Adam Allred vs Wes Huff

---

Recently, a video by my childhood friend Adam Allred made the rounds on social media and eventually reached the attention of Christian apologist Wes Huff. What followed was a public back-and-forth that raised important questions about the history of the Bible, the nature of spiritual authority, and how Christians understand certainty in matters of faith.

I want to say up front that I love Adam. I’ve known him for over 25 years, and he has always been a genuinely good friend to me. We’ve walked through a lot of life in that time, and I’ve seen firsthand how deeply he cares about people. He listens, he encourages, and he genuinely wants what is best for those around him. I also believe he’s sincerely trying to get to the truth as he understands it, even when that leads him to say hard or unpopular things. I really do think the world of him.

After watching the exchange, and especially the video Adam released in response to Wes, I felt compelled to write a clear and cohesive examination of the claims being made and why I believe many of them do not hold up when examined in light of Scripture and historical evidence

Adam Allred’s Original Claims

In his first video, Adam argued that the Bible “as we know it” did not exist during Jesus’ or Paul’s lifetime, that it was compiled hundreds of years later by a pagan emperor for political reasons, and that politicians and bishops essentially voted on which books made it in. He argued that Christians have turned the Bible into an idol and should instead “go directly to God,” and he added that Jesus wasn’t a Christian and didn’t come to create a religion.

His video presented these ideas as factual assertions rather than personal interpretations.

Wes Huff’s Rebuttal

Wes Huff responded with a thorough and evidence-based critique. He demonstrated that all 27 books of the New Testament were written in the first century, long before Constantine. Early Christian writers quoted these books extensively, showing that they were already authoritative and widely used. Huff also explained that the biblical canon was not created in a single vote and that the Council of Nicaea did not address which books belonged in Scripture. He further clarified that Jesus was indeed Jewish, but His mission was not the dismantling of religion; it was the fulfillment of prophecy.

Adam Allred’s Response Video

After Huff’s critique, Adam released another video responding to Wes. For context, here is the video of the response

https://www.facebook.com/reel/1116041203692874

He begins with the striking statement: “Theological certainty is spiritual death. And it was those who claimed to know God and speak for God who ultimately crucified God’s son.”

This video continues the themes from his earlier claims. Adam argues that doctrinal confidence is spiritually dangerous and that the Bible is merely a tool rather than an authoritative source. He suggests that religious authorities with too much certainty are the reason Jesus was killed, and he warns modern Christians that clinging too tightly to tradition or scholarship repeats the same error.

It is a compelling narrative, but it does not align with the historical evidence.

I thought Huff did a good job of rebutting the Adam’s arguments with the facts. Later, Allred replied with another video, a response to Wes’s critique. Let me reiterate his points and add my own.

I have no doubt Adam is sincere and that he genuinely wants people to know God. My concern is not his motives, but the accuracy and consequences of the claims he’s making.

Where Adam’s Claims Fall Short Historically

1. The Bible Was Not Compiled by a Pagan Emperor or a Single Vote

The notion that Constantine gathered church leaders to “decide the Bible” is a modern myth with no basis in historical evidence. The development of the biblical canon was a long, organic process shaped by usage, theology, apostolic origin, and community recognition, not by imperial decree or political maneuvering.

To understand why Adam’s claim is historically inaccurate, it helps to look at the actual timeline.

A Brief Historical Timeline of the New Testament Canon

AD 30–100
The books of the New Testament were written within the first century. Paul’s letters circulated early and were already being read in multiple congregations (Col. 4:16). The Gospels and other letters were written and distributed throughout the growing Christian communities.

AD 95–110
Early church leaders such as Clement of Rome (around 95 AD) quote or allude to many New Testament writings, treating them as authoritative. Ignatius of Antioch (early 2nd century) references Gospel material and Paul’s letters with the same authority as Scripture. Polycarp likewise cites various books of the New Testament as binding for Christians.

AD 130–160
Documents like the Didache and works by Justin Martyr show that Christian worship included readings from “the memoirs of the apostles,” his term for the Gospels. This demonstrates that, long before any council, Christians already used a consistent set of writings in their services.

AD 170s
The Muratorian Fragment, one of the earliest known lists of New Testament books, includes most of the texts we now recognize. This predates Constantine by more than a century.

AD 200–250
Church fathers like Irenaeus, Tertullian, and Origen cite the four Gospels, Acts, Paul’s letters, and many other books as Scripture. Their writings show that a substantial core of the New Testament was universally recognized across the Christian world.

