# Which apologetic method do you prefer?



## TrustGzus (Jun 3, 2017)

A little background. I've listened to Sproul for around 30 years. Been saved 31 years. I've been Reformed for 3-1/4 years. 

Nearly everyone seems presuppositional in apologetic methodology in my experience as a Reformed believer. I'd love to fit in at church on this. I simply don't see it yet. I've picked up several books. Plugging away at them. 

I'm simply curious how odd I am on this in that non-presuppositional methods seem more legitimate to me. 

Please vote. Share your thoughts. Share your favorite resources.


----------



## Dachaser (Jun 3, 2017)

TrustGzus said:


> A little background. I've listened to Sproul for around 30 years. Been saved 31 years. I've been Reformed for 3-1/4 years.
> 
> Nearly everyone seems presuppositional in apologetic methodology in my experience as a Reformed believer. I'd love to fit in at church on this. I simply don't see it yet. I've picked up several books. Plugging away at them.
> 
> ...


How are you defining those 2 ways?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 3, 2017)

I do not know what non-presuppositional means here. Sproul and Co. are evidential in their apologetics. That is a presupposition in and of itself. I suspect you intended to mean that in the poll. 

See the attached summary of apologetic methods.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 3, 2017)

I didn't want to make it a 5 views of apologetics. In my little knowledge on presuppositional apologetics my understanding is that there might be more than one way to understand that even. Van Til or Clark or others even. 

So I'm lumping classical, evidential, cumulative case all under non-presuppositional. 

Feel free to fine tune in comments.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 3, 2017)

OK. Updated accordingly.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 3, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> OK. Updated accordingly.



I guess to some extent it wouldn't matter if we put four or five up there. You've around here much longer than I. Do you think either way would make the thread more beneficial?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 3, 2017)

Well, the poll may be more accurate with more categories. As it stands, there will be not a few who have a priority approach, but leverage secondary methods of apologetics.


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 3, 2017)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Well, the poll may be more accurate with more categories. As it stands, there will be not a few who have a priority approach, but leverage secondary methods of apologetics.



We've only got 5 votes up to this point. How about changing it to more options and asking primary approach?


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Jun 3, 2017)

Done


----------



## ZackF (Jun 3, 2017)

I call myself presuppositional but I'm not a fanatic about it.


----------



## Gforce9 (Jun 3, 2017)

I have found the surprise/shotgun method works well ....more conversions than Finney, himself!

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## ZackF (Jun 3, 2017)

Gforce9 said:


> I have found the surprise/shotgun method works well ....more conversions than Finney, himself!


I was going to say that I never apologize.


----------



## jwithnell (Jun 4, 2017)

I thought the Ligonier perspective was more in line with classical apologetics?


----------



## TrustGzus (Jun 4, 2017)

jwithnell said:


> I thought the Ligonier perspective was more in line with classical apologetics?


Yes. Sproul wrote a book called _Classical Apologetics _with John Gerstner and Art Lindsey.


----------



## malcolmmaxwell60 (Jun 5, 2017)

Read books by Calvin, knox, and Spurgeon 

Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 6, 2017)

Generally Van Tillman with a Plantigian accent


----------



## ZackF (Jun 6, 2017)

ReformedReidian said:


> Generally Van Tillman with a Plantigian accent



What is that?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2017)

ZackF said:


> What is that?



I agree with Van Til theologically, but I hold to Plantinga's view of knowledge = warranted, true belief. Bahnsen said K = justified, true belief.

Reactions: Informative 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2017)

Particularly, I like Van Til's claim that the covenant-keeper is receptively reconstructive of God's facts and symbols.


----------



## reaganmarsh (Jun 8, 2017)

I'm primarily presupp in my approach, but I talk to the person in front of me. If the question they're asking needs an evidential/classical/whatever response, I give it and then resume a basically presupp line.

Reactions: Amen 1


----------



## yeutter (Jun 10, 2017)

I like/use the approaches of Aquinas, Anselm, and Thomas Reid. As a practical matter, when in Asia, I find myself spending a fair amount of time talking with people about why the Bible is a demonstrably reliable document. People in Thailand hear or read about the nativity of our Lord and mentally pigeonhole it the same way they do stories of the incarnations of Krishna. So I try to demonstrate reasons why they should believe that the Bible is historically reliable. Once they are willing to understand that the Bible makes different claims about it self, then other sacred documents; then we can go on to address the reason we must believe in the Theistic Being that we call God.


----------

