In a sense, the pointlessness of apologetics does arise out of something akin to what PoS is saying. To engage in apologetics is, to some degree, to concede the power of argument, because apology tries to use those powers. It therefore empowers the listener to use those powers in return, even if that use be confined to the inside of his head.
The recourse to the "mystical illumination" defense is tantamount to the admission that one's position is indefensible. This is not the same thing as it being wrong, but when one lines up a gallery of those who claim such illumination, one sees that they do not all teach the same doctrines. How can one tell which to follow?
Well, one one level the answer is clearly that one cannot tell, because such discernment is done without benefit of illumination and is therefore invalidated. But furthermore, one should not follow their teachings, because teaching itself activates argument. If the only acceptable source is this illumination, then it is the ONLY acceptable source-- not teaching.
And that's a fatal problem. You cannot teach us what your master has taught you without violating the very principles you demand us to accept.