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!!