AD 325 – Council of Nicaea
Contrary to popular mythology, the Council of Nicaea did not vote on the biblical canon. Not once. Not ever. The council dealt with the Arian controversy, the nature of Christ, the date of Easter, and matters of church unity. These were disputes based on interpretations of the doctrine found in the scriptures. It did not address which books belonged in Scripture. There is no historical record, ancient or modern, showing that Nicaea discussed or voted on the contents of the Bible.

AD 350–400
By the time Athanasius wrote his Festal Letter in AD 367, we have the first surviving document listing exactly the 27 books of the New Testament we have today. Even then, Athanasius was not inventing the canon. He was describing a consensus already established through centuries of widespread use.

What This Means for Adam’s Claim

When viewed against this timeline, it becomes clear that the canon was not created by Constantine, not decided by a political council, not determined by a vote, and not compiled by a group of bishops. By the time Constantine came onto the scene in the early 300s, the majority of the New Testament was already firmly established and regularly used in Christian worship. Constantine did not compile or choose the Scriptures. He inherited them.

The Council of Nicaea did not vote on the canon because the canon was not in dispute.

Adam’s account compresses three centuries of history, scholarship, and community discernment into a dramatic but historically inaccurate story. The real history is richer, more complex, and far better documented than the idea that a “pagan emperor decided the Bible.”

The canon was recognized, not invented. It emerged through widespread agreement, not imperial decree.

2. It Wasn’t Just Religious Elites Who Called for Jesus’ Crucifixion

Adam argues that “those who claimed to know God” killed Jesus, implying that religious certainty itself was the primary reason for His death. This retelling ignores the complexity of the historical context. The crucifixion involved Roman political interests, Jewish leadership concerns, tensions over messianic expectations, public pressure, and fear of revolt.

And importantly, it was not only religious elites who sought Jesus’ death. When Pilate offered the crowd a choice between Jesus and Barabbas, the people chose Barabbas. The crowd shouted “Crucify him!” This was not a small group of theologians but a broader population driven by fear, political tension, and unmet expectations of what the Messiah should be.

It is also historically incorrect to portray all religious leaders as Jesus’ enemies or as uniformly “certain” He was a fraud. Several prominent religious figures believed in Him:

• Nicodemus, a Pharisee and a member of the Sanhedrin, sought Jesus out, defended Him against unjust judgment (John 7:50–51), and later helped bury Him with honor (John 19:39).
• Joseph of Arimathea, another respected member of the council, was a disciple of Jesus and provided his own tomb for Christ’s burial (Mark 15:43; John 19:38).
• Many priests and Pharisees believed in Him according to John 12:42, though some did so quietly because of social and political pressure.

These were religious leaders, and they did not crucify Jesus out of “theological certainty.” They followed Him because they were convinced, with certainty, that He was the Messiah. Their certainty did not lead to spiritual death. It led to discipleship.

This shows that Adam’s claim does not reflect the full biblical and historical picture, because the problem was never certainty itself. The real culprit in the crucifixion was the absence of humility. Pride led some leaders to fear losing power. Pride led the crowd to reject a Messiah who did not fit their expectations. Pride led Pilate to value political safety over justice. Spiritual certainty grounded in humility produces faithfulness; certainty rooted in pride produces violence. The issue was not that people were too certain about God, but that they were too prideful to surrender their status, expectations, and authority to the one God actually sent.

Reducing the crucifixion to the dangers of theological certainty flattens the historical record and ignores both the role of the crowd and the fact that many religious leaders believed in Jesus with genuine, humble conviction.

3. Adam’s Critique of Interpretation Undermines Itself

In his video, Adam suggests that interpretations from religious scholars are suspect simply because they come from authority, implying that academic or historical expertise is inherently corrupt or manipulative. But this overlooks a fundamental and unavoidable truth: all communication is interpretation.

Every time someone speaks, teaches, writes, debates, or posts a video, they are interpreting something. Language itself is interpretive. We filter meaning through our assumptions, our cultural background, our education, our personality, and our lived experiences. That means:

• Every sermon is an interpretation.
• Every Bible study is an interpretation.
• Every theological system is an interpretation.
• Every casual conversation about God is an interpretation.
• And every one of Adam’s own videos is, itself, an interpretation.

There is no neutral vantage point where someone simply “reports the truth” without interpreting it. It doesn’t exist for scholars, it doesn’t exist for pastors, and it doesn’t exist for Adam.

This is also why Christianity has so many denominations. It is not because scholars are corrupt, but because human beings interpret Scripture differently depending on how they understand context, language, history, and theology.

