FrozenChosen
Puritan Board Freshman
So I know that there's a rift between presupp. and classical apologetics.
Do you guys here use both at times? Is either approach inherently bad, or can there be a better approach in given situations?
I can see presupp. apologetics being like the artillery for entrenched positions; wonderfully taking out tough opponents. But for softer opponents who do not work out all their beliefs, would it make sense to use a more classical approach?
Just curious, please don't jump me.
Do you guys here use both at times? Is either approach inherently bad, or can there be a better approach in given situations?
I can see presupp. apologetics being like the artillery for entrenched positions; wonderfully taking out tough opponents. But for softer opponents who do not work out all their beliefs, would it make sense to use a more classical approach?
Just curious, please don't jump me.