Some reactions to Blocher's theory
Blocher's remark that there is little support for his view in the twentieth century (as in the 19th c.) is endorsed indirectly by Wenham's short critique of him. Having heard and read Blocher's lecture he describes it as ‘devout and difficult', being ‘paradoxical' and owing more to the doctors of the church than to Holy Scripture. Likewise, Earle Ellis, while he finds Blocher's argument (that those in hell no longer sin but are in a state of remorse) ‘intriguing', he is dismissive of it and perceptively comments :
But as an Augustinian-Calvinist, Blocher should recognize that if their remorse is a ‘godly sorrow' it is the product of the Holy Spirit in His work of redemption; if only a remorse that they were caught and judged, that remorse continues to be sin.
This appears to be the essential weakness of the Birks-Blocher answer to eternal dualism: remorse without sin cannot be far from true repentance. The alternative view of conditionalists like Wenham and Ellis seems more morally logical, in that cessation of existence would be more in accordance with divine mercy than the eternal agony of remorseful beings. The value of the Birks-Blocher theory lies, positively, in its rejection of the dualism involved in the full-blown traditional view and, negatively in my opinion, in its inability to demonstrate any value in eternal remorse in preference to complete final destruction of the damned.
Neither is there support in John Blanchard's defence of the traditional view. While he agrees with Blocher's analysis of the attitude of the doomed as an acknowledgement of the lordship of Christ, and a sharing in God's abhorrence of sin and evil, being ‘remorse in agreement with God', he cannot accept that there will be any fundamental change in their attitude. With startling dualism he remonstrates:
Yet none of these things will change the basic situation; God and the unrepentant sinner will stand in eternal opposition to each other. God will hate the wicked with a perfect hatred, the outcome of his holiness, righteousness and justice. The wicked will hate God with a sinful hatred, the result of his corruption, depravity and vileness. There is no evidence that these attitudes will ever change.
Similarly, the traditionalist evangelical scholar, Don Carson, commenting on Matthew 25:46, says :
. . . there is no shred of evidence in the N.T. that hell ever brings about genuine repentance. Sin continues as part of the punishment and the ground for it.
Again, he writes :
What is hard to prove, but seems to me probable, is that one reason why the conscious punishment of hell is ongoing is because sin is ongoing.
Pawson's original contribution
Carson makes a small reference - but significant in my view - to the contribution to the debate of the popular Bible teacher, David Pawson (in his The Road to Hell). He accepts that he has made an original contribution, but describes it as an "idiosyncratic interpretation" which "infers various elements of a semi-Pelagian soteriology." Carson is referring to Pawson's position (which is the opposite of the Calvinistic doctrine of the perseverance of the saints) that Christian believers can lose their salvation if they do not persist in their faith and obedience. It is in the light of this possibility that Pawson stresses that :
. . . the warnings of Jesus about hell were rarely aimed at sinners; they were occasionally directed at religious hypocrites (like the Pharisees) but usually at his own disciples, particularly the twelve. This contextual fact seems to have been totally overlooked, even by those who still believe in, preach on and write about hell. Drawing attention to it is probably the unique contribution of this book to the present debate.
His teaching on hell is otherwise conventional; and he his well-informed when it comes to the alternative views. He would not subscribe to Blocher's view of the absence of sin there; for Pawson, hell is a place of moral depravity, and with the absence of God and the presence of the devil and his angels there will be a polluted atmosphere of foul thoughts and deeds.
