Send us a text

In this episode, Jonathan Brooks and Alex Lott begin a three-part series responding to a video by Cameron Riker, who argues that Matthew 16 supports the Roman Catholic claim to papal authority. While acknowledging Riker’s sincerity and catechetical background, Jonathan and Alex take a close look at what the text actually says—starting with the foundational question Jesus asks His disciples: "Who do you say that I am?"

They explore the historical and theological weight of Peter’s confession, discuss the significance of the title “Son of Man,” and contrast biblical teaching with popular but flawed interpretations of eschatology and ecclesiology. This first episode lays the groundwork by focusing on Christ as the center of the passage—before engaging with the Catholic claims.

Along the way, they reference early Christian commentary and Reformed exegesis, including:

• John Calvin’s Commentary on Matthew 16:
  https://ccel.org/ccel/calvin/calcom32/calcom32.ii.lii.html
• John Chrysostom’s Homily on Matthew 16:
  https://www.newadvent.org/fathers/200154.htm

Responding to:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG9YvkNqg6E&t=1959s

Key Topics:

• What Jesus meant by “Son of Man”
• The significance of Peter’s confession
• Why this passage is Christ-centered, not Peter-centered
• Problems with reading Matthew 16 through a Roman Catholic lens
• The Berean model of testing claims against Scripture

Scripture Explored:

• Matthew 16:13–20
• Daniel 7
• Matthew 28:18–20
• Luke 24 (Road to Emmaus)

Let me know if you'd like a shorter version, or one tailored for podcast platforms like Spotify or Apple 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 a text

Weighed in the Balance returns with a critical response to Cameron Rieker’s so-called “insuperable” argument against Protestantism. Rieker claims that without an infallible magisterium (i.e., the Roman Catholic Church), all of Protestantism collapses under the weight of interpretive chaos. But is that actually true?

In this episode, we walk through:

• The heart of Rieker’s claim: “Who gets to use the rule of faith?”
• A biblical and confessional answer from the Reformed tradition.
• A close reading of Ephesians 4, 1 Corinthians 12, and the Westminster Confession of Faith.
• Why Cameron’s three so-called Protestant “options” don’t even acknowledge the historic Reformed view.
• How church authority works in Presbyterian polity without collapsing into either chaos or papal infallibility.

Whether you're Reformed, Catholic, or just curious, this episode offers clarity on how Protestants think about the Church, authority, and the Scriptures.

Referenced texts:

• Westminster Confession of Faith, Chapters 25 & 31
• Ephesians 4:1–16
• 1 Corinthians 12:27–31
• Acts 15

Find Cameron's original video here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KG9YvkNqg6E&t=1959s

Let us know your thoughts below—but please keep the conversation respectful and charitable.

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

In this episode, I respond to Joe Heschmeyer’s recent presentation of what he sees as the best and worst arguments made against the Catholic Church. As a Presbyterian pastor, my goal isn’t to attack but to engage—graciously, clearly, and with a heart for truth. I hope this video helps Protestants think more carefully about how we represent our convictions, and helps Catholics better understand where we’re coming from.

▶️ You can watch Joe’s original video here!

Let’s Keep the Conversation Going!
I welcome dialogue from Catholics, Protestants, and anyone interested in these important theological discussions. Feel free to comment below—but please keep it respectful and charitable.

Like and subscribe for more Reformed analysis of theology, church history, and culture.

Thank you for watching. May Christ be glorified as we seek His truth together.
Soli Deo Gloria.

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

In this episode, Jonathan Brooks is joined by cohosts Josh Goodwin and Alex Lott to respond to a recent video from the Catholic Truth channel (watch it here). The original video claims that Protestants avoid discussing the biblical canon and that, lacking infallible certainty, they cannot truly know what belongs in Scripture.

Josh Goodwin, who holds a bachelor’s degree in philosophy, brings a philosophical lens to the discussion—highlighting the epistemological flaws in Catholic Truth's argument. Together, we critically engage with the claims made, but we don’t stop at rebuttals. We also begin building the positive case from a Reformed Protestant perspective: How do we know what belongs in the canon of Scripture?

Whether you're Protestant, Catholic, or just curious about the canon debate, this conversation aims to be thoughtful, respectful, and grounded in theology, philosophy, and history.

Don’t forget to like, comment, and subscribe for more discussions like this!

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

In this episode, we respond to a recent video by Cameron Rieker (watch it here) in which he argues that Roman Catholics can "win" the Sola Scriptura debate by demonstrating Catholic doctrine from Scripture via "good and necessary consequence." Cameron claims that if Protestants reject these arguments, it proves Scripture's insufficiency.

We take a closer look at what “good and necessary consequence” actually means and how it's been historically understood. We examine what the Westminster Confession of Faith really teaches on this subject, and whether Cameron accurately represents the Protestant position.

Ultimately, we find that Cameron’s critique fails to grasp the doctrine he's attempting to refute—and that far from winning the debate, he misunderstands its terms entirely.

