『Weighed in the Balance』のカバーアート

Weighed in the Balance

Weighed in the Balance

著者: Jonathan Brooks & Co
無料で聴く

概要

Weighed in the Balance, the show where we weigh claims against scripture and see if they hold up, of if they fall flat.

© 2026 Weighed in the Balance
キリスト教 スピリチュアリティ 聖職・福音主義
エピソード
  • Does Preservation Require Re-Inspiration? A Critical Look at King James Onlyism
    2026/01/20

    Send us a text

    In this episode, I analyze Mitch Canupp’s rebuttal in the first question of the Canupp–Cravatt debate on King James Onlyism. After summarizing the structure of the debate and the opposing positions, I focus on Canupp’s central argument: that if God has preserved His Word, then that preservation must involve a re-inspired English translation—specifically, the King James Version.

    I evaluate this argument logically, showing that while the structure of Canupp’s reasoning may be valid, its premises are deeply flawed. I also address his attempts to cast doubt on the original biblical languages, his skepticism toward scholarly tools and lexicons, and his apparent rejection of a teaching office within the church.

    Along the way, I discuss the role of non-believing scholars in linguistic study, the proper place of the Holy Spirit’s illumination, and the difference between denying an infallible magisterium and denying teaching authority altogether. I conclude by explaining why the question is not whether Christians have a perfect Bible, but whether the King James Version alone can bear that claim.

    Support the show

    Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

    Click here to find us everywhere!!

    続きを読む 一部表示
    36 分
  • Calm, Clear, and Devastating: A Masterclass in Debate | Weighed in the Balance Ep. 45
    2026/01/13

    Send us a text

    What does a good theological argument actually look like?

    In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, I return to the 2021 debate between Nathan Cravat and Mitch Canupp—not to rehash personalities or score cheap points, but to use the debate itself as a case study in how arguments should (and should not) be made.

    Focusing on Cravat’s response to the opening question—“Do we have a perfect Bible today?”—I walk through what makes an argument strong: careful definitions, sound exegesis, historical awareness, logical consistency, and above all, clarity without cruelty. Along the way, we contrast this with the kinds of sloppy claims, moving goalposts, and shrinking definitions that often characterize weak positions.

    This episode is not an attack on individuals, nor is it a rant against the King James Version itself. Instead, it’s an exercise in discernment: learning how to recognize when an argument stands on Scripture—and when it’s propped up by rhetoric, conspiracy, or special pleading.

    If you care about truth, charity, and intellectual honesty—especially in theological debates—this episode is for you.

    Support the show

    Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

    Click here to find us everywhere!!

    続きを読む 一部表示
    33 分
  • Why Weighed in the Balance Went Quiet — and What’s Coming Next
    2025/12/26

    Send us a text

    Over the past year, Weighed in the Balance has focused on examining claims to see whether they can actually hold up to scrutiny. In this episode, Jonathan Brooks takes a step back to explain both why the podcast has been quieter in recent weeks—and where the show is headed next.

    Jonathan reflects on the realities of pursuing a Master of Theology, the significant increase in academic workload, and why stepping back briefly was necessary. But this episode is more than an update—it’s also a case study in how bad arguments often work, and why they can feel persuasive at first glance.

    Using real examples from online debates and apologetic exchanges, Jonathan walks through how “honest questions” can quietly smuggle in false assumptions, frame the discussion unfairly, or demand answers on terms that already concede the conclusion. Rather than simply rebutting individual claims, the episode models how to slow down, examine premises, and recognize when a question itself is the problem.

    Along the way, Jonathan explains how Protestant ecclesiology actually functions, why disagreements don’t automatically imply chaos, and how theological triage helps Christians distinguish between essentials, secondary disagreements, and issues that require separation without condemnation.

    This episode sets the stage for what’s coming next on Weighed in the Balance: deeper analysis, sharper tools for discernment, and continued engagement with arguments that deserve careful examination—not just quick reactions.

    Support the show

    Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!

    Click here to find us everywhere!!

    続きを読む 一部表示
    16 分
まだレビューはありません