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain… [But] as a committed Evangelical, my question must be… not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say? And in order to answer this question, we need to survey the biblical material afresh and to open our minds … to the possibility that Scripture points in the direction of annihilation, and that ‘eternal conscious torment’ is a tradition which has to yield to the supreme authority of Scripture.
“There are four arguments [for annihilation]: they relate to language, imagery, justice and universalism… The vocabulary of ‘destruction’ is often used in relation to the final state of perdition… Jesus himself told us to… ‘be afraid of the one [God] who can destroy both body and soul in hell.’ (Mt. 2:13)… The second argument concerns the imagery used in Scripture to characterize hell, and in particular that of fire… It is doubtless because we have all had experience of the acute pain of being burned, that fire is associated in our minds with ‘conscious torment.’ But the main function of fire is not to cause pain, but to secure destruction… The fire itself is termed ‘eternal’ and ‘unquenchable,’ but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible… Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which ‘rises for ever and ever’ (Rev 14:11)… [Jesus] says that the worm will not die and the fire not be quenched. Nor will they---until presumably their work of destruction is done…
“But did not Dives cry out because he was ‘in agony in this fire'? (Lk 16:23-24). Yes, he did. But we must be cautious in interpreting a parable… But does the Book of Revelation not say that in the lake of fire ‘they will be tormented and and night for ever and ever’? Yes, that sentence occurs, but only once (20:10) where it refers not only to the devil, but to ‘the beast and the false prophet’ … The beast, the false prophet and the harlot, however, are not individual people but symbols… they cannot experience pain. Nor can ‘Death and Hades,’ which follow them into the lake of fire (20:13)… So both the language of destruction and the imagery of fire seem to point to annihilation.” (Pg. 315-318)
“The third argument concerns the biblical vision of justice. Fundamental to it is the belief that God will judge people ‘according to what they [have] done’ (Ref 20:12), which implies that the penalty inflicted will be commensurate with the evil done… This principle has been applied in the Jewish law courts, in which penalties were limited to an exact retribution, life for life, eye for eye…’ (Ex 21:23-25) Would there not, then, be a serious disproportion between the sins committed in time and torment consciously experienced throughout eternity?… I question whether ‘eternal conscious torment’ is compatible with the biblical revelation of divine justice..
“The fourth and last argument relates to those texts which have been used as the basis for UNIVERSALISM. I am not a universalist… So there is no need for me to say … that the hope of final salvation for everybody is a false hope, since it contradicts the recorded warnings of Jesus that the judgment will involve a separation into two opposite but equally eternal destinies. My point is that … the eternal existence of the impenitent in hell would be hard to reconcile with the promises of God’s final victory over evil… These [universalist] texts do not lead me to universalism, because of the many others which speak of the terrible and eternal reality of hell. But they do lead me to ask how God can in any meaningful sense be called ‘everything to everybody’ while an unspecified number of people still continue in rebellion against him.” (Pg. 319)
He summarizes, “I am grateful to you for challenging me to declare my present mind. I do not dogmatize about the position to which I have come. I hold it tentatively. But I do plead for frank dialogue among Evangelicals on the basis of Scripture. I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment.” (Pg. 319-320)
The ‘Conditionalist’ website, Rethinking Hell, uses this last quotation from Stott on their home page. This book will be “must reading” for Christians of all types.
John Robert Walmsley Stott (1921-2011) was an English Anglican cleric and theologian who was a leader of the worldwide evangelical movement. He was one of the principal authors of the Lausanne Covenant in 1974. David Lawrence Edwards (1929-2018) was an Anglican priest, scholar and church historian, who was the former provost of Southwest Cathedral in London.