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

In this episode, Rev. Jonathan Brooks and cohost Rev. Alex Lott respond to a provocative claim from Joe Heschmeyer of The Shameless Popery Podcast. Heschmeyer argues that the Protestant doctrine of Scripture is self-defeating because it supposedly leads to doctrinal unity — yet Protestants remain divided on what is “essential.” His argument runs as follows:

If the Protestant view of Scripture is correct, there will be unity on essential doctrines.

Protestants do not have unity on essential doctrines.
Conclusion: Therefore, the Protestant view of Scripture is false.

We take issue with both premises.

Not only do we challenge the assumption that sola scriptura necessitates perfect doctrinal agreement, but we also question whether Protestants truly lack unity on what is essential in the first place. We explore how Protestant theology has historically addressed the nature of doctrinal essentials and show why disagreement on secondary issues does not invalidate the authority of Scripture.

We also examine a Protestant response to the five versions of Heschmeyer’s central question:

What must Christians agree upon?

What must I believe to be a Christian?

What must I believe to be saved?

Which incorrect views are heretical, and which are tolerable?

Which incorrect views are damnable, and which are not?

This episode digs into the heart of how Protestants think about Scripture, doctrine, and unity — offering a robust biblical and theological defense of the Protestant tradition.

Tune in for a thoughtful and spirited conversation that pushes past caricatures and toward greater clarity on what Protestants really believe.

Find us online!!
linktr.ee/weighedinthebalance

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

In this episode, we take a close look at a popular Catholic critique of Protestantism, put forward by Catholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer. Heschmeyer argues:

1️⃣ If the Protestant view of Scripture is correct, there should be unity on essential doctrines.
2️⃣ There is not unity among Protestants on essential doctrines.
🔚 Therefore, the Protestant view of Scripture is incorrect.

He also claims that Protestantism ultimately rejects the authority and necessity of the Church, and that the very question, "Which doctrines are essential?" is the unraveling thread of the entire Protestant tradition.

But is this a fair and accurate representation of Protestant theology? Does disagreement among believers disprove the sufficiency of Scripture? And is the Catholic model immune to doctrinal division?

Join us as we explore these questions from a Protestant perspective—examining the assumptions behind Heschmeyer’s logic, the historical and biblical case for Sola Scriptura, and whether visible doctrinal unity is the right measuring stick for theological truth.

Whether you're Protestant, Catholic, or just curious, this episode offers a thoughtful and respectful dialogue around the foundations of authority, doctrine, and unity in the Church.

Don't forget to like, subscribe, and join 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 a text

Is Protestantism Dying?!?
That’s the question raised by @CameronRiecker — and in this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we’re responding directly from a Reformed Protestant perspective.

Rev. Jonathan Brooks weighs in on the claim that Protestantism is collapsing under the weight of disunity, doctrinal drift, and cultural irrelevance. Is the Reformation unraveling? Or is the picture more complex than the critics suggest?

In this episode, we explore:

• The roots of Protestant fragmentation — and whether it’s fatal
• Why church splits aren’t always a sign of failure
• The distinction between visible unity and theological faithfulness
• Whether Catholic unity is as strong as it appears

We’re not here to score points — we’re here to weigh every claim against the Word of God and offer clarity for those wrestling with the state of the Church today.

Like, subscribe, and share if you care about the future of Protestant Christianity — and drop your thoughts in the comments below!

Follow us on Social!!!

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

In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Rev. Jonathan Brooks (Presbyterian Church in America), Rev. Alex Lott (Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church), and philosophy graduate Josh Goodwin sit down to examine one of the most foundational — and controversial — doctrines of the Protestant Reformation: Sola Scriptura.

Roman Catholic theology teaches that Scripture and Tradition, interpreted by the Magisterium, are equal sources of divine authority. But Protestants argue that the Bible is the only infallible rule of faith and practice. So who's right?

We weigh claims like:

- Can the early Church Fathers be used to support the Protestant view?
- Is personal interpretation dangerous without an infallible Church?
- What do we actually mean by "Scripture alone"?

Whether you’re a committed Catholic, a curious Protestant, or just someone seeking truth, this episode will challenge you to consider what ultimate authority you’re standing on.

Subscribe for weekly biblical analysis of theological claims

Find us on online:

https://linktr.ee/weighedinthebalance?utm_source=linktree_profile_share<sid=8795e9fb-6f25-4aa9-9f79-c55890ba4aa6

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

Welcome to Weighed in the Balance!

In this very first episode, Rev. Jonathan Brooks introduces you to the heart behind the show: examining claims — whether religious, philosophical, or cultural — and testing them against the truth of Scripture. From the eloquent but misleading arguments of online influencers to deeply rooted theological traditions, Weighed in the Balance exists to help you spot error and cling to the truth.

You'll also meet Rev. Alex Lott, a pastor in the Associate Reformed Presbyterian Church, and Josh Goodwin, a philosophy graduate bringing a thoughtful layman's perspective. Together, we weigh claims about Calvinism, Sola Scriptura, the deity of Christ, Roman Catholic theology, and more — because falsehoods can sound convincing if they aren't tested carefully.

Our Mission:
We aren’t here to tear people down with "facts and logic." We’re here to faithfully weigh claims in the light of Scripture— and to help you do the same.

Subscribe to stay prepared for the next time a false claim finds its way into your feed.

Got a claim you want us to weigh? Drop it 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!!