Which apologetic method do you prefer?

Discussion in 'Apologetical Methods' started by TrustGzus, Jun 3, 2017.

  1. Presuppositional

    21 vote(s)
    65.6%
  2. Evidential

    3 vote(s)
    9.4%
  3. Classical

    3 vote(s)
    9.4%
  4. Reformed Epistemological

    3 vote(s)
    9.4%
  5. All the above

    2 vote(s)
    6.3%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. TrustGzus

    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.
     
  2. Dachaser

    Dachaser Puritan Board Doctor

    How are you defining those 2 ways?
     
  3. Ask Mr. Religion

    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.
     

    Attached Files:

    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
  4. TrustGzus

    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.
     
  5. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    OK. Updated accordingly.
     
  6. TrustGzus

    TrustGzus Puritan Board Freshman

    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?
     
  7. Ask Mr. Religion

    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.
     
  8. TrustGzus

    TrustGzus Puritan Board Freshman

    We've only got 5 votes up to this point. How about changing it to more options and asking primary approach?
     
    Last edited: Jun 3, 2017
  9. Ask Mr. Religion

    Ask Mr. Religion Flatly Unflappable

    Done
     
  10. ZackF

    ZackF Puritan Board Graduate

    I call myself presuppositional but I'm not a fanatic about it.
     
  11. Gforce9

    Gforce9 Puritan Board Junior

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

    ZackF Puritan Board Graduate

    I was going to say that I never apologize. ;)
     
  13. jwithnell

    jwithnell Moderator Staff Member

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

    TrustGzus Puritan Board Freshman

    Yes. Sproul wrote a book called Classical Apologetics with John Gerstner and Art Lindsey.
     
  15. malcolmmaxwell60

    malcolmmaxwell60 Puritan Board Freshman

    Read books by Calvin, knox, and Spurgeon

    Sent from my SM-G530T using Tapatalk
     
  16. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    Generally Van Tillman with a Plantigian accent
     
  17. ZackF

    ZackF Puritan Board Graduate

    What is that?
     
  18. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

    I agree with Van Til theologically, but I hold to Plantinga's view of knowledge = warranted, true belief. Bahnsen said K = justified, true belief.
     
    • Informative Informative x 1
    • List
  19. BayouHuguenot

    BayouHuguenot Puritan Board Doctor

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

    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.
     
  21. yeutter

    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.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page