When he considers the relevance of the doctrine of hell, he develops his original thought more fully in the contexts of evangelising unbelievers and edifying believers respectively. The preaching of Jesus and the apostles, he claims, did not feature hell prominently. And he wonders, "Is hell to motivate the evangelist rather than the evangelised?" He is quick to point out that he is not denying that unbelievers need to be warned about the judgement of God but that there should be more balance and restraint in preaching about it. And such restraint or care would be exercised more if the preacher was aware of his own danger and risk! As for believers, he reckons that by our Lord's example "it is more important to remind saints about hell than sinners!" Fear of hell has five benefits for the Christian:
- 1. It inspires diligence in evangelism as the fate of the lost is taken to heart;
- 2. It creates awe and gratitude in worship, which has become too familiar today;
- 3. It encourages perseverance in service : to be vigilant and faithful;
- 4. It is vital for obedience in holiness, that the Christian live in the realisation that sanctification as well as justification is necessary for salvation, for "without holiness no one will see the Lord" (Hebrews 12:14);
- 5. It helps steadfastness in persecution in that the "lesser fears" of man can be overcome by the "greater fear" of God.
With regard to the fourth point on sanctification, he has some hard things to say elsewhere. He sees most remarriages after divorce as ‘legal' adultery, which like other forms of adultery is liable to hell punishment. From a pastoral point of view, it may be asked if his motive to challenge the ‘carelessness of saints' could be discredited by creating for them an unsettling preoccupation with divine wrath and a loss of personal assurance of salvation.
The debate could open up a further dimension in the form of another original suggestion, which could create some kind of rapprochement between the novel ideas of Birks and Blocher on the one hand and Pawson on the other. If, in this grey area of doctrine where we should proceed cautiously and humbly, Birks and Blocher are right in asserting that one day divine goodness will triumph over sin and evil, and Pawson is right in claiming that Christian believers, too, are in danger of hell, could we suggest a partial synthesis of their respective theories? When Birks and Blocher advocate that in their final state the lost will agree (in their eternal remorse) with the divine verdict, would not this be more in accord with the mentality of those who once knew the love and mercy of God (but who have since forfeited their experience of them through backsliding or apostasy)? If it be objected that such a response would be equivalent to the backslider coming home in repentance, those disturbing and difficult words of the unknown writer to the Hebrew Christians could be cited:
It is impossible for those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, who have shared in the Holy Spirit, who have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the coming age, if they fall away, to be brought back to repentance . . .(Hebs. 6:4-6; NIV)
This suggestion, admittedly, would not appeal to the Calvinistic soteriology of Blocher and to others confident of the ‘security of the saints', neither does it address the question of the future of those who have never responded to Christ or repented. Again, it might undermine the compassion and tenacity of God with respect to those who venture upon the path of Christian pilgrimage. However, such speculation might reinforce the conviction of many evangelicals that there are only two possible clear alternatives: the eternal conscious punishment of the finally rebellious or their eventual annihilation. The latter has the advantage in that it deals conclusively with the problem of dualism inherent in the continuation of evil. Perhaps a final word on this is owed to John Wenham, who strove so courageously to defend the goodness of God :
If there are human beings alive suffering endless punishment, it would seem to mean that they are in endless opposition to God, that is to say, we have a doctrine of endless sinning as well as of suffering. How can this be if Christ is all in all? I plead guilty also to failing to see how God and the saints could be in perfect bliss with human beings hopelessly sinning and suffering.
* * * * * * *
If the above findings show us anything, they highlight the need for less dogmatism and a little more willingness to confess our ignorance and the limitations of our understanding. In an area of doctrine as sensitive and controversial as this such a response is essential if unity in fellowship and in the pursuit of truth are to be maintained. Honest agnosticism (as far as this topic goes) will do more good than the closed and narrow doctrinal system, which will accept no dissent on secondary issues and which so easily mistakes bigotry for contending for the truth. At the same time, Scripture encourages an attitude of reverent submission to the sovereignty of God, whose ways and thoughts are not ours; and it warns that there is a danger of trespassing into areas where revelation has not been given.