The Preface to this 1988 book explains, “David Edwards asked John Stott if he might write a book based on his published works. As a church historian, he wanted to explore the dynamics of the current worldwide Evangelical revival. He also hoped to persuade his liberal friends to read Evangelical books, and his Evangelical friends to face liberal criticisms… he wished to pose a question and invite John’s reply: how ‘conservative’ do Evangelicals have to be, if they are to be faithful to… the Gospel? John agreed that a liberal-Evangelical dialogue would be useful…”
Edwards argues, “Matthew repeatedly shows that biblical quotations spring naturally to the mind of a devout Jew but that the Hebrew text as later accepted by Jews and Christians need not be quoted accurately---and that the original meaning can be altered. [e.g., Hosea 11:1, Matthew 2:23] (Pg. 63) “Dr. Stott, having wrongly claimed that the New Testament in its original Hebrew as the inerrant word of God … also claims that ‘Jesus made provision for the writing of the New Testament’… [But] that is not a claim which can be based on the instructions to the apostles given in the gospels.” (Pg. 65)
Stott responded, “For 35 years I have felt it right to repudiate the label ‘fundamentalist’… In desiring to dissociate myself from fundamentalists, I shall try neither to caricature them… nor to repudiate them (for they are true---if sometimes embarrassing---brothers and sisters in Christ…)." (Pg. 89-90)
He continues, “I also wonder why you seem to anxious to persuade me that inerrancy is untenable? Is it entirely your concern for intellectual integrity? … Could it be that you think submission to biblical authority is incompatible with intellectual freedom?” (Pg. 105)
Edwards asserts, “All the eloquence of … Christian theories of the atonement, cannot obscure the simple and elementary fact that it is immoral to punish anyone who is not guilty.” (Pg. 149) He goes on, “Dr. Stott’s theory suggests that God has done something which would be crazy or wrong for a good man or woman to do. A judge would not be respected if having convicted a criminal and sentenced him to death or imprisonment… he underwent execution or served the sentence himself. He would be thought to be perverting the course of justice.” (Pg. 153)
He states, “despite the teaching of Dr. Stott that Matthew and Luke were writing ‘prose not poetry, history not myth’… in the whole of the New Testament there is no other reference to the virginal conception. Paul’s surviving letters do not refer to it. They do not even name the mother of Jesus. Instead they accept that Jesus, [was] ‘born of a woman’ (Gal 4:4)… Mark’s gospel does not even record the name of the legal father of Jesus.” (Pg. 190)
He says, “The earliest list of the [resurrection] appearances… is found in 1 Cor 15:1-11, probably written about 25 years after the death of Jesus…. The appearances to women, so important in the gospels, either are not known or are ignored… the long dispute of the scholars shows that it is uncertain whether or not Paul believed in the physical resurrection of Jesus. My own belief is that he did, but that he insisted that his own ‘vision from heaven’… fully entitled him to equality with the other apostles… What mattered decisively for Paul was the internal, spiritual experience although that experience was connected with the historical Jesus who was buried and who was raised in a ‘spiritual’ or ‘glorious’ body.” (Pg 202-203)
He asks about the Second Coming, “Since there has already been this immense delay, nowadays many Christians do not seriously expect him to ‘return’ physically during the two thousand million years that scientists say are possible for the further survival of human life on this planet. So what is left of the Christian hope?” (Pg. 279)
But certainly the most interesting commentary by Stott is about Hell. He states, “You rightly say that I have never declared publicly whether I think hell, in addition to being real, terrible and eternal, will involve the experience of everlasting suffering… Do I hold it[?]. Well, emotionally, I find the concept intolerable and do not understand how people can lie with it without either cauterizing their feelings or cracking under the strain… [But] as a committed Evangelical, my question must be… not what does my heart tell me, but what does God’s word say? And in order to answer this question, we need to survey the biblical material afresh and to open our minds … to the possibility that Scripture points in the direction of annihilation, and that ‘eternal conscious torment’ is a tradition which has to yield to the supreme authority of Scripture.
