Preferred or favorite category of apologetics?

I was wondering if some would like to post thoughts on what their preferred approach to apologetics is, be it presuppositional, creational, evidential, philosophical, etc.. Do you feel that one is more effective than another or is one more problematic than another? Are there any of our current apologists whose arguments you hold to more than another? While I have listened to and read many over the years, more recent times I've invested more time into John Lennox, Ravi Zacharias, and William Craig. I don't necessarily intend this to be a doctrinal debate, but rather on comments of defending the historic Christian faith and the issues we agree upon despite denominations.

 

Excellent comment about RZ being able to bring it down to a personal level. I believe that is where he excels. He has a powerful way of taking the philosophical and applying it practically to anyone's particular situation.

 

That's what I tend to lean to myself although I want to guard against being too tenacious with regard to using just one approach. My thoughts, feelings, and arguments center around facts simply because of the sheer importance of them and the weight they carry, but since we can't prove everything, we sometimes need strong philosophical inferences that point to answers that leave little doubt of anything else. William Lane Craig is very good at this but along with rlvaughn, I can't always agree with some of his theology.

 

John Lennox is definitely an incredible intellect and yet has the grace and personality to come across with a humble confidence. He's certainly a hero in the faith.

 

Walter Martin had some good advice on debating. "Go in with bowed knees relying on the Holy Spirit..."