What do you think?
Rate this book
Evangelical 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
69 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 - 4 of 4 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.
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 - 4 of 4 reviews