This paper will explore the problems with the use of the label “cultural apologetics,” while at the same time arguing for the importance of a cluster of strategies that are commonly labeled as such. The adjective “cultural” to describe apologetics can suggest that other versions of apologetics could be acultural, understood universally, outside of the historical context in which they were developed and applied. By interacting with the recent work of Peter Harrison (Some New World), which demonstrates the dangers when natural theologies are abstracted from their original historical context as well as the unintended consequences of terminological distinctions (e.g., the historical introduction of natural versus supernatural), this paper will suggest the distinction between “cultural apologetics” and “apologetics” is a mistake, which could problematically divide the discipline. Moreover, because of the novelty of the label “cultural apologetics,” it has been wrongly suggested by leading classical apologists that the approaches taken by contemporary cultural apologists are themselves new. Hence, while the terminology of “cultural apologetics” itself raises problems, the second part of the paper will turn to constructively argue for the value of the substance of recent works by many recent “cultural apologists.” For the cluster of strategies that are used under this label can be seen as a retrieval of important figures within the Christian tradition. To support this second point, the paper will both explore the work of contemporary apologists who have been labeled “cultural apologists” to show how they are mirroring aspects of the contextual approaches taken by luminaries, such as Augustine, Pascal, and C. S. Lewis.