Which apologetic method do you prefer?

What apologetic methodology do you primarily prefer?

  • Presuppositional

    Votes: 21 65.6%
  • Evidential

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • Classical

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • Reformed Epistemological

    Votes: 3 9.4%
  • All the above

    Votes: 2 6.3%

  • Total voters
    32
Status
Not open for further replies.

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Puritan Board Doctor
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.
How are you defining those 2 ways?
 

Ask Mr. Religion

Flatly Unflappable
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.
 

Attachments

Last edited:

TrustGzus

Puritan Board Freshman
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

Flatly Unflappable
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

Puritan Board Freshman
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?
 
Last edited:

BayouHuguenot

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

reaganmarsh

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 

yeutter

Puritan Board Senior
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top