However, this ought not to mean that those with firm and settled convictions are of necessity lacking in perception or meekness. Neither should it lead to a moratorium on further study and investigation in this difficult area. On the contrary, more investigation would appear to be called for - but investigation unhindered by conventional restraints or prejudices. David Powys complains:
It would seem that much of the energy that has gone into the nineteenth and twentieth century debates about hell and universalism may have been wasted on account of the undue influence of unjustified presuppositions. The waste has arguably been compounded by the way in which the debate has been constrained by a pervasive though perverse allegiance to a questionable ‘orthodoxy': the doctrine of immediate, unending, physical punishment.
And he adds that:
. . . future constructive contributions to the debate will be made by those deeply committed to fresh, radical and unbridled examination of the biblical data.
Nearly sixty years earlier in 1932, William Temple wrote of a similar need :
There is a very strong case for thinking out the whole subject again in as complete independence as possible alike of medieval and of Protestant traditions.
A fresh look at the data, as Powys suggests, is what biblically motivated evangelicals evidently need to consider, whether this would alter or not the polarisation that is found clearly around the traditionalist and conditionalist alternatives. Perhaps another symposium (along the lines of Edinburgh 1991 or the third Triennial Tyndale Fellowship Conference at Swanwick 1997, on hell and eschatology respectively ) is required. And if it is not too naïve to suggest it, the contributors need a ‘minimalist' mentality, unencumbered with narrow doctrinal allegiances. Philosophical presuppositions or systematic theological constraints should not get in the way of honest appraisal of the relevant biblical texts in their original contexts and of words in their proper signification. The importance of sound etymology and exegesis cannot be over-stated. In the frame of mind advocated by Powys and Temple, there would appear to be plenty of scope for further work on basic words such as eternal, death, immortality, destruction, soul, spirit, etc.
Crucial to this must be an awareness that, although Jesus spoke about hell more than any other in the New Testament, such language appears to be highly metaphorical. Evidently, Jesus expected his hearers to realise this and to reflect on what he said. For example, he said quite plainly and without any explanation that no-one could be his disciple who "does not hate his own father and mother . . ." (Luke 14:26). To take this literally is to ignore the wider context of his teaching, which is so full of love and in step with the Fifth Commandment, to honour one's parents. The same principle needs to be considered when dealing with texts which appear to affirm eternal torment. Hermeneutics and exegesis could start by ensuring that, in the interests of consistency, the same principles must be applied, for example to the "undying worm" and "unquenchable fire" as to "If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off." Again, the dire warnings and terrible predictions of the Apocalypse require the same balance of respect for divine revelation and awareness of that which is conveyed through metaphor. In this connection attention should be paid to the advice of Colin Brown, when commenting on New Testament references to ‘eternal fire':
In attempting to determine the meaning of such passages, attention needs to be paid to semantics and the philosophical analysis of the structure and function of language. The words "life" and "judgement" are what I. T. Ramsey called models which describe something in familiar terms which is in fact not capable of being described in a purely literal way. For although eternal can be entered into now, its future character lies hidden beyond this life.
Not far behind the literary or textual considerations is the importance of the pastoral implications of this doctrine. Dean Farrar's compassion for his poor parishioners, tormented and devastated by their concerns for their departed loved-ones, and Pawson's claim that hell should be preached sparingly to those not yet committed to Christ sound a warning note concerning the potential harm in preaching without discretion on this subject. However, as already noted, some may feel that they have a legitimate vested interest in declaring an unbridled message of eternal judgement and that success in evangelism and mission depends on it. Evangelicals per se are for preaching the good news; but, if the Gospel is proclaimed with what some consider Augustinian harshness and exclusiveness, it can soon become a message of joy for the few only, but eventual and inescapable despair and misery for the many. Paul Helm notes that the preacher who believes in divine revelation cannot avoid reference to hell; yet, he wisely adds:
But hell is only a part of the divine revelation and therefore it is not to be preached as if it were the whole. The trouble with the hell-fire preacher is that he preaches nothing else, he is a religious monomaniac. . .
