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!!

Send us a text

Reformation Week continues! Many people — Protestants and Catholics alike — repeat historical claims about Martin Luther and the Reformation that simply aren’t true. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we bust five of the most common myths:

- Did the Reformation actually begin on October 31, 1517?
- Was Luther trying to start a brand-new church?
- Did Henry VIII launch the Reformation so he could dump his wife?
- Do Protestants really believe in “easy-believism”?
- Is Rome teaching salvation by works alone?

Whether you’re Protestant, Catholic, or still exploring the theology behind the Reformation, this episode brings clarity, context, and the gospel itself back into focus. Join us as we cut through the caricatures and point to what Scripture teaches: salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.

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 Brooks makes the case that justification by faith alone (sola fide) and salvation through Christ alone (solus Christus) are not two doctrines—but one glorious truth seen from different angles.
Drawing on Romans 3 and the Ten Commandments, Jonathan shows how the law exposes our sin and drives us to Christ’s finished work, not our cooperation with grace. While Roman Catholic theology teaches that grace enables human effort toward salvation, the biblical gospel proclaims that Christ’s obedience alone saves—from start to finish.
This episode isn’t just theology—it’s a call to rest in the Savior who kept the law perfectly, died in our place, and left nothing undone.

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 Brooks returns to Joe Heschmeyer’s “Ranking the Best and Worst Arguments Against Catholicism” — and this time, the topics cut right to the heart of Rome’s teaching. From the Immaculate Conception and Marian dogmas to indulgences and the sacrifice of the Mass, Jonathan breaks down where these doctrines came from, how they developed, and why even Catholic apologists can’t defend them consistently.

Along the way, he shows how the early church’s high view of Christ — not Mary — gave rise to legitimate theological development, while later dogmas crossed into dangerous territory. From Greek grammar in Luke 1 to Vatican II’s teaching on salvation, this episode challenges the listener to think biblically, historically, and critically about what the Church of Rome claims — and what Scripture actually says.

If you’ve ever wondered how the Reformation’s core convictions still matter today, this is a conversation you won’t want to miss.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!