Weighed in the Balance copertina

Weighed in the Balance

Weighed in the Balance

Di: Jonathan Brooks & Co
Ascolta gratuitamente

3 mesi a soli 0,99 €/mese

Dopo 3 mesi, 9,99 €/mese. Si applicano termini e condizioni.

A proposito di questo titolo

Weighed in the Balance, the show where we weigh claims against scripture and see if they hold up, of if they fall flat.

© 2025 Weighed in the Balance
Catechesi ed evangelismo Cristianesimo Spiritualità
  • Calm, Clear, and Devastating: A Masterclass in Debate | Weighed in the Balance Ep. 45
    Jan 13 2026

    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!!

    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    33 min
  • Why Weighed in the Balance Went Quiet — and What’s Coming Next
    Dec 26 2025

    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!!

    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    16 min
  • Bad Arguments Don't Need Rebuttals. They Need a Mirror.
    Dec 2 2025

    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!!

    Mostra di più Mostra meno
    41 min
Ancora nessuna recensione