I just finished reading a book on five views of apologetic method. The book detailed views on the Classical, Evidential, Cumulative Case, Presuppositional, and Reformed Epistemology apologetic methods.
After reading this book, it seemed to me that the five views are not mutually exclusive. In that an apologist could use any one of the methods they may find advantageous depending on the circumstances. Allow me to present some possible illustrations by what I mean with an imaginary apologist I will call Jack.
Jack decides to use a classical apologetic with a nonbeliever friend he is going to have a medium to long conversation with. Say the Kalam Cosmological argument followed by an argument for the resurrection.
Later Jack runs into a friend at a coffee shop. His friend knows Jack is a Christian and asks him a question. Not having as much time Jack decides to use the evidential method argument say (as mentioned in the book) Gray Habermas’s minimal facts.
Jack and this friend from the coffee shop begin an email correspondence and Jack decides to use a Cumulative Case approach with the ongoing emails over a period of time since it shows that the Christian world view as the best explanation for why reality is the way it is. It also is ideal with email as it is not as formal as the classical or evidential approach.
A few days later Jack is talking to a young Christian who is struggling with understanding the Trinity. His friend is a Christian and believes in the inerrancy of scripture. So Jack decides to use a presuppositional approach and starts with scripture to explain the Trinity.
Finally, Jack goes to a high school reunion. He runs into an old friend who is an empirical evidentualist. As they talk God comes up and as Jack gets a feel for his friends point of view. Jack decides to use a reformed epistemology approach. Since a large part of our acquired knowledge is based on things that cannot be evidenced (the laws of logic, the love of ones spouse, the scientific method, etc.). Jack brings up that the vast majority of what we believe in we never take the time to verify or just lack the skill to verify something. But since our cognitive facilities work properly we believe many such things despite verification evidence. Why not God? The conversation goes from there.
So those are my thoughts in a nutshell. I guess my point is if you can do apologetics why just limit ones self to one method? Five tools are better than one.
Does that make sense?
Thanks in advance for any thoughts you may have.
Cheers and blessings