“There are four arguments [for annihilation]: they relate to language, imagery, justice and universalism… The vocabulary of ‘destruction’ is often used in relation to the final state of perdition… Jesus himself told us to… ‘be afraid of the one [God] who can destroy both body and soul in hell.’ (Mt. 2:13)… The second argument concerns the imagery used in Scripture to characterize hell, and in particular that of fire… It is doubtless because we have all had experience of the acute pain of being burned, that fire is associated in our minds with ‘conscious torment.’ But the main function of fire is not to cause pain, but to secure destruction… The fire itself is termed ‘eternal’ and ‘unquenchable,’ but it would be very odd if what is thrown into it proves indestructible… Hence it is the smoke (evidence that the fire has done its work) which ‘rises for ever and ever’ (Rev 14:11)… [Jesus] says that the worm will not die and the fire not be quenched. Nor will they---until presumably their work of destruction is done…
“But did not Dives cry out because he was ‘in agony in this fire'? (Lk 16:23-24). Yes, he did. But we must be cautious in interpreting a parable… But does the Book of Revelation not say that in the lake of fire ‘they will be tormented and and night for ever and ever’? Yes, that sentence occurs, but only once (20:10) where it refers not only to the devil, but to ‘the beast and the false prophet’ … The beast, the false prophet and the harlot, however, are not individual people but symbols… they cannot experience pain. Nor can ‘Death and Hades,’ which follow them into the lake of fire (20:13)… So both the language of destruction and the imagery of fire seem to point to annihilation.” (Pg. 315-318)
“The third argument concerns the biblical vision of justice. Fundamental to it is the belief that God will judge people ‘according to what they [have] done’ (Ref 20:12), which implies that the penalty inflicted will be commensurate with the evil done… This principle has been applied in the Jewish law courts, in which penalties were limited to an exact retribution, life for life, eye for eye…’ (Ex 21:23-25) Would there not, then, be a serious disproportion between the sins committed in time and torment consciously experienced throughout eternity?… I question whether ‘eternal conscious torment’ is compatible with the biblical revelation of divine justice..
“The fourth and last argument relates to those texts which have been used as the basis for UNIVERSALISM. I am not a universalist… So there is no need for me to say … that the hope of final salvation for everybody is a false hope, since it contradicts the recorded warnings of Jesus that the judgment will involve a separation into two opposite but equally eternal destinies. My point is that … the eternal existence of the impenitent in hell would be hard to reconcile with the promises of God’s final victory over evil… These [universalist] texts do not lead me to universalism, because of the many others which speak of the terrible and eternal reality of hell. But they do lead me to ask how God can in any meaningful sense be called ‘everything to everybody’ while an unspecified number of people still continue in rebellion against him.” (Pg. 319)
He summarizes, “I am grateful to you for challenging me to declare my present mind. I do not dogmatize about the position to which I have come. I hold it tentatively. But I do plead for frank dialogue among Evangelicals on the basis of Scripture. I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment.” (Pg. 319-320)
The ‘Conditionalist’ website, Rethinking Hell, uses this last quotation from Stott on their home page. This book will be “must reading” for Christians of all types.
June 24, 2013
How do liberal Christians think - and why do they reject the plain authority of the Bible, which Evangelicals find such bedrock to belief? I've re-read this valuable and illuminating book this week, especially noting the principle author's arguments, rather than John Stott's gracious responses. It is was a sobering return to a matrix of confusion and doubt I experienced so intensely at seminary 20 years ago. The rational tug of the liberal project is mighty, persuasive, and compelling - yet at the same time strangely un-satisfying and even malign in its rejection of the supernatural. This is not a book for a new believer, of any theological stripe; I am grateful to have it on my shelf, though, as a window into the wide wasteland of much current theological turmoil. And, living and writing after the death of John Stott, grateful as well for his vast ability and faithfulness in erudite Biblical exposition.
April 11, 2014
An interesting discussion (of sorts) on issues that divide Christians. Both populist writers of their two different traditions. For believers very important, for outsiders stangely remote from reality. Essentials - not essential.
October 29, 2015
It's such a shame that this book went out of print as it sees two theologians - a famous evangelical and a liberal - discuss honestly the positions that they hold in respect of some of the key church doctrines. Both write superbly. The chapter on hell is essential reading.
Displaying 1 - 5 of 5 reviews