'Apologetics is useless' and other lies

The author seems to be equating apologetics with evidential apologetics.

Well, his examples are evidentialist. But if you talk about dogs and only use poodles for examples, you’re still talking about “dogs.”

What I got from his apologetic for apologetics is that, whether it’s apologetics in general or evidentialist apologetics in particular, criticisms are often overstated—and the “countless” stories of believers for whom apologetics played a role in their coming to faith are a strong defense.

This has been my experience as well.

I probably don’t understand (or just don’t remember) the essential/most vital differences between the presuppositional and evidentialist schools, but most (all?) evidentialists accept that a work of the Spirit is required for one “dead in trespasses and sins” to fully grasp the truth of the gospel. And I’m also pretty sure most (all?) presuppositionalists grant that Jesus appealed to evidence on many occasions as a basis for belief—and that reasoning from evidence almost always has a role in saving faith.

So… I tend to shrug at that particular dispute. Even back in seminary days, I didn’t really see the point. We didn’t read a lot of Van Til, but read a lot of people who read Van Til. And we also read Clark (Gordon, I think?) who was said to be an advocate of “semi-rational apologetics,” if I remember right. At the time, I found Gordon more persuasive. I’m not sure I would now if I re-read. I often find Van Til hard to understand (but I’m suspicious that some of his advocates have not really understood him either… in my defense).

Yes that is the correct Gordon. I am only minimally acquainted with him. This quote seemed to me to be a potshot at presuppositionalism but maybe not:

On one side, we have Christians who sneer at apologetics, saying that no one ever believes because of it, that it’s only good to shore up the faith of the already faithful, and its methods short-circuit faith, which is the key to everything.

Especially since he then went on to reference Craig and Strobel, two notable evidentialists. I have probably revealed my hand on supporting presuppositionalism as the correct method but that’s not to say that evidences are bad or out of bounds in all cases. As Machen said “Evidences do much to help God’s little ones.”

The number one issue with apologetics is what is your ultimate authority. If you are basing your belief on something other than God and his Word, then you have elevated that something (normally things like experience, science, so-called bare facts, etc) above God's word. When you do that, you are standing on the same sinking sand as an unbeliever, rather than the solid rock of God's word. The unsaved have a worldview that explains experience, science, and facts to fit their belief system. So, that is why we really ought to be arguing at a worldview level, rather than an evidence level.