Developing these pastoral considerations a little further and turning briefly from theology to anthropology, one would imagine that the psychological dimension also needs further clarification. One of the controversial issues adding to the heat or confusion of the debate about eternal punishment has been the very nature of man. For traditionalists like F. W. Grant in the nineteenth century man's being is ‘dualistic', or tripartite in the Pauline sense, as he understands him, of spirit, soul and body. On the other hand, ‘materialists' such as B. F. C. Atkinson have championed the monistic nature of man, thereby making it easier to rule out any innate immortality, and post-mortem consciousness unless in the form of a divine gift of eternal life given conditionally. This is a most involved aspect of psychology, and one where theories and misconceptions seem to abound. However, traditional and popular notions of what God has created man to be are not always conducive to arriving at clearer ideas of what is supposed to survive death; and they may need to be challenged.
Just as important but easier to comment on is that side of human personality we refer to as emotion. A study of this kind must essentially be objective and as logical as possible, if there is to be any hope of reaching a clearer understanding of the truth. However, of all doctrines this is the one most associated with deep feelings of pity, compassion, dread, fear, anger, disgust, injustice, etc. Yet, to express a truism, man is a creature of feeling because God so made him. Therefore, it may well be psychologically unsound as well as impractical to approach the doctrine of eternal judgement in a purely cognitive way, as already noted at the end of chapter 4. Indeed, it may be argued further that if man is a combination of mind, feelings and will, it may be theologically acceptable as well as psychologically sound to listen to natural feeling as well as using natural intelligence, when contemplating God's plan in this awesome context of judgement. This is with the proviso, of course, that human limitations and fallibility are understood. The point one seeks to stress here is that if ‘the milk of human kindness' is set aside to allow a purely cerebral assessment of the truth, a distorted picture of God may be the result. Of course, it must be readily admitted, as a study of the last one hundred and fifty years bears out, that the traditional ‘hard' view of eternal punishment is held more often than not by evangelicals, who are not lacking in feeling or love for those resisting Christ, any more than advocates of a ‘kinder' view. Yet, the considerations of compassion and logic seem to point away from a doctrine that demands the eternal conscious suffering of those finally lost; and conditional immortality appears a better alternative.
This recalls another aspect of the enquiry, namely the danger of darkening the biblical conception of God who is love. Farrar recoiled in horror from that presentation of final judgement, which tended to portray God in a monstrous fashion. P. E. Hughes presents the incarnate Christ as the true expression of God and the pattern for man; and his book is aptly titled, The True Image; and the conditionalism so ably expressed in the book may be more in accord with the image of God as infinite in compassion than the traditional view of eternal torment. It has not gone unnoticed that this able champion of conditionalism belongs to the Calvinist tradition: a stance noted historically for its unyielding defence of the traditional view of eternal punishment. His ability to hold both to conditionalism and Calvinism does more than some might appreciate for the defence of the Calvinist position. Election and reprobation are doctrines difficult enough in themselves, as John Calvin freely confessed; but to affirm the eternal conscious torment of the reprobate compounds the problem. Hughes, on the other hand, has brought logic and compassion to bear on this matter, and thereby helps to guard the core of traditional Calvinistic theology as well as easing the problem for theodicy. Admittedly, the problem is much attenuated for those Calvinists, who are in sympathy with either Shedd's ‘secret working of grace' or Warfield's optimistic accounting of those who will be finally saved. No doubt, even some conditionalists might be tempted to reconsider their views, if they could be persuaded that after all a small number viz, only the finally and obstinately rebellious, will be consigned to everlasting conscious punishment; albeit, this would not solve the theodicy question about the continuing existence of evil.
However, other Christians might reply that God is also a God of holiness and justice and that neglect of these attributes will equally distort the true image of the Holy One of Israel. Here then is a test of the strength and reality of Christian unity, especially in the evangelical fraternity. Can those, who hold fast to the traditional view, appreciate the compassion and concern for theodicy which drives others to find the answer to their anxiety in conditional immortality? Is the conditionalist willing to accept that brethren and sisters of more orthodox convictions are just as sincere in their concern for God's glory and the welfare of the lost, when they cry out that God is a "consuming fire" and that the sinner must "flee from the [eternal] wrath to come"?
