Weighed in the Balance

Send us Fan Mail

What happens when the pursuit of Christian unity becomes more important than biblical truth? And can we defend the unity of the visible church while condemning faithful Christians who leave a denomination that has departed from Scripture?

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks responds to an online controversy surrounding the Reconquista movement and the claim that the Presbyterian Church (USA) possesses the only legitimate Presbyterian jurisdiction in America. We examine the historical roots of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, the nature of ecclesiastical schism, and the question of whether Christians are obligated to remain in churches that tolerate serious doctrinal error.

But this episode is about more than Presbyterian polity. It's also about how Christians ought to conduct themselves when discussing serious theological disagreements in public.

Can we defend the truth without abandoning Christian charity?

In this episode, we discuss:

• The controversy surrounding Reconquista and the PC(USA).
• Whether the PCA and ARP were wrong to separate from their predecessor denominations.
• The historical origins of the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church.
• Whether leaving a church because of heresy is inherently sinful.
• The relationship between institutional unity, sound doctrine, and biblical faithfulness.
• Why calling fellow Christians schismatics, morons, or worse does nothing to establish your argument.
• The biblical call to gentleness, self-control, and gracious speech.

Christians should take the unity of the church seriously. We should also take doctrinal fidelity seriously. Neither concern gives us permission to abandon the commands of Christ in how we treat those with whom we disagree.

As we continue this series on schism, our aim is to examine these claims carefully and charitably, weighing them against Scripture and the history of the Reformed tradition.

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 schism? When is separation from a church sinful—and when can separation actually be necessary?

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, I begin examining the debate between Redeemed Zoomer and Dr. Matthew Everhard over whether it was wise for the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America to leave the Presbyterian Church in the United States and form a new denomination in 1973.

Before getting into the debate itself, we need to understand why the founders of the PCA said they left. The 1973 Message to All Churches provides an unusually valuable primary source. The founders described themselves as a true branch of the Church of Christ, expressed deep sorrow over their separation from their "spiritual mother," and nevertheless argued that loyalty to Christ required them to separate when the church would no longer maintain biblical purity and exercise proper discipline.

I examine their arguments concerning:

• The biblical meaning of schism
• Christian unity and the visible church
• When separation from a church may be necessary
• The three marks of the church
• The PCA founders' own explanation for the 1973 separation
• Sola Scriptura and the rise of theological liberalism
• The failure to exercise church discipline
• The significance of the Westminster Standards
• Whether the 1973 PCUS should be evaluated on its own terms rather than primarily by what the PC(USA) became decades later
• Dr. Matthew Everhard's opening argument in the debate
• Redeemed Zoomer's argument concerning the historical Presbyterian mainline

I also argue that an important distinction needs to be made: it is one thing to demonstrate that the PCA is preferable to the PC(USA) today; it is another thing to establish that the founders of the PCA were wise—or biblically justified—in separating in 1973.

This is only the beginning of the discussion. In future episodes, I intend to continue working through the debate.

What do you think? Was the 1973 separation justified? Was the language of "discipline in reverse" appropriate? And should the debate focus primarily on the circumstances of the 1960s and 1970s rather than the present-day PC(USA)?

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

Does Irenaeus prove the Roman Catholic papacy?

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we continue examining Cameron Bertuzzi's argument that Protestantism faces an inescapable dilemma when it appeals to early Christian writers such as Irenaeus.

Irenaeus is an extremely important witness to early Christianity. But does accepting his testimony about the authorship of the Gospels require us to accept everything he says about the church in Rome? And does Irenaeus' reference to the Roman church's "preeminent authority" actually establish the later Roman Catholic doctrine of papal primacy and universal jurisdiction?