For example:

• Calvinists emphasize God’s sovereignty in salvation and believe in predestination.
• Baptists, while also affirming God’s sovereignty, insist far more strongly on human responsibility and freedom of choice.
• Pentecostals emphasize spiritual gifts and charismatic expression.
• Anglicans blend Catholic liturgical tradition with Protestant theology.
• Lutherans hold tightly to justification by faith as the central interpretive lens for the entire Bible.

All of these groups read the same Bible.
All of them love Scripture.
And all of them interpret it through different theological frameworks.

Interpretation is not merely unavoidable, it is the reason Christians have had to wrestle honestly with Scripture for two thousand years.

Which brings us back to Adam’s critique.

When Adam dismisses scholarly interpretation simply because it comes from experts, he is not rejecting interpretation itself. He is replacing well-researched, historically informed interpretation with his own personal interpretation, without the checks and balances that scholarship provides. Ironically, this gives his interpretation greater authority, not less.

Why? Because the moment he tells people that scholars cannot be trusted, he removes the possibility of anyone challenging his interpretation with evidence, history, or expertise. If scholars are ‘suspect,’ then the only remaining authority is Adam’s own understanding, and by rejecting external authority he unintentionally places his own interpretation in the position of final authority.

It functions like this:

1. He discredits all other voices (especially experts).
2. He elevates his personal perspective as the reliable one.
3. He creates a framework where disagreement equals corruption.
4. This bypasses the kinds of peer review, historical context, and accountability that help keep interpretation grounded.
5. His interpretation becomes the only remaining “pure” interpretation.

That is how authority grows, not by claiming it directly, but by removing all competing sources of authority.

Scholarly interpretation, for all its human limitations, is subject to:

• critique
• peer review
• historical evidence
• linguistic analysis
• manuscript study
• cross-tradition comparison

This is why rejecting scholarship does not produce humility. It creates an interpretive vacuum in which the loudest or most charismatic voice becomes the default authority. Without the safeguards of scholarship, community, tradition, and history, personal interpretation grows unchecked.

So when Adam waves away scholarly work as “corrupt” or “from authority,” he is not leveling the playing field. He is quietly removing all guardrails and elevating his own interpretation to the top of the hierarchy, even if he never explicitly claims to be an authority.

In other words, he rejects authority in theory while assuming it in practice.

True humility does not mean discarding all authority or pretending interpretation can be avoided. True humility means acknowledging the difference between:

• interpretations grounded in evidence, linguistic study, and historical context
  and
• interpretations grounded primarily in personal feeling, philosophical preference, or intuition

It is not less humble to consult scholarship; it is wiser.
It is not more spiritual to reject two millennia of Christian thought; it is riskier.
And it is not more authentic to elevate one’s own interpretation while calling everyone else’s suspect.

Humility is not the rejection of interpretation.
Humility is the willingness to have our interpretations corrected by truth, evidence, and the larger Christian community that spans centuries, cultures, and traditions.

4. Adam’s Claim that Degrees Become Dogma.

Adam says in his video that “when authority is questioned, the first ones to rush to their side are the ones who treat their degrees like blind credentials, as if their degrees allow them more access to God’s will.” It is a sharp-sounding line, but it oversimplifies a far more complex reality. This statement implies that trusting those with training, linguistic skill, or historical knowledge is a kind of blind allegiance. But this misunderstands how knowledge works, how Scripture works, and how Christianity has always functioned.

Knowledge does not happen in a vacuum. Scripture was written in ancient languages, shaped by ancient cultures, and filled with theological subtleties that are not obvious on the surface. Understanding the context, history, literary forms, and nuances of biblical texts does not give scholars “more access to God.” It simply gives them more information about what the text actually meant to its original audience. It clarifies the message so that modern readers can follow Christ more faithfully.

Adam often appeals to the idea that Jesus said, “Come, follow me,” as if following Jesus is a simple matter of personal intuition rather than doctrinal clarity. But even the earliest Christians, who were much closer to Jesus’ time and culture, tried to follow Him and quickly ran into confusion.

The New Testament itself records this repeatedly.

The Corinthians misunderstood spiritual gifts and the resurrection.
Paul had to correct them regarding spiritual gifts (1 Corinthians 12–14) and the bodily resurrection (1 Corinthians 15).

The Thessalonians misunderstood the second coming of Christ.
Paul wrote to clarify their confusion about those who had died in Christ (1 Thessalonians 4:13–18) and misunderstandings about the “Day of the Lord” (2 Thessalonians 2:1–3).

The Galatians misunderstood salvation and justification.
Paul rebuked them for adopting a works-based gospel and clarified justification by faith (Galatians 1:6–9, 2:15–21, 3:1–14).

