One of my recent answers, to a question I’ve actually seen people bicker over: which apologetics method is “best”?
Question: What’s the best type of apologetics: presuppositional, classical, or evidential? God uses some degree of the evidential type and uses miracles. But Paul hints in Romans 1:20 that presuppositional apologetics is the most biblical type. This is very confusing.
Answer: Asking which kind of apologetics is “best” is sort of like asking which type of mathematics is “best”: algebra, calculus, or geometry? Or, asking a boxer which punch is “best”: a jab, cross, or uppercut? In reality, they’re all part of the same basic family, used under different circumstances. It just depends on what kind of problem you’re trying to solve.
If a person thinks God makes no sense, you counter by showing them how nothing makes sense without God, which is presuppositional. If he misunderstands doctrines like the Trinity, or Hell, you counter by giving him an accurate explanation, which is classical. If he thinks there’s no evidence for God’s existence…you get the point. The more one uses these different approaches, the more overlap is seen between them.
The classic definition of apologetics comes from 1 Peter 3:15, which says we are to be ready “always” to give an answer for our beliefs. By definition, this means we need to be prepared to use more than one apologetic approach. Paul himself made a deliberate effort to adapt to other peoples’ needs in order to communicate the Gospel (1 Corinthians 9:20-22). Critically, 1 Peter 3:16 shows the only truly universal apologetic: a life lived in harmony with the teachings of Christ, which cannot be argued against.
There is no “most biblical” approach to apologetics, other than the mandate to let your life and your relationships speak for Christ first. As you noticed, God uses many different methods to reach us. We should be willing and able to do the same!