The implications for the advance or witness of the Christian faith are also significant. By definition, as already noted above in the pastoral requirements, evangelicals are promoters of the gospel. If the heart of the Christian message is the good news of divine love and salvation, they need to guard or examine their doctrine to ensure that its kerygma never deviates from being essentially the proclamation of God's grace. The question stubbornly persists, then, whether or not the traditional view of eternal punishment detracts from such a presentation of infinite compassion. Contenders for the traditionalist and conditionalist views are equally committed to spreading the evangel in obedience to the missionary imperative. Yet, just as a relaxation of the traditional doctrine could be seen to weaken such evangelism by diminishing the wrath of God, so a strict declaration of eternal torment can repulse those who recoil from what they see as disproportionate vengeance; and there is much anecdotal evidence of people turning away from the Christian message because of its traditional doctrine of eternal misery. Clearly, no view could be tolerated, which encouraged carelessness or disgust and thereby kept people from accepting the gospel. Although it could be claimed that, as far as the two positions now being considered are concerned, the arguments are finely balanced, they appear to incline more in favour of the conditionalist view, which preaches a more tolerable and proportionate view of punishment.
This is where the Evangelical Alliance can exercise a constructive role in seeking to maintain the message of such free forgiveness. It has come a long way since the Birks episode of the last century. The strongest proof of this is its bold and wise amendment of its articles of faith in 1967-70, exactly one hundred years after Birks', The Victory of Divine Goodness. Now, according to the its doctrinal basis, it is sufficient for evangelicals to assent to sinful man being "subject to God's wrath and condemnation" and to the redemption of Christ releasing us "from the guilt and power of sin, and from its eternal consequences." There was a time when Christians, who rejected a pre-millennialist eschatology, were shunned by others, as were those who believed God used evolution to create the world and those who believed in a ‘local' Noahic Flood. The climate now is more tolerant among evangelicals and one's precise doctrine of eternal punishment should not be a test of orthodoxy. For evangelical Christians, because of their high regard for the authority and inspiration of Scripture, assent to its doctrine of eternal punishment, albeit they differ as to whether that punishment is consciously experienced. As Kessler has wisely observed in his appraisal of the Birks' episode in the story of the Evangelical Alliance,
This shows that a doctrinal basis needs to be completely reformulated from time to time and that the real bond of Christian unity lies deeper than any formulation of the truth.
However, not everyone is happy about current trends. Don Carson has expressed his uneasiness over the way the expanding definition of evangelicalism has led to a fragmentation in "the camp" on this issue. Earlier, we noted that for Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones the definition of evangelical ought to include belief in hell and eternal punishment. However, in his recent book, Evangelical Truth (a personal plea for unity), John Stott distinguishes between "evangelical essentials which cannot be compromised" and the "adiaphora (‘matters indifferent')". The last of these doctrines of "secondary importance" on which "it is not necessary for us to insist" is "Eschatology: how do we understand the tribulation, the millennium, the parousia and our final destinies?"
There has been no outcry against Blocher as there should not have been one against Birks. Both men resisted what many consider the easier alternative of annihilationism as they grappled with the theodicy question within the limits of Scripture, as freely understood. The greatness of their labours in this context lies in the accomplishment of applying imagination or fresh thinking to this vexed problem without surrendering biblical truth. They demonstrated, unwittingly perhaps, the reality that Christian truth is dynamic; and that fresh interpretation does not have to mean perversion of the text. In this enterprise they were not held back by undue deference to traditional thought; and in this they have given an example to be followed, whether their view is accepted or not.
