John Stott (born 1921) is an Anglican clergyman and a famous evangelical leader. In 2005, Time magazine ranked Stott among the 100 most influential people in the world. David Lawrence Edwards (born 1929) was Dean of Norwich and author of many books.
The Preface to this 1988 book explains, "David Edwards asked John Stott if he might write a book based on his published works... More specifically, 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 truth, including the gospel? John agreed that a liberal-Evangelical dialogue would be useful, and eventually acquiesced in the proposal that he should be the Evangelical under question. David then studied most of John's publications and wrote an appreciation and criticism of them ... John wrote a response chapter by chapter." They discuss "The Power of the Gospel"; "The Authority of the Scriptures"; "The Cross of Christ"; "The Miraculous Christ"; "The Bible and Behaviour"; and "The Gospel for the World."
The main interest of this book for many (most?) readers, however, is reading some frank statements from Stott, such as:
"(T)here is no evidence that (Jesus) envisaged New Testament documents or that he commissioned his apostles to write them. But he did commission them to teach in his name." (Pg. 89)
"For thirty-five years now I have felt it right to repudiate the label 'fundamentalist.'" (Pg. 89)
"After all, there is no plain statement for plain people that 'Jesus was God,' but taken as a whole the Scriptures indubitably affirm his deity." (Pg. 162)
"What, then, about the Canaanite genocide? It was a ghastly business; one shrinks from it in horror. Nevertheless, the biblical text plainly attributes it to the specific command of God." (Pg. 263)
Of course, the BIG controversy about this book was Stott's startling admission that "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. 320) He states: "So both the language of destruction and the imagery of fire seem to point to annihilation." (Pg. 318) "It would be easier to hold together the awful reality of hell and the universal reign of God if hell means destruction and the impenitent are no more." (Pg. 319) "I have never been able to conjure up (as some great Evangelical missionaries have) the appalling vision of the millions who are not only perishing but will inevitably perish. On the other hand, I am not and cannot be a universalist. Between these extremes I cherish the hope that the majority of the human race will be saved. And I have a solid biblical basis for this belief." (Pg. 327)
