A few years ago, over at the old Blogspot version of my blog, I posted an article outlining in bullet point fashion the basics of presuppositional apologetics. In that post, I mentioned Ratio Christi, a national parachurch ministry on a number of university campuses across the United States who seek to train young Christians to defend their faith.
My comment about Ratio Christi was contrasting their doctrinal statement about the nature of man with what the Bible teaches regarding the nature of man. They teach that though mankind is fallen, he still retains his ability to reason about reality and theology. Which means according to the Ratio Christi way of doing apologetics, Christians can be trained to have a reasoned discussion with hostile unbelievers about the Christian faith. On the other hand, what the Scriptures teach about men is that their reasoning ability is severely broken, and no amount of reasoned discussion with them will change that. Instead, the primary focus of apologetics is to train Christians to challenge the corrupted foundations of the unbelievers’ anti-God worldview and proclaim the Gospel to them.
After I posted that article, Adam Tucker, the Ratio Christi chapter director at UNC Greensboro, came by and left some excellent comments challenging my assertions. Over the course of a few weeks, we had a long, extended discussion about our apologetic theology and methodology. I wrote up a few follow up posts from that discussion that can be found on my articles page under apologetics and evangelism.
When I moved my blog from Blogspot to WordPress, I lost the formatting of a number of my better articles, including even the comments under them which now appeared run together in a long, unreadable paragraph. As I began the process of reformatting and reposting a number of those blog articles, I also recognized the great comments under them, including the one with Adam. So I cut and pasted them to save.
The conversation with Adam, the classic apologist, I thought was useful, so I have edited our comments in to one document for others to study. I found it useful, because Tucker does a fairly good job outlining his reason for his apologetic methodology and challenging mine. In fact, he did a presentation for an apologetics conference on many of the same themes we tackled in our discussion. I wrote up a two-part response to his presentation that can be found HERE and HERE.
The conversation between us was like 10,000 words or more. I put together a PDF that folks can download if they want. It is not a thrilling read by any means, but I post it for individuals who want to go a little deeper in the study and theory of apologetic methodology. Especially seeing the two primary positions laid out and debated.