First, for those who want an introduction to apologetics, I suggest this video by Dr. R.C. Sproul on Defending Your Faith, lecture 1: http://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/defending-your-faith/introduction-2/. Note in the second part he addresses Greek philosophy.
One way to compare different approaches is to look at what they consider believers and unbelievers have in common and how to build on that.
(1) Believers and unbelievers have a common humanity.
With this approach one does not address questions about the existence of God, different worldviews, how scientific evidence relates to the Bible, etc., there is no recourse but to preach the Gospel again or go on to the next audience.
(2) Believers and unbelievers have a common humanity and also live in a common world.
With this approach one can address questions about science by showing them how scientific evidence may be understood to support the Bible. But questions about the existence of God or different worldviews cannot be addressed because the ability to reason is not sufficiently held in common.
(3) Believers and unbelievers have a common humanity and also a common ability to reason.
With this approach one can address questions about the existence of God by showing them how reasonable it is to believe that God exists. One can also address a worldview which excludes God by showing them the inadequacy of such a worldview. But questions about how science supports the Bible cannot be addressed because the world of science is not sufficiently common.
(4) Believers and unbelievers have a common humanity, a common ability to reason, and live in a common world.
With this approach one can address the most questions – questions about the existence of God, a worldview which excludes God, questions about science, etc. One has the most resources in common with which to remove impediments to the Gospel.
I support approach (4) because I think Christians do have that much in common with unbelievers and because it gives the apologist the most tools to address the most questions. The other approaches lack tools to address some questions and so impediments to the Gospel may remain.
July 2014