Send a text

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we return to the 2021 debate between Mitch Canup and Nathan Cravat to examine the second major question:

Which Bible on the market today contains the words of God?

This question gets to the heart of the King James Only controversy and the doctrine of Scripture itself. If God has preserved His Word—as Christians confess—where do we find it today? Is it confined to one English translation, or is God’s Word preserved in the original languages and faithfully conveyed through accurate translations?

In this episode, we carefully analyze Cravat’s opening argument, including:

• What it means to call a translation “the Word of God”
• Whether all translations are created equal
• How textual variants actually affect the New Testament
• The difference between preservation and re-inspiration
• Why less than 1% of textual variants meaningfully impact the text

We also discuss the importance of evidence, manuscript history, and theological consistency when evaluating claims about Bible preservation.

If you’re interested in careful, charitable theological discussion—especially on issues like Bible translation, textual criticism, and KJV-Onlyism—you’re in the right place.

Let me know your thoughts in the comments:
Do you believe only one translation can rightly be called God’s Word? Why or why not?

👍 Like & subscribe if you find thoughtful theological analysis helpful.
🔔 New episodes released weekly.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send a text

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, I explain how I became convinced that Scripture teaches infant baptism.

Both Roman Catholic apologists and Baptist critics often claim that infant baptism cannot be defended from Scripture alone. John MacArthur made that case clearly and forcefully for decades. But what if the real issue isn’t a lack of biblical evidence — but a misunderstanding of what baptism actually is?

In this video, I interact with several of MacArthur’s arguments and explain why I ultimately found them unconvincing. The turning point for me came down to a single question: what does Scripture say baptism is?

We’ll look at:

• Why both sides in this debate appeal to Scripture
• How definitions of baptism shape the entire discussion
• Colossians 2 and the relationship between baptism and circumcision
• Covenant theology and the inclusion of believers’ children
• Why the absence of one specific verse changed my mind

My goal is not to attack fellow Christians, but to carefully examine whether our beliefs can truly be supported from Scripture.

If you find thoughtful, charitable theological discussion helpful, consider subscribing and joining the conversation.

Question for viewers:
What definition of baptism were you taught — and where do you see that definition in Scripture?

00:00 Introduction
01:10 Why this debate matters
03:00 Why interact with John MacArthur
05:50 MacArthur: Infant baptism is tradition, not Scripture
08:30 The key question: What is baptism?
10:45 MacArthur’s definition of baptism
13:30 The “missing verse” that changed my mind
15:40 Colossians 2 and covenant continuity
18:30 Baptism and circumcision compared
21:00 Why definitions determine conclusions
23:00 Responding to the “not in Scripture” claim
24:30 Final thoughts and viewer question

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 examines a common claim in the KJV-only debate: that faithful Bible translations must follow a strict “word-for-word” method.

Engaging arguments made by James Canupp and Jeff Cravat, this episode explores what the King James translators themselves believed about translation, how Hebrew and Greek actually work, and why “word-for-word” accuracy often misunderstands how language conveys meaning.

Rather than polemics, this conversation aims at careful, charitable evaluation—asking whether the claims being made can truly hold up to scrutiny.

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 crossover episode, Jonathan is joined by his friend Rev. Don Baker—Presbyterian minister, YouTuber, and fellow former Independent Fundamentalist Baptist—for a wide-ranging conversation about growing up in Fundamentalism, wrestling with dispensationalism and King James-onlyism, and eventually embracing the Reformed faith. From Israel trips and rebaptisms in the Jordan River to covenant theology, worship, and Reformed ecclesiology, this episode explores how theology, history, and pastoral ministry intersect on the road to Presbyterianism.

Links:

Don Baker’s testimony / life story video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ajmKsFZJMU&feature=youtu.be

A Case for Amillennialism – Kim Riddlebarger:
https://a.co/d/fSja3P4

Desiring God (John Piper):
https://a.co/d/goEF1No

Ligonier Ministries (R.C. Sproul):
https://www.ligonier.org/?srsltid=AfmBOopbmHe8H-lVfL78rGuV-_oCGCjnKDzW7lLl_4w_wmJYy-nMenMn

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, 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!!