I participated in some of the comments in the original thread, but I wanted to follow up with a thought or two.
Francis Beckwith, whose "journey" was recounted in the book, seemed straightaway to hijack the comments, complaining that "I don’t think it’s right to refer to the primary chapters as “defenses", as Justin Taylor had done in his introduction. Beckwith went on to say,
There is an overuse in the Evangelical world of the language of military combat and adversarial jurisprudence to describe every theological disagreement. So, we don’t “dialogue over the nature of biblical inspiration.” We “battle for the Bible.” We don’t present reasons why we believe the way we do. We offer “evidence that demands a verdict.” We don’t engage contrary religious traditions. We rebut “the Kingdom of the Cults.” Enough already.But several of the commenters noted that such language was Biblical, and if anything is worth being adversarial over, it is the true nature of "the one true faith".
I would say further, this whole concept of "Journeys of faith" is a questionable concept. While I have a great deal of respect for "those who traveled from Christian tradition to another" -- the assumption being that these are individuals who want to follow Christ more closely -- we certainly have to admit that, given the "theological disagreements" of the last 500, or 1000 years, that someone is -- many someones are -- clearly taking their "journeys of faith" in the wrong direction. It is very wrong-headed to attribute some sort of moral equivalence to these journeys. There are clearly moral and theological differences. One would hope at some point that these actual differences would be discussed, thoroughly and honestly.
What is always lacking in these "ecumenical" discussions is that the recently-found Roman concept of "separated brethren" is really a combination of the concept that Protestants are "invincible" in their "ignorance" (hardly a concept upon which to build "brotherhood") along with a wholesale adoption by Rome of 19th century liberal concepts. Neither of these is acceptable to evangelicals, nor should they be. But the smiley-face pasted on these dual concepts gives Rome the opportunity to appear to be magnanimous, offering an ersatz "fullness" which some of the other branches of Christianity purportedly don't have. Thus, Rome insults Protestants, and they frequently don't even realize the doctrinal condescension and the rot that lies behind the smiles.
All along, genuine historical scholarship that I'm reading is showing two things. It is (a) shoring up historical justification for Jesus, and (b) clearly exposing the sham of any historical "justification" behind the papacy, which is the heart and soul of the Roman system. Hence, in recent years, Rome has retreated behind behind the imagery of a "Petrine" ministry, in which Peter has some vaguely defined "headship" among the "college" of Apostles (and not the "primacy of jurisdiction" pronounced in a more cocksure era of Vatican I).
Rather than "explore" "personal journeys", it is a far better thing to spend our time re-examining Christian history as it was lived and breathed in generation after generation. We would see that every branch of Christianity has its problems, but no one has done more violence to Christianity than has Roman Catholicism.
Much better in my opinion to give up the fuzzy, back-stabbing ecumenism and really analyze what divides us in honest terms, using honest exegesis from Scripture, and honest historical investigation.