In another recent thread, I was talking about Paul Manata's appearance on Unchained Radio, discussing Atheism, Christianity and the burden of proof. I also mentioned that, to which John replied, John, first of all, it is a misunderstanding of presuppositionalism and of the nature of "evidence" to say that the former uses the latter in the same sense as does "Evidentialism." Evidentialism iis not "the apologetic that relies on evidence," but is simply the name that happened to be given to the particular apologetic method that relies on empirical evidence - for Classical and presuppositional apologetics use "evidence" as well, as does any method of defense for anything. In light of that, Evidentialism might more logically be called Empiricism, since it is really incidental that it is the apologetic with "evidence" in its name, since they all use certain kinds of evidence. With that in mind, the primary difference between Evidentialism and Classicism is that the former uses empirical evidence, whereas the latter uses philosophical evidence. The problem with both of those is that they both use autonomous evidence, whereas presuppositionalism appeals to God and His Word as the complete and sufficient evidence that everyone possesses, which is why they are without excuse. They are not without excuse because they inherently know the historical and scientific claims of evidentialism or the philisophical arguments of Aquinas and other Classicists - rather, they are without excuse because God has written His law on their hearts and evidenced His ways and character as revealed in His Word in everything. With regard to the issue of Classical and Evidential apologetics being sinful, one of the main reasons myself and others (such as Paul and Craig) find them to be so is because they inherently debase God from His rightful position as the final authority and source that can appeal to nothing else. That is because both of those apologetics presume that in order to biblically defend the faith, we actually have neutral ground with the unbeliever on which God can be put "in the dock," and that His existence can be confirmed by--and thus tested by--autonomous human reason and empirical evidence. Doing so, however, places those things on a higher level of reliability than God Himself by saying that they can be rightfully used to confirm and test His existence. Scripture tells us, on the other hand, that "he had no one greater by whom to swear" (Heb. 16:3), not even logical or empirical evidence, which only make sense as expressions of His character. As Paul (Manata) mentioned on the radio, when we're talking with other Christians or preaching from the pulpit, we always treat Christ and His Word as the final authority, as we do in the realm of evangelism. But for some reason, when we shift to the realm of defending the faith as commanded by God through Peter, we elevate autonomous human reason, laws of logic and empirical evidence above God, and thus implicitly praise those things as ultimately more reliable and absolute than Him, which is an idolotrous abomination to His character. It is important to note my use of the word "implicitly," meaning that none of us are claiming that Classicists or Evidentialists are purposefully downgrading God's character and neglecting His revelation of His ultimacy, but we are saying that their methods inherently possess and logically imply such a downgrading and neglect, even though the adherants do not mean to do so, but seek to glorify God. Ignorance, however, has never been a biblical justification for sin, just as one side on the credo-paedo issue is inevitably sinning, though non-intentionally.