Two factors need to be kept on the table in this discussion of method. First is that we are doing *Christian* apologetics, so we can fairly proceed from a Christian standpoint. Our apologetics should be informed by our Christian theology. Second (and to respond to the howls that may come from that first claim), if we don't start from our own Christian presuppositions, from what presuppositions shall we begin ? Why accept a requirement that we step outside of our Christian worldview and work our way back in? If we step outside of a Christian worldview, into what worldview do we step? Certainly not onto neutral ground. People who require that are privileging their own worldview. There may be one out there, but I haven't encountered a metaphysical naturalist who accepts the requirement that he step outside of his worldview in order to work his way back in. If it isn't rationally justifiable for us to start from within a Christian worldview, how is it rationally justifiable to require that we approach it from some other worldview that hasn't itself been shown to be a reliable and authoritative measure? That requirement itself needs to be defended. Otherwise it's cheating.
This is a well thought out approach to apologetic methodology. There is much theory to argue over on the philosophical side. It is the practical side that means as much. How one approaches the questioner/skeptic is paramount. Having your ducks in a row does not necessarily win the heart of the person you're speaking with. I trained in classical apologetics and find a lot of commonality with evidential apologetics which I mostly employ, knowing much of it is relevant to step 2 in classical apologetics. In any event, I must listen, not anticipate, understand before answer, and love the person I'm speaking with. If I don't employ these methods I am that clanging bell.
Two factors need to be kept on the table in this discussion of method. First is that we are doing *Christian* apologetics, so we can fairly proceed from a Christian standpoint. Our apologetics should be informed by our Christian theology. Second (and to respond to the howls that may come from that first claim), if we don't start from our own Christian presuppositions, from what presuppositions shall we begin ? Why accept a requirement that we step outside of our Christian worldview and work our way back in? If we step outside of a Christian worldview, into what worldview do we step? Certainly not onto neutral ground. People who require that are privileging their own worldview. There may be one out there, but I haven't encountered a metaphysical naturalist who accepts the requirement that he step outside of his worldview in order to work his way back in. If it isn't rationally justifiable for us to start from within a Christian worldview, how is it rationally justifiable to require that we approach it from some other worldview that hasn't itself been shown to be a reliable and authoritative measure? That requirement itself needs to be defended. Otherwise it's cheating.
This is a well thought out approach to apologetic methodology. There is much theory to argue over on the philosophical side. It is the practical side that means as much. How one approaches the questioner/skeptic is paramount. Having your ducks in a row does not necessarily win the heart of the person you're speaking with. I trained in classical apologetics and find a lot of commonality with evidential apologetics which I mostly employ, knowing much of it is relevant to step 2 in classical apologetics. In any event, I must listen, not anticipate, understand before answer, and love the person I'm speaking with. If I don't employ these methods I am that clanging bell.