Are traditional methods of apologetics outdated? Does giving arguments for God or providing evidence that Jesus rose from the dead actually convince anyone? Should we instead only use apologetic methods that "work"? Some try to disparage traditional apologetic methods, claiming that they really don't convince anyone, and that other things like personal stories or emotional appeals are what really convince people to change their minds. But is simply making Christianity more “attractive” or “desirable” a better approach for apologetics?

Sometimes Christians are accused of trying to "legislate morality." What does that mean? Is it wrong to bring our moral values to the table when making legislation? This objection is often made with hot-button issues like abortion, but what about rape or murder? Is it "legislating morality" to outlaw those actions? We all have certain beliefs about reality, but are these beliefs moral beliefs? philosophical beliefs? religious beliefs? scientific beliefs? It can be hard to label or classify our beliefs, and thus oftentimes the objection against "legislating morality" is simply an appeal to rhetoric rather than substance.

What does it mean to say that the Bible is "self-authenticating"? If something is self-authenticating, that means that you don't need anything else to authenticate it or show that it real. In terms of the Bible, if it is self-authenticating, that means that the Bible itself shows that it really is the Word of God. However, some who say that the Bible is self-authenticating use that idea to imply that doing apologetics is wrong or unbiblical, that we shouldn't need to give evidence to support the Bible's truthfulness. But is that really what the Bible being self-authenticating means?