The gap that exists between the different schools of Apologetics (Classical, Evidential, Presuppositional) is becoming increasingly narrow.  After reading Zondervan's 5 Views On Apologetics, you'll come away wondering what the differences between these views actually are. 

In my term paper for my "Christian Mind" class this past Fall, I attempted to narrow the gap even more.  Specifically, I decided to look into the relationship between Presuppositionalism and Alvin Plantinga's "Reformed Epistemology."  In the paper, I argue that neither of these two "schools" is really a unique method of doing Apologetics.  Presuppositionalism is actually a critique of theological rationalism and Reformed Epistemology is, well, an epistemology!  I beleive that both of these schools  of thought can learn from each other and both have strong points that ought to inform our Apologetic method.  Lastly, because so many people do think of Presuppositionalism as a unique method of doing apologetics (and indeed those who consider themselves "Presuppositonal" claim that it is), I also offer an argument against Presuppositionalism as an apologetic system which I have labled the "Transcendental Argument against Presuppositionalism." 

Read the paper here. 

My friend and fellow grad student Nathaniel Taylor has written an argument for the existence of Hell using Anselmian "Perfect Being" philosophy.  It is interesting (and sure to be controversial) and worth a read for anyone interested in a defense of the traditional Evangelical doctrine of Hell.

You can read his argument at the blog Reason From Scripture (to which I am also a contributor).