How To Disappear Completely

Dr. Krabbendam would warn you against putting too much stock in The Real Face of Atheism. I think there are a lot of good things in that book, but Zacharias is what you call a presuppositional apologist. He presents arguments against atheism, and then when it feels like there is no more rational reason to doubt, the Gospel is presented, but not proclaimed. Be careful not to focus on the mind as he does. The heart is the only thing that can hold the truth of God. In other words, belief is more important than rationality. You can't reason everything, but you still need to believe it because you know the Bible teaches it (like the rel. between sovereignty and free will). Present the Gospel first because people are blind without it. "The heart of the problem is the problem of the heart." - Dr. K
Also, Zacharias has no call to repentance. Wow, this feels like I'm answering an essay question...but maybe it's good to know this.

R.C. Sproul, who is what you would call a classical apologist, notes that the mind and heart work together. The mind apprehends what the heart accepts or rejects. So you must have both working together--I think that this combination of mind and heart being transformed together by the work of the Holy Spirit in order to enable regeneration is a paradox, one that is lessened if one of the components is excised from the equation (i.e., the mind in this scenario). For example, you talk about needing to present a call to repentance. Okay, but if you start adding any reasons why someone needs to repent, you have created an argument, with premises and a conclusion. How subtle that rascally mind is--it creeps into apologetics when you least expect it! The heart must be transformed, because a mind that acknowledges the validity of arguments and yet refuses to submit to and serve its Lord is still going to hell, but I also doubt whether a heart that believes sincerely yet erroneously (over issues such as the deity of Christ, for instance) will nevertheless enter heaven.

Rationality can co-exist with paradox--our inability to understand everything does not preclude our ability to understand something.

PS I thought that presuppositional apologetics focused more on gospel presentation and less on other philosophic methods (i.e., I thought that presuppositionalism was in line with the position you seem to espouse), and that the unabashedly rationalistic position was the classical apologetics one. But since I am wrong, then what is your position called?