Send us Fan Mail

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we examine a common Roman Catholic objection: that sola scriptura is logically inconsistent.

But is that actually true?

Before responding to that claim, we lay out the positive case for sola scriptura, grounded in the Westminster Confession of Faith, and present a clear syllogistic argument:

•  God alone is the final authority 
•  We access that authority through His Word 
•  God’s Word was given orally and in Scripture 
•  Oral revelation has ceased 
•  Therefore, Scripture is now the only access point to God’s final authority 

From there, we evaluate whether objections to sola scriptura actually demonstrate a logical contradiction, or whether they simply challenge the truth of the premises.

We also interact with a video by Sean Hiller and examine several common misunderstandings of the doctrine.

00:00 Introduction to Sola Scriptura

01:18 The Positive Case for Sola Scriptura

05:02 Understanding Final Authority

07:57 Logical Consistency of Sola Scriptura

12:42 Addressing Objections to Sola Scriptura

17:48 The Role of Secondary Authorities

21:50 The Importance of Church Authority

25:11 Examining Mr. Hiller's Arguments

30:11 Clarifying Misunderstandings

34:11 Conclusion and Invitation for Discussion

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

Welcome back to Weighed in the Balance, where we examine whether claims can hold up to scrutiny.

In today’s episode, we wrap up the debate between Mitch Canupp and Nathan Cravatt—but the most interesting part is just beginning: the audience questions.

We cover:

•  Nathan Cravatt’s final speech and whether it actually addressed the debate question 
•  The credibility issue and historical claims about James I of England
•  Whether the debate truly engaged textual criticism 
•  A deep dive into Psalm 12 and the Hebrew grammar behind a major KJV-only argument 
•  Why masculine vs. feminine forms matter for interpretation 
•  A problematic answer involving the Holocaust and why it fails theologically 
•  How Scripture speaks about God’s preservation of His people 
•  The difference between the canon of Scripture and textual transmission 

We also reflect on a broader principle:
 Even long-held beliefs should be examined carefully and honestly in light of truth.

If you enjoy careful, charitable theological analysis, consider liking the video and subscribing—it really helps more people discover these discussions.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, we continue analyzing the 2021 debate on King James Onlyism—and take a closer look at a historical claim that simply doesn’t hold up.

Was James I of England a Presbyterian but not a Calvinist?
Did he reject the Geneva Bible because of Calvinist theology?

The historical record tells a very different story.

Drawing from the Hampton Court Conference and the contemporary account by William Barlow, we examine what King James actually said—and why he objected to the Geneva Bible’s marginal notes.

This episode is a reminder of two crucial skills:

•  Verify historical claims 
•  Follow the logic of arguments carefully 

If you do those two things, you’ll avoid most bad arguments—especially on topics like Bible translation.

📌 Topics Covered:

•  King James and Presbyterianism 
•  The Geneva Bible controversy 
•  The real reason behind the King James Version 
•  Calvinism vs. church polity 
•  Evaluating historical claims responsibly 

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

Weighed in the Balance helps Christians evaluate arguments and discern truth. In an age of well-produced, eloquently spoken, and highly persuasive claims, this channel asks a simple question: Is this true?

In this episode, we continue analyzing the debate between Nathan Cravatt and Mitch Canupp, focusing on a critical question: Which manuscript tradition is most trustworthy?

But as the discussion unfolds, a deeper issue emerges: inconsistency.

Can the arguments for King James Onlyism be applied universally? Or do they collapse under their own weight?

We explore:

•  Lower vs. higher criticism 
•  Internal vs. external evidence 
•  The “law of first mention” 
•  The claim that “Egypt = bad” 
•  Why inconsistency may undermine the entire position 

Ultimately, this episode isn’t just about Bible translations—it’s about learning how to evaluate arguments carefully and honestly.

👍 Like, comment, and subscribe for more thoughtful theological analysis.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode, we continue analyzing the 2021 debate on KJV-onlyism and examine two key passages—1 John 5:7 and Revelation 16:5—that raise serious challenges for the position.

While the King James Version remains a faithful and valuable translation, elevating it to the only acceptable English Bible creates major apologetic, theological, and interpretive problems. We also address common misconceptions about the New King James Version and its textual basis.

Quick clarification: While there are a few minor differences between the KJV and NKJV (such as “God” vs “Lord” in some places), these remain within the Textus Receptus tradition and do not indicate a shift to the Majority or Critical Text.

If you enjoy careful, charitable theological discussion, consider subscribing and joining the conversation in the comments.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we continue analyzing the debate between Nathan Cravatt and Mitch Canupp on King James Onlyism. By examining the different types of KJV-Only positions—from simple preference for the King James to claims that the KJV itself was re-inspired—we evaluate the arguments, evidence, and reasoning used in the debate.

Along the way we look at textual criticism, the Textus Receptus, numerics claims, and how to critically evaluate theological arguments.

If you enjoy careful and charitable theological discussions, consider subscribing and joining the conversation.

Mark Ward on False Friends in the KJV: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1awUlUOhwfI
Mark Ward on the language of the Westminster Standards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnsMXQGORrA

00:00 Introduction
01:04 The Debate Question
03:10 Why KJV-Onlyism Is a Shrinking Position
05:02 The Five Types of KJV-Onlyism
05:45 1. “KJV Is the Best Translation”
09:01 2. The Textual Argument
12:37 3. Textus Receptus Only
17:20 4. The Inspired KJV View
19:25 5. The “New Revelation” Position
23:00 Why the Debaters Talk Past Each Other
26:10 The “Perfect Line of Manuscripts” Claim
30:25 The 1611 vs 1769 KJV Issue
34:40 How KJV-Only Arguments Use “Things That Are Different…”
39:02 The Psalm 138 Translation Issue
44:16 Evaluating the Debate Arguments
47:40 Emotional Appeals vs Evidence
49:40 “The Language Got Purer and Purer” Claim
52:30 Numerics vs Numerology
57:00 The WWII Chapter-Verse Claim
01:01:40 Misreading Romans Through Numerics
01:05:30 Erasmus and Codex Vaticanus
01:07:00 Is English the Closest Language to Hebrew?
01:09:10 Moderator Intervention

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

What is worship, and who decides how it should be done? In this episode, Jonathan Brooks and Ryan Biese discuss the biblical definition of worship, the regulative principle, and how modern evangelical practices compare to historic Reformed theology.

00:00 Introduction and General Assembly discussion
 12:55 What is worship? Definition and biblical meaning
 16:28 Creation and redemption as grounds for worship
 21:27 Normative principle of worship explained
 25:55 Regulative principle of worship explained
 28:16 Nadab and Abihu and unauthorized worship
 29:54 Jeroboam, the golden calves, and false worship
 33:21 How worship declines when not regulated by Scripture
 37:49 Modern evangelical worship and emotionalism
 39:47 Worship as response to objective truth

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, I respond to Mitch Canupp’s speech from the King James Only debate. His argument raises familiar claims about King James I, Westcott and Hort, and textual variants in modern Bible translations—but do those claims actually address the question being debated?

We examine key passages such as John 7:8, Matthew 5:22, 1 Timothy 3:16, and the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7), and discuss how textual criticism works, what manuscript evidence exists, and why no central doctrine of Christianity depends on a disputed variant.

My goal is not to attack individuals, but to evaluate arguments carefully, honestly, and in light of the best available evidence.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan Mail

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 us Fan Mail

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!!