Knowing something about Dayton, TN, I can tell you that there is not much wiggle room by way of theological engagement. RHE sounds to me like someone struggling theologically with the narrow set of resources she actually has available to her by virtue of her “tradition.” So, should we simply point out the flaws? Should we quote Job back at her as though this is where she’s coming from?

On the Reformed theology front, it’s just not fair to talk about how shallow her views are without asking what branch of the Reformed world she was exposed to. It’s clear that Van Till lurks behind this review, but Van Till is by no means that only Reformed perspective on apologetics, as you no doubt know.

I have seen theonomists tear up Reformed churches, watched Boettner’s hyper-Calvinism turn some Reformed folks (TR’s mainly or those with “Reformed Rage” as Michael Horton has noted) into hate-mongers who have no problem saying it’s God’s will that x happened in quite unsophisticated ways. At the same time, I have seen profound articulations of the Christian faith coupled with deep piety in Reformed thinkers.

In other words, we cannot simply lay the fault at a women nurtured in a narrow circle of theology and who may have been exposed to Reformed thinkers representing a very small slice of the movement.

This is one of the big hang ups in the apologetics frontier. I have read statements from Van Till that illustrate his readiness to lump Catholics and Wesleyans (revivalists) all together in the same semi-pelagian boat (naive at best, heretics most likely). Is it really that black and white? Really? Is it really Christianity vs. Barthianism?

I, for one, appreciate her attempt to break free from a narrowly defined theological world.

The remainder of the book shares RHE’s journey from doubt to faith, but it’s difficult to understand the content of this faith as she questions both its source and interpretation of the source and, it seems, prefers a Jesus Seminar method to approaching scripture.

To question the source of the Bible, God’s self-attesting, and self-authoritative revelation to man and woman, is part and parcel of our post-modern age.

An apologetic that starts with and depends upon the categories of philosophical reasoning outside and independent of theological conviction, and as grounds for theological conviction, can never quite make the argument for Christianity.

An apologetic that starts with ‘theological conviction’ is not the same as saying an apologetic that starts with the Word of God. Big difference.

I don’t see how you can say this. Jews and Muslims and Buddhists and so on have religious experiences all the time and none of them are non-believers or are operating under “the demands of unbelief,” whatever those may be.

So let me ask again: would you, as a Christian, recognize the validity of a belief in another religion based on the same criteria that you use to validate your belief in Christianity?

So would you say that belief in any other religion is reasonable if it grows out of similar experiences? What about non-belief? Does an experience of godlessness justify atheism?