Send us a text

James 2 is often called the “Protestant problem passage,” and Catholic apologist Trent Horn argues that it proves faith alone can’t be true. But is that really what James meant? In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks walks through Horn’s claims and shows why Protestants don’t have to fear James 2. By digging into the context of the letter, the meaning of “justification,” and how James and Paul speak with one voice rather than in contradiction, we uncover why this passage doesn’t undermine the gospel of faith alone—but actually reinforces it. If you’ve ever wondered how Protestants can defend sola fide while taking James seriously, this is the conversation you need to hear.

Find Trent's original video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LwEgFig00A

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

Catholic apologist Trent Horn argues that Protestants can’t really know which books belong in the Bible without an infallible Magisterium to define the canon. But is that true? In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks pushes back on that claim, showing why Christians don’t need Rome’s authority to have confidence in Scripture. From the testimony of the early church to the self-authenticating nature of God’s Word, we explore how believers can trust the canon apart from Catholic dogma. At stake is more than history—it’s the question of whether the Bible itself is sufficient to reveal God’s truth without a supposedly infallible human guide.

Original Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTEQj0ppThQ


Book Recommendations: https://www.amazon.com/Canon-Revisited-Establishing-Authority-Testament/dp/1433505002/ref=sr_1_1?crid=7AE5ONXX0709&dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9._aaNUz5w7bOCyqhNMvr6KD7Sikcg9x2biRg--3J_cW_4nMROYIQWnPM6LrHvajphtVfUZMpt0ThZSIO7OWG4eKNerN86V99JGNSaO3Y_z1RLOdi84GJtkPFBd6fzge5fYGRmcVo6YxKQ8mDdTDVZrw.eepfPVrQoII0PIMQlRJiecM9poBQ4zoAWZNEtoKaUC8&dib_tag=se&keywords=canon+revisited+by+michael+kruger&qid=1756214302&sprefix=canon+revisited%2Caps%2C125&sr=8-1

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

Many people treat the Reformation as a historical event locked in the 1500s, but its impact didn’t stop with Luther, Calvin, or the early Protestants. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks and guest Matthew Duraski explore how the Reformation continues to shape the church today—for better and for worse. From the rediscovery of Scripture’s authority, to the ongoing debates about church tradition and unity, to the way Protestant convictions still influence our worship and witness, we dig into why the Reformation isn’t just a past event but a living reality. Along the way, we wrestle with what it means to hold fast to the gospel in a world that still needs reform.

Original video:  @VoiceOfReason_  
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XsJSC-Y-Kyc&t=1s

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

Too often, apologetics gets reduced to an intellectual arm-wrestling match—who’s the smartest, the quickest, or the best at dropping “gotcha” questions. But that’s not what biblical apologetics is for. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks and Josh Goodwin unpack why the goal of defending the faith isn’t to crush an opponent but to faithfully represent Christ. Along the way, they walk through the three major approaches to apologetics—the evidentialist approach, the classical approach, and the presuppositional approach—highlighting their strengths, limitations, and how each one shapes the way we engage with skeptics. You’ll hear how the heart behind your defense matters just as much as the method you choose, why humility is more persuasive than arrogance, and how to balance truth and love in conversations about the gospel.

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

Did God set humanity up to fail in the Garden of Eden? Was the Fall inevitable—or even unjust? In this episode of Wade in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks and Josh Howard respond to a popular atheist objection: that God gave Adam and Eve an unfair test with impossible odds. But when we look at the biblical text, the covenant framework, and the goodness of God, the narrative tells a very different story. We explore the purpose of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, the nature of obedience, and what it really means for God to be just and holy—even in judgment.

If you’ve ever wrestled with questions about original sin, free will, or divine fairness, this conversation 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

Do Roman Catholic doctrines like purgatory, indulgences, or papal supremacy reflect the organic development of early Christian teaching—or are they later additions with no real roots in Scripture? In this episode of Wade in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks critically engages Joe Heschmeyer’s ranking of arguments against Catholicism, exploring what counts as legitimate doctrinal growth and what veers into theological invention. From the Chalcedonian box to Ephraim the Syrian, from Nestorianism to the office of the pope, we dig deep into church history, biblical authority, and how we distinguish between faithful continuity and dangerous departure.

If you've ever wondered whether “doctrinal development” is just a nice name for doctrinal drift, this conversation 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

Martin Luther wasn’t trying to start a new church—he was trying to start a conversation. In this episode of Wade in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks and Matthew Duraski break down the real story behind the 95 Theses, challenge the myth of a fully-formed “Lutheran Luther” in 1517, and unpack how the Reformer’s theology actually developed over time. From lightning storms to excommunications, from indulgences to justification by faith, we explore the messy, fascinating, and often misunderstood early years of the Protestant Reformation.

Along the way, we respond to common Catholic critiques, highlight key historical turning points, and even reflect on the pastoral power of church discipline. If you think the Reformation was a single moment nailed to a door, think again.

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

Martin Luther didn’t set out to start a new church—so how did we get here?

In this episode, Jonathan Brooks is joined by fellow PCA minister Matt Duraski for a no-holds-barred look at the Reformation, the myths surrounding Luther, and the infamous “44,000 denominations” claim. They tackle historical misunderstandings, Roman Catholic critiques, and the real reasons Protestant churches are so numerous (hint: it’s not just theological slap fights). From lightning storms and guilt-ridden monks to Bonclarken and Bible studies, this is a fun and thoughtful deep dive into how the church got so complicated—and why Christ is still building His Church.

References:
Original Video

Book Recommendations: Lyndal Roper, Martin Luther: Renegage and Prophet (New York: Random House, 2016). Timothy George, Theology of the Reformers (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2013). Michael Reeves, The Unquenchable Flame: Discovering the Heart of the Reformation (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009).

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

Was Peter really the first pope? Or have we misread one of the most famous passages in the Gospels? 

In this episode, Jonathan and Alex take a deep dive into Matthew 16 and the Roman Catholic argument for papal authority. They unpack the grammar, explore the Greek, and show why the “keys of the kingdom” may not mean what you’ve been told. Along the way, they compare Matthew 16 to Matthew 18 and the Great Commission, argue that Christ—not Peter—is always the focus, and offer a distinctly Reformed take on ecclesial authority and church discipline. If you've ever wondered what Jesus really meant when he said, “I will give you the keys,” this episode is for you.

This is part 3. If you haven't seen part 1 or 2 look for them in previous episodes!

Scripture references:
- Matthew 16:13–20
- Matthew 18:15-20
- Matthew 28:16-20
- 1 Peter 2:4–9
- John 20
- Philippians 2
- Acts 1–10

Resources:
Cameron's Original Video
John Chrysostom’s Homily on Matthew 54
John Calvin’s Commentary on Matthew 16

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 really happened on the floor of the 2025 PCA General Assembly? Was Teaching Elder Timothy Brindle unfairly cut off? Did Moderator Kevin DeYoung cross a line—or keep things from crossing it? 

In this special edition of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks is joined by Ryan Biese and Nathan Xanders to unpack the clash between parliamentary order and rising tensions around the reelection of Dr. Irwin Ince. Along the way, we respond to Doug Wilson, CrossPolitic, and the growing conversation about race, power, and polity in the PCA. Was it a kerfuffle... or a crisis? You decide.

Check out their podcasts!

Ryan Biese: The Westminster Standard
https://open.spotify.com/show/0W12Hy3Rszfwwt9iClDlDm

Nate Xanders: Reforming Men
https://www.thereformingmenpodcast.com 

Support the show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!