We examine those questions by looking at:

• Irenaeus' testimony concerning the succession of bishops at Rome
• The famous passage concerning Rome's "preeminent authority" (potentior principalitas)
• The Latin transmission of a work originally written in Greek
• Whether Irenaeus actually teaches papal primacy or universal jurisdiction
• The distinction between an early bishop of Rome and the later doctrine of the papacy
• The historical evidence for Luke's authorship of Luke-Acts
• Cameron Bertuzzi's use of early Christian testimony
• The argument from the historical reliability of Christian and Islamic sources
• The dating and transmission of the Gospels compared with later Islamic hadith collections
• Why historical evidence cannot simply be reduced to "Irenaeus said it, therefore it must be true" or "Irenaeus said it, therefore Rome must be right"

The goal of Weighed in the Balance is simple: to examine claims carefully and see whether they can hold up to scrutiny.

If you're Roman Catholic, Protestant, Orthodox, or simply interested in the historical development of Christian doctrine, I'd love to hear your thoughts 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

Is Scripture clear concerning the things necessary for salvation?

After spending several episodes working through what the question of Scripture’s perspicuity is not, we finally arrive at Turretin’s first positive argument: Scripture itself speaks of Scripture as giving light, wisdom, understanding, and life.

In this episode, we examine Turretin’s interaction with Robert Bellarmine’s objections and consider what passages such as Psalm 19, Psalm 119, 2 Peter 1, and 2 Timothy 3 teach about the nature and purpose of God’s Word.

If Scripture describes itself as a lamp, a light, and something that makes the simple wise, what does that tell us about whether Scripture requires an infallible external interpreter in order to be understood?

This is Part 1 of my continuing series working through Francis Turretin’s argument concerning the perspicuity, or clarity, of Scripture.

Weighed in the Balance — the show where we examine to see if claims can hold up to scrutiny.

If you find the episode helpful, consider subscribing and sharing it with someone interested in Scripture, Reformed theology, Protestantism, or Roman Catholic apologetics.

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

Cameron Bertuzzi presents another supposed dilemma for Protestants—this time involving the early church, the authorship of Luke, and Irenaeus's statements about the Church of Rome. But does the historical evidence actually establish what the argument claims?

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks examines Bertuzzi's argument and argues that the dilemma depends on oversimplifying complicated historical questions and drawing conclusions that the evidence does not necessarily support.

We look at:
• The Qur'an's appeal to the Gospel and the Christian-Muslim dilemma surrounding the New Testament
• The evidence for the traditional authorship of Luke and Acts
• Early Christian testimony concerning the authorship of the Gospels
• Irenaeus and the succession of the bishops of Rome
• The famous passage in *Against Heresies* 3.3.2 concerning Rome's "preeminent authority"
• The difficulties surrounding the surviving Latin text and the underlying Greek
• Whether Irenaeus actually provides evidence for the modern Roman Catholic doctrine of the papacy

The point isn't that difficult theological and historical questions can be settled with a single quotation. The point is that we should examine the sources carefully and ask whether the conclusions being drawn actually follow from the evidence.

As always, *Weighed in the Balance* seeks to examine claims carefully, charitably, and according to the evidence.

If you enjoyed the episode, consider subscribing and checking the Community tab for the latest poll about what topic I should cover next.

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, Jonathan responds to a Biblical Unitarian argument that Protestants are inconsistent when they call Unitarians heretics.

The argument compares Trinitarianism and Unitarianism to the disagreement between Calvinists and Arminians. Jonathan explains why he believes the comparison fails, arguing that the Trinity concerns the identity of God and the person of Jesus Christ rather than a secondary question about how salvation is accomplished.

The episode examines 1 Corinthians 8:6, Ephesians 4:4–6, Romans 10:9, the Shema, the deity of Christ, the law of non-contradiction, and the relationship between the biblical teaching that there is one God and the biblical identification of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit as God.

The episode concludes by considering whether denying the Trinity is compatible with the biblical confession of the one true God and the gospel of Jesus Christ.

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

Is the Trinity really taught in Scripture?

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan responds to a series of objections to the doctrine of the Trinity from the YouTube channel Biblical Unitarians.