Whatever the findings and conclusions of the Alliance's sub-group, ACUTE, there will be no escape the fact that there has been a steady drift away from the traditional systematic doctrine by many of its members and leaders. There can be no going back, so it appears, to a more rigid orthodoxy, at least as far as the broad stream of evangelicals are concerned. However, in view of the essence of evangelicalism, any relaxation of traditional constraints will have to be, no doubt, within biblical limits. For Scripture, to the evangelical mind, ought to be sufficient as well as supreme. To draw to a close on a lyrical note :
How firm a foundation, ye saints of the Lord,
Is laid for your faith in His excellent Word !
What more can He say than to you He has said-
You, who unto Jesus for refuge have fled.
Indeed, what more can be said? Traditionalism and speculation, it would be urged, must give way to a fresh or a further unbiased examination of what has already been given. And, who knows, if such work is done thoroughly, many more Christians might sing William Williams' Guide me, O Thou great Jehovah with new understanding. At least when they come to:
Death of death, and hell's destruction . . .
If this sounds a little ambiguous, it has be recognised that the debate among evangelicals remains inconclusive and will continue to be so, despite one's own growing conviction that the conditionalist response to the problem of eternal punishment is gaining in credibility.
 J. Wenham, facing hell, op. cit., p. 258.
 The Reader Must Understand, op. cit., p. 216n.
 Whatever Happened to Hell, op. cit., p. 161f.
 D.A. Carson, The Expositor's Bible Commentary (Matthew 13-28), Grand Rapids, Zondervan, 1995, p. 523.
 D.A. Carson, The Gagging of God, Leicester, Apollos, 1996, p. 533.( Ref. is made to Stott, Essentials, op. cit., p. 319, where he says ". . . but I question whether ‘eternal conscious torment' is compatible with the biblical revelation of divine justice, unless perhaps (as has been argued) the impenitence of the lost also continues throughout eternity.") In the last section of this book, Carson laments the growth of annihilationism among evangelicals and examines the case for conditional immortality [too briefly according to Gray, The Reader Must Understand, op. cit., p. 239n], concluding, amongst other things, that "The strict dichotomy between Greek and Hebrew thought is now rightly dismissed by most scholars as far too rigid." P. 535.
 Ibid., p. 518n.
 David Pawson, The Road To Hell, London, Hodder & Stoughton, (1992), 1996 edn., pp. 8, 62-3. On p. 8 there is an interesting note on correspondence between Pawson and Ajith Fernando (author of Crucial Questions About Hell, op. cit.), in which Fernando agreed with Pawson's view on the danger of falling from grace and encouraged him to persist with the intention of publishing his book. More significantly, Fernando admitted his oversight in failing to point out that most of Jesus warnings on hell were to his disciples. Such thinking, incidentally, recalls the warnings given to the Christian pilgrim by the medieval Brother of the Common Life, Thomas a Kempis: "If such slight suffering now makes you so impatient, what will Gehenna do then? You may be sure of this - you cannot have two joys. You cannot have pleasure here in this world, and afterwards reign with Christ as well." The Imitation of Christ, ed. London, Fount, 1996, p.67.
 Ibid., pp. 6, 49, etc.
 Ibid., ch. 2, pp. 15-25.
 Ibid., p. 30.
 Ibid., p. 77.
 Ibid., pp. 78-81.
 Ibid., p. 81.
 Ibid., p. 81.
 Ibid., pp. 81-85.
 Ibid., p. 45.
 Of course this is one of the classic warnings of this letter, and NT scholars are divided over whether or not they apply to genuine believers. This could be another context where the hermeneutic principle of ‘existential- kerygmatic intention' might be relevant.
 J. Wenham, Facing Hell, op. cit., p. 256.
 Isaiah 55:8.
 Compare Paul's caution against "going beyond what is written" (I Cor. 4:6) and Charles Wesley's, "Let angel minds inquire no more.", in his famous hymn, "And can it be that I should gain . . .".
 Universalism, op. cit., p. 135.
 loc. cit.
 The Congregational Quarterly 1932, op. cit., p. 13.
