Apologetics Approaches

I believe that there are various types of arguments and requires a well rounded knowledge of all of the apologetic methods. Groothuis states, "Each argument is like a witness in a trial, each testifies in it's own way for the truth of theism." (1) Therefore, each argument is different and thus may require a different approach. The apologist may be confronted with an argument for the cosmos and require a more scientific approach. On the other hand an apologist may be confronted with an argument for a historical basis for the "real Jesus". This would require a different type of approach.
Most professional apologists usually stay within their own "type" of approach to apologetics. There are three popular approaches which are evidentialism, presuppositionlism, and esperientialism. Evidentialist will argue for historical events. Presuppositionalist believe that they should "presuppose" (suppose beforehand) the Christian world-view with those they are talking to. Presuppositionalism is a negative approach to apologetics. Experientialism is the "feeling" of someone who has come to faith in Christ. To experientialist, God is not something (or Someone) to have knowledge about, but rather feel. Experientialist believe that knowledge about God and other theologies are too hard to grasp for the finite mind.
In Isaiah 1:18 the Lord says, "Come now, and let us reason together." Apologetics is a philosophical discipline as much as it is theistic. Apologists must be able to have a "reason for the hope" that we have; meaning we should be "defend" the faith. Oftentimes, people take for granted the mental capacity that God has given them to "defend the faith". Other times some people believe that we do not have to "defend" the faith. Often people do not see the relationship of reasoning, rational, and faith. Nonetheless, the Old Testament and the New Testament both calls for the children of God to "defend the faith" by reasoning or the use of apologetics.
While pursuing my Masters in Pastoral Counseling (also from Liberty) I became more aware of the use of science and theology together. In his introduction Entwistle states, "Weaving together perspectives from psychology and Christian theology can help us to understand and appreciate humanity more fully than we could with either perspective alone." (2) Before this I had little inclination of the use of science and theology together. I thought that they were opposed to each other. People such as Francis Bacon and Blaise Pascal were theologically oriented, but also experimented and worked in the science field. Groothuis wrote, "Other seminal scientific figures such as Isaac Newton, Johannas Keplar, and Galileo held to a theistic world-view." (3) As a matter of fact, many of the scientific advances that have been made have came from those with theistic backgrounds.
Due to my background and education I tend to be more evidential in apologetics. I grew up in a godless home and considered myself an atheist. I became a Christian at a revival almost twenty years ago yet still had answers. I further "investigated" this new faith. I went as far as getting an associates in Biblical Studies just to know more about. I guess you can say I was a backwards Lee Strobel who searched for evidence against the Christian faith, but became a Christian. As they say in Missouri, "Show Me", I needed to be shown. Some would say that I didn't have true faith however, I would disagree. I believe that I had faith just as Thomas did, but the more I saw, the more I could say, "My Lord, My God." Due to my background I will have more discussions with atheist than I do with any other group. Just as I journeyed, I also take atheist on a journey of evidence and "proof" for the faith.
References
Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, (Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 2011), Kindle Loc. 1796.
David N. Entwistle, Integrative Approaches to Psychology and Christianity, (Eugene, Oregon: Cascade Books, 2010), 3.
Groothuis, Christian Apologetics, Kindle Loc. 1003.