The episode examines the biblical case for the Trinity and addresses objections involving the singularity of God, Psalm 110, the deity of Christ, the deity of the Holy Spirit, 1 John 5:7, Matthew 28:19, Christ's baptism, John 10, John 14, the rich young ruler, Philippians 1, Romans 5, Romans 9, and John 17.

Jonathan also discusses Francis Turretin's distinction between the “that” and the “how” of the Trinity. Scripture clearly teaches that God is Triune, even though the manner in which one God exists eternally as three persons is a mystery we cannot fully comprehend.

The episode's central argument is that the Trinity is not one isolated doctrine derived from a single proof text. Rather, it is the necessary conclusion of taking several biblical truths together: there is one God; the Father is God; the Son is God; the Holy Spirit is God; and the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct persons.

The discussion concludes with a pastoral appeal concerning the importance of knowing the Triune God as He has revealed Himself in Scripture.

If you have questions or objections concerning the Trinity, Jonathan would love to hear them.

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 the doctrine of the Trinity—and what does Scripture actually teach about it?

Before responding to anti-Trinitarian arguments, we need to establish what historic Trinitarian Christianity actually confesses. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan lays the groundwork for next week's examination of an anti-Trinitarian presentation by walking through the biblical and historical foundations of the doctrine of the Trinity.

We begin with the foundational confession that there is one God, while also examining the biblical teaching that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are distinct divine persons. We then consider how the New Testament develops the Old Testament revelation, particularly through the Shema and Paul's statement in 1 Corinthians 8:6.

We also examine Daniel 7 and the figure of the Son of Man, considering how the passage presents a figure who is truly human yet exercises divine prerogatives and receives the kingdom of God.

Finally, we consider the importance of remembering that Jesus Christ is both truly God and truly man. The Chalcedonian Definition and Athanasian Creed provide helpful historical guardrails for understanding Christ's two natures and the Christian confession of one God in Trinity.

This episode is intended to provide the necessary background for next week's episode, where we will examine anti-Trinitarian objections and consider how a Trinitarian should respond.

If you find the episode helpful, please like the video, leave a comment, and subscribe to the channel. Those things genuinely help a small channel like this reach more people.

Come back next week as we evaluate anti-Trinitarian objections.

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

Cameron Bertuzzi argues that if Protestants accept the New Testament canon, they must also accept the authority claims of the Roman Catholic Church. In this second installment, I examine that claim by looking more closely at the historical evidence.

We discuss:

•  The councils of Hippo and Carthage 
•  Whether Rome "gave" us the New Testament canon 
•  Athanasius and the Old Testament canon 
•  The perpetual virginity of Mary 
•  Confession and absolution 
•  Priestly celibacy 
•  Infant baptism 
•  Rome as a court of appeal 
•  Why historical context matters when reading the Church Fathers 

My argument is simple: many of the historical facts Cameron presents are true in isolation, but they are interpreted through a Roman Catholic framework that the evidence itself does not require.

If you're interested in church history, the canon of Scripture, Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, or the Church Fathers, I hope this discussion is helpful.

If you enjoyed the episode, please like the video, subscribe, and join the discussion in the comments. I'd especially like to hear what early church evidence you believe presents the strongest challenge to Protestantism.

Listen to the full audio podcast wherever you get your podcasts.

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

For the third week, we're still asking what the doctrine of the perspicuity (clarity) of Scripture isn't.

That may sound tedious, but Turretin is doing exactly what a careful theologian should do: defining his terms before answering objections.

In this episode we finish the final two qualifications:

•  Does Scripture have to be equally clear everywhere? 
•  Does the doctrine of Scripture's clarity eliminate pastors, preaching, study, prayer, or the ministry of the Holy Spirit? 

Along the way we examine Augustine, 1 Peter 3, and why difficult passages do not undermine the Protestant doctrine of Scripture's perspicuity.

If you've wondered whether Protestants believe the Bible is "easy" or that Christians don't need teachers, this episode answers those misconceptions.

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!