Preferred or favorite category of apologetics?

[Rlee]

I was wondering if some would like to post thoughts on what their preferred approach to apologetics is, be it presuppositional, creational, evidential, philosophical, etc.. Do you feel that one is more effective than another or is one more problematic than another? Are there any of our current apologists whose arguments you hold to more than another? While I have listened to and read many over the years, more recent times I've invested more time into John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, and William Craig. I don't necessarily intend this to be a doctrinal debate, but rather on comments of defending the historic Christian faith and the issues we agree upon despite denominations.

 

[rlvaughn]

I hear Ravi Zacharias on the radio and have always been impressed with his apologetics and logical arguments (not saying I would endorse at all of it, but am very positive about him). I have read some of William Lane Craig's arguments for open theism (Or Molinism) and take a widely divergent path from him on these matters. I am less familiar with Lennox. IIRC, I heard him interviewed on some program and was favorably impressed.

To me, someone like Ravi Zacharias is able to discuss things with non-Christians more on their level to bring them toward listening to the Bible view, whereas someone like me has more of a simple approach of "the Bible says" -- which doesn't mean much to those who don't believe the Bible.

 

[Yeshua1]

I was wondering if some would like to post thoughts on what their preferred approach to apologetics is, be it presuppositional, creational, evidential, philosophical, etc.. Do you feel that one is more effective than another or is one more problematic than another? Are there any of our current apologists whose arguments you hold to more than another? While I have listened to and read many over the years, more recent times I've invested more time into John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, and William Craig. I don't necessarily intend this to be a doctrinal debate, but rather on comments of defending the historic Christian faith and the issues we agree upon despite denominations.

Think that the presumption is to be perferred, but also can use the one that leans upon historical fcats!

 

[Rlee]

I hear Ravi Zacharias on the radio and have always been impressed with his apologetics and logical arguments (not saying I would endorse at all of it, but am very positive about him). I have read some of William Lane Craig's arguments for open theism (Or Molinism) and take a widely divergent path from him on these matters. I am less familiar with Lennox. IIRC, I heard him interviewed on some program and was favorably impressed.

To me, someone like Ravi Zacharias is able to discuss things with non-Christians more on their level to bring them toward listening to the Bible view, whereas someone like me has more of a simple approach of "the Bible says" -- which doesn't mean much to those who don't believe the Bible.

Excellent comment about RZ being able to bring it down to a personal level. I believe that is where he excels. He has a powerful way of taking the philosophical and applying it practically to anyone's particular situation.

 

[Rlee]

Think that the presumption is to be perferred, but also can use the one that leans upon historical fcats!

That's what I tend to lean to myself although I want to guard against being too tenacious with regard to using just one approach. My thoughts, feelings, and arguments center around facts simply because of the sheer importance of them and the weight they carry, but since we can't prove everything, we sometimes need strong philosophical inferences that point to answers that leave little doubt of anything else. William Lane Craig is very good at this but along with rlvaughn, I can't always agree with some of his theology.

 

[Rlee]

John Lennox is definitely an incredible intellect and yet has the grace and personality to come across with a humble confidence. He's certainly a hero in the faith.

 

[Yeshua1]

That's what I tend to lean to myself although I want to guard against being too tenacious with regard to using just one approach. My thoughts, feelings, and arguments center around facts simply because of the sheer importance of them and the weight they carry, but since we can't prove everything, we sometimes need strong philosophical inferences that point to answers that leave little doubt of anything else. William Lane Craig is very good at this but along with rlvaughn, I can't always agree with some of his theology.

His open Theism like views, view on inerrancy, and especially his

 

[Yeshua1]

That's what I tend to lean to myself although I want to guard against being too tenacious with regard to using just one approach. My thoughts, feelings, and arguments center around facts simply because of the sheer importance of them and the weight they carry, but since we can't prove everything, we sometimes need strong philosophical inferences that point to answers that leave little doubt of anything else. William Lane Craig is very good at this but along with rlvaughn, I can't always agree with some of his theology.

Historical facts and data saved no one, but the Holy Spirit can use them to wake up the person!

 

[Rlee]

Historical facts and data saved no one, but the Holy Spirit can use them to wake up the person!

Walter Martin had some good advice on debating. "Go in with bowed knees relying on the Holy Spirit..."

 

[Yeshua1]

Walter Martin had some good advice on debating. "Go in with bowed knees relying on the Holy Spirit..."

Also, avoid rabbit trails, as its who is Jesus , and how does God save sinners?