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!!