Each Week on Saturday, I’ll be asking a “Question of the Week.” I’d love your input and discussion! Ask a good question in the comments and it may show up as the next week’s question! I may answer the questions in the comments myself.
There are a number of different apologetic methods, such as evidentialism, presuppositionalism, classical apologetics, cumulative-case apologetics, Reformed Epistemology, and some even consider forms of fideism to be a type of apologetics.
I’m curious as to what your preferred apologetic method is:
Which apologetics method do you prefer? Do you consider it to be the only method which is viable?
There are some who argue that, for example, presuppositionalism is the only biblical apologetic method. Others (like myself) prefer an integrative approach which uses aspects of as many different approaches as possible. What are your thoughts? How have you used your apologetic approach most effectively? Let me know in the comments!
Be sure to check out the page for this site on Facebook and Twitter for discussion of posts, links to other pages of interest, random talk about theology/philosophy/apologetics/movies and more.
Question of the Week– Check out other questions and give me some answers!
In my experience with intellectual skeptics, when you argue with mere logic, there will be things that the skeptic realizes you are arguing only because you have faith. Once he realizes that, the argument is over. But start with faith as a premise, point out their own faith (e.g., “your desire to believe there is a God is your measure of faith”) and challenge them to act on it, and faith won’t become the conclusion… or it will take longer to reach the impasse. It allows the conversation to be more open. I might classify my preferred method as a derivative of Pascal’s Wager.
I find Greg Koukl’s tactics helpful when in conversation with skeptics and non-believers. He encourages an integrative approach. As to whether there is one best method, I take a Hayekian outlook. Christians didn’t even know about apologetics or Christian case making fifty years ago, and look at the plethora of materials we have today! We should debate and develop our methodologies and arguments, and make it possible to create new ones.
It seems to me, at least when I have discussions on these topics is that a classical and historical apologetic approach usually works the best. That’s not to say others do not work, but these are the two I probably work with the most.
Looking forward to your question of the week section!
I categorize my method as “presuppositionally aware evidentialism”. I think that evidence needs to be the chief weapon of the apologist, but, s/he must always be sniffing out presuppositions.
I prefer Presuppositional apologetics because of my theology; I prefer Presuppositional because I think that most of my discussion with people end up coming down to a clash of worldviews and starting point; I also believe Presuppositionalism does not mean it is against evidences, but that we must interact with philosophy of evidences in a meaningful and also biblical way as well. =)