The Best Apologetic Method?

Since I have been a Christian I have been a major fan of apologetics (a defense of the Christian faith) and would read book after book refuting "cultist" false doctrines and defending biblical orthodoxy. However, this can become really tedious due to the fact there are mutant heresies all over the place it is hard to write books refuting all of them. Particularly when dealing with non-Christian world views I have found that the Presuppositional apologetic approach has been the best. Basically instead of dealing with all the little bullets and challenges people fire at Christianity you take away the gun. This really becomes like throwing darts especially when dealing with relativists. Again on the local Christian radio show a caller called in and challenged the host (who was speaking against embryonic stem cell research and other various social issues) the caller challenged her saying basically: "I'm a Christian and I just don't think you have any right to judge other people, you have no right to tell them that they are wrong or that they are sinning...Only God can do that."

Well you hear that kind of junk all the time these days. This time the host did a great job responding she said: "You say that it is wrong for me to judge...isn't that in itself a judgment?" See she could have defended all the points the guy rambled on about how we can't say that embryonic stem cell research is wrong and addressed the folly point by point rather you go right to the root...your doing the very thing you say I'm not to do. Or better yet "where did you get that idea that it is wrong to judge?" people who aren't Christians don't really have a foundation for their moral views they are arbitrary. Presuppositional apologetics says you have no basis to support the statements you made. For instance all the "tolerance" talk we hear today, a presuppostional approach would be to ask "Why based on your worldview should I be tolerant?"
This is better I think that dealing with all the nonsense that stems from the acceptance of the "tolerance" doctrine (homosexual unions).

I was listening to the Catholic channel on my way north one day and there was a discussion about homosexuality in the Catholic church. The hosts of course were against it yet the Catholic caller said a popular slogan: "If they love eachother and they aren't hurting anybody then what's wrong?" The hosts began to deal with the statement by saying the church has ruled homosexuality sin, blah blah blah. The real issue is where did this guy get that standard of morality from and why is it valid?! Why is "Not hurtin people" the standard for what makes something right or wrong? Where did that come from?

Greg Koukl's book which I have cited a few times in the past has the title of "Relativism: Feet firmly planted in mid-air" presuppositional apologetics points out to our relativist counterparts the fact that their beliefs aren't based on anything solid, their feet are planted in mid air. The late Dr. Gregg Bahnsen has a bit of a more scholarly description of presuppositional apologetics click here.