 In this context of interpretation and metaphorical language, the historic stand-off between Luther and Zwingli on the issue of the Real Presence should remind evangelicals that the best minds cannot always agree on what is literal or figurative.
 Mark 9:42-48.
 In particular Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10.
 Colin Brown, Punishment, The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, ed. Colin Brown, Exeter, The Paternoster Press, 1978 (English language ed.). The same might well be applied to the terms election/predestination; perhaps if they, too, were viewed as ‘models', the doctrine associated with them might not be charged with arbitrariness or unfairness.
 Montgomery of Alamein, op. cit., p. 20f.
 The Road to Hell, op. cit., pp. 45-48.
 I hope it is not mischievous to draw a parallel with the emphasis on tithing. Despite the fact that there is no clear NT doctrine of tithing (apart from a minor indirect ref. in Mt. 23:23f) the practice is encouraged -almost legalistically - in many evangelical churches; and the cynic could be excused for thinking that preoccupation with fear (of hell) and finance (tithing) could be a form of vested manipulation, if we can coin a phrase, albeit unconsciously and well-motivated.
 Paul Helm, The Last Things, op. cit., p. 125.
 See F.W. Grant, Facts and Theories as to a Future State (1st. ed.) op. cit. p. 29f; and I Thessalonians 5:23.
 Life and Immortality, op. cit.
 Froom's Conditionalist Faith Vol II, op. cit. p. 406, where he is quoted as accusing Edwards, Furniss and Spurgeon of seeming "to represent God as a Moloch". Compare Jerome Bolsec's accusation that Calvin's doctrine of double-predestination made God the author of evil and a tyrant. See John Calvin, T.H.L. Parker, London, Lion Publishing, 1977, p. 134f.
 P.E. Hughes, The True Image, op. cit. pp. 393-397.
 Biblical refs., Hebs. 12:29, Matt. 3:7.
 Not all evangelicals would agree to this. For example, the more ‘reformed' body, the British Evangelical Council, which is represented on ACUTE, affirms "the blessedness of the saved and the everlasting punishment of the lost" [but even here there is room for differing views, for annihilation is an irrevocable punishment]. However, the international Christian Literature Crusade wisely states, " We believe in the resurrection of both the saved and the lost; they that are saved unto the resurrection of life and they that are lost unto the resurrection of judgement."
 J.B.A. Kessler, A Study of the Evangelical Alliance in Great Britain, op. cit., p. 69.
 The Gagging of God, op. cit., p. 515-6.
 Knowing the Times (ch. What is an Evangelical?), op. cit., p. 335. He notes this in the context of concern for evangelism : an evangelical is concerned for the lost, heading for eternal punishment.
 Evangelical Truth, Leicester, IVP, 1999, p. 141. The historical background to this important term is to be found in the ‘adiaphorists' of the mid sixteenth century, when Melanchthon and others were prepared (at the Leipzig Interim of 1548) to compromise with the Catholics over non-essentials; and the Pietist/Lutheran controversy of the following century, when the ‘adiaphoric' orthodox Lutherans considered theatres and dances indifferent matters! See F.L. Cross, Adiaphorists, Dictionary of the Christian Church, op. cit., p. 17f.
 loc. cit., p. 143. On pp. 24-28, incidentally, is a useful discussion on the characteristics and types of evangelicals, in which he considers the views of Peter Beyerhaus, Gabriel Fackre, J.I. Packer, David Bebbington (whose Evangelicalism in Modern Britain he describes as "magisterial"), etc. Nigel Wright embarks on a similar exercise in his The Radical Evangelical, London, 1996. See ch. 1, In Defence of Labels, where he thoroughly considers the nature of evangelicalism with detailed reference to Bebbington and Fackre.
 Which should be published early 2000.
 ‘K' in Rippon's Selection, 1787. Christian Hymns, Bridgend, Evangelical Movement of Wales, 1985, no. 574.
 William Williams, 1717-91. (Translated by Peter Williams.) ibid., no.728.