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!!

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!!

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!!

Send us a text

In 2021, logic took a day off and apologetics Twitter held a debate.

This episode reviews the infamous Bible-defense showdown featuring arguments so poorly formed they didn’t need rebuttals—they needed a mirror. Rather than analyzing who was right, this episode asks a better question: How do you recognize a terrible argument in the wild, no matter what side it comes from?

By walking through real excerpts, claims, and rhetorical strategies from the 2021 debate (between Mitch Canupp and Nathan Cravatt), we uncover the anatomy of bad reasoning:

• Proof-texting without grammatical awareness
• Confident claims with missing premises
• Assertions louder than their evidence
• Appeals to rhetoric over reality
• A theology argument smuggling in a logic problem

This is not about Bible translations.
It’s about argument translation—from nonsense into a lesson.

Whether you’re a pastor, apologist, student, or someone who just wants to smell a bad argument before stepping in it, this episode will equip you with something better than ammunition:

Discernment. Self-awareness. And a really shiny mirror.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us a text

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan uses the 2021 Cravatt–Canupp debate as a case study in how to recognize weak reasoning—no matter what issue is being discussed. This is not an attack on the King James Version. Instead, Jonathan walks through the debate to highlight common pitfalls: irrelevant tangents, historical inaccuracies, shifting the topic, attacking people instead of arguments, and redefining terms mid-stream.

By analyzing what went wrong in this debate, listeners learn how to spot the same patterns in any conversation—whether theological, political, or personal. If you want to sharpen your ability to think clearly, evaluate claims, and hold arguments to the actual question being asked, this episode offers a practical, real-world example of how to do it.

Original Video

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us a text

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Rev. Jonathan Brooks closes the book on the proposed debate with Phillip Parker—a discussion that could have clarified major misconceptions about Calvinism, grace, and the gospel itself. Instead, Parker declined, calling debate “a waste of time.” Jonathan takes listeners behind the scenes of what really happened, addressing why debates matter, what’s truly at stake when people call Calvinism “a false gospel,” and how misunderstanding Reformed theology leads to needless division among believers. It’s an honest, pastoral, and unapologetic reflection on faith, dialogue, and standing firm in truth without losing compassion.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us a text

When an old acquaintance, Philip Parker, mocked Calvinism online, Jonathan Brooks didn’t fire back with insults—he offered a public debate. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan explains why the challenge matters and what’s really at stake in the ongoing Calvinism vs. Arminianism controversy.
He walks through common misconceptions about the Reformed view of grace and free will, showing that Calvinism doesn’t deny human choice—it reveals how God’s sovereign grace makes real choice possible. Jonathan also shares his vision for a respectful, Scripture-based dialogue that replaces memes and mockery with biblical reasoning.

If you’ve ever wondered whether Calvinism can stand up to scrutiny, or if Christians can disagree passionately without dividing, this episode shows how conviction and charity can meet in the same conversation.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us a text

This Reformation Day, we let the conversation flow! From Luther and Erasmus debating Scripture, to the question of whether the Reformation led to the Enlightenment, we cover history, theology, and some hilarious side notes about church quirks. Jonathan, along with Alex and Matt talk private interpretation, visions, medieval philosophy, and what it really means for Scripture to be the ultimate authority. Whether you’re a history buff, a theology nerd, or just curious about Reformation Day, this episode is full of insights, laughs, and “aha” moments.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!