The Hebrews were wavering on the identity and priesthood of Christ.
The author had to explain how Jesus fulfills and surpasses the Old Testament priesthood (Hebrews 5–10).

The churches in Asia Minor faced doctrinal error, moral compromise, and false teachers.
Jesus Himself addresses these issues directly in Revelation 2–3.

The Ethiopian eunuch openly admitted he could not understand Scripture without guidance.
When reading Isaiah, he asked Philip, “How can I, unless someone guides me?” (Acts 8:30–31). Philip then interpreted the passage for him and preached Christ.

These were all people genuinely trying to follow Jesus, yet Scripture itself shows they were confused. Their personal interpretations were not enough. Their sincerity was not enough. Their desire to follow Jesus was not enough.

They needed help.

They needed someone with authority, knowledge, and experience to guide them.

That someone was the apostles.

When the early church had doctrinal questions, they did not simply trust their own internal impressions or claim that interpretation alone was sufficient. They asked those who had walked with Jesus, learned directly from Him, and been commissioned by Him. This is exactly what happened in:

• Acts 15, where the apostles resolved the controversy over circumcision and Gentile believers.
• 1 Corinthians 7, where Paul answers their explicit questions about marriage.
• 1 Thessalonians 4–5, where Paul clarifies their confusion about the return of Christ.
• Galatians 2, where Paul confronts doctrinal drift among leaders themselves.

The apostles served as the living, authoritative interpreters of Christ’s teaching.

This reveals a crucial truth:

One cannot truly “follow Jesus” if one is fundamentally confused about who Jesus is, what He taught, and what the gospel means. Interpretation alone is not a sufficient mechanism to arrive at truth. Some form of authority is always needed.

This isn’t about degrees or academic pride. It’s about the fact that understanding Scripture requires context, clarity, and guidance, just as it did in the first century.

Adam’s attempt to dismiss authority ironically depends on authority—his own.. And by undermining all external sources of interpretation, his personal interpretation ends up carrying more weight than the shared wisdom of the church or the findings of careful scholarship.

The question is not whether authority should exist in Christianity. It always has.

The real question is whether the authority we trust is grounded in knowledge, humility, evidence, and the historic faith delivered by the apostles, or in the shifting interpretations of individuals who claim to need no guidance at all.

My Assessment

Adam raises legitimate concerns about pride, spiritual rigidity, and legalism. These have been real struggles within Christian history and deserve attention. But when he moves from spiritual reflection to making historical claims, the accuracy of his argument breaks down.

Wes Huff’s response, on the other hand, is grounded in manuscript evidence, early Christian writings, historical documentation, and widely accepted scholarship. Adam’s approach leans more into rhetorical and philosophical reflection, but it has less historical support than the view Wes presents.

Truth, Not Trend, Must Guide Us

The conversation sparked by Adam Allred’s videos and Wes Huff’s response reveals something deeper than a dispute over history or theology. It touches the very heart of how Christians discern truth. Adam’s concerns about spiritual pride and institutional rigidity are not without merit, but when those concerns lead to sweeping historical inaccuracies, selective interpretations, or the dismissal of legitimate scholarship, the result is not liberation, it is distortion.

The formation of the Bible was not the result of political manipulation. The crucifixion was not driven solely by religious certainty. Interpretation is unavoidable for every believer. And the early church never pretended that isolated personal understanding was enough; they leaned on the apostles, on clarity, on accountability, and on the shared wisdom of the community.

Christianity has always been a faith that values both heart and mind, both experience and evidence, both personal devotion and communal discernment. Authority is not the enemy. Blindness, whether to tradition or to oneself, is the real danger.

If we truly want to follow Jesus, we must be willing to question not just institutions, but also our own assumptions. We must distinguish between humility and cynicism, between freedom and isolation, between interpretation that is accountable and interpretation that is untethered. The way forward is not to tear down every structure of authority, nor to retreat into simplistic slogans, but to build our faith on solid ground, Scripture, history, community, revelation, authority, and truth.

In the end, humility is not found in dismissing those who know more than we do. Humility is found in listening carefully, testing everything, holding fast to what is good, and admitting that we, too, need guidance. Just as the earliest Christians did.

And when our pursuit of truth is shaped by humility rather than pride, by clarity rather than confusion, and by evidence rather than rhetoric, we honor not only the Scriptures but the Messiah they proclaim.

My hope in writing this is not to win an argument, but to point all of us, including myself, back to a faith grounded in truth, humility, and the shared wisdom of the Christian community.”