Weighed in the Balance

Send us Fan MailAre we studying Scripture to discover what’s true—or just to defend what we already believe?In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we break down a key issue behind so many theological debates: confirmation bias. Using a real exchange on Bible translations, we look at what happens when someone prioritizes their conclusions over the evidence.We cover:Why “uniformity” in manuscripts is a mythWhether modern translations actually remove doctrineHow presuppositions shape interpretationWhat it really means to seek truth in theologyThis one gets a bit more intense than usual—but the question matters.👇 Jump into the comments:Do you think most people study to learn—or to defend their position?👍 Like & subscribe if you enjoy thoughtful, charitable theological discussion.00:00 Introduction to the Podcast and Its Goals01:11 The Purpose of Studying Scripture06:12 Exploring Different Theological Perspectives07:01 The Importance of Challenging Biases08:31 Debate Analysis: The Blood of Christ17:06 Uniformity vs. Preservation in Translations22:35 Misrepresentation in Theological Arguments27:04 Conclusion: Seeking Truth vs. Defending BiasesSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailDo modern Bible translations actually remove references to the blood of Christ?And what about people who struggle to understand the KJV—don’t we want people to actually read and understand the Bible for themselves?In this episode, we look at two major audience questions from the KJV Onlyism debate:Should Christians be expected to read a Bible they cannot understand?Are modern translations removing key doctrines by omitting phrases like “through His blood” in Colossians 1:14?The goal is not just to possess a Bible—but to know God through His Word.If you enjoy careful, charitable theological discussion, consider subscribing and joining the conversation.00:00 Introduction to Biblical Study02:03 Understanding Scripture and Its Importance06:43 The Role of the Holy Spirit in Understanding17:00 Textual Variants and Their Implications32:08 The Debate on King James Version vs. Modern TranslationsSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we continue working through audience questions from the Cravat–Canupp debate, focusing on King James Onlyism and textual criticism.Can anything good come from Egypt? Should manuscripts be dismissed based on their origin? Did Origen corrupt the text of Scripture? And what exactly is textual criticism anyway?We take a careful and charitable look at these questions, distinguishing between lower and higher criticism, addressing common misconceptions, and emphasizing why these issues matter for how we understand the Bible today.My goal is not to attack, but to think clearly and faithfully about Scripture, history, and the tools God has given us to understand His Word.If you enjoy thoughtful theological discussion, consider liking the video and subscribing.📌 Let me know your thoughts in the comments:– Should Egyptian manuscripts be dismissed?– How do you understand textual criticism?– Do translation differences affect doctrine?00:00 Introduction to the Debate and Audience Questions01:55 Critique of King James-Onlyism07:36 Understanding Origen and Textual Criticism14:23 Lower vs Higher Criticism in Textual Studies24:54 Philosophy and Its Role in Theology29:11 Examining Scriptural Citations and ErrorsSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn 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 Scriptura01:18 The Positive Case for Sola Scriptura05:02 Understanding Final Authority07:57 Logical Consistency of Sola Scriptura12:42 Addressing Objections to Sola Scriptura17:48 The Role of Secondary Authorities21:50 The Importance of Church Authority25:11 Examining Mr. Hiller's Arguments30:11 Clarifying Misunderstandings34:11 Conclusion and Invitation for DiscussionSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailWelcome 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailWeighed 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn 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=1awUlUOhwfIMark Ward on the language of the Westminster Standards: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnsMXQGORrA00:00 Introduction01:04 The Debate Question03:10 Why KJV-Onlyism Is a Shrinking Position05:02 The Five Types of KJV-Onlyism05:45 1. “KJV Is the Best Translation”09:01 2. The Textual Argument12:37 3. Textus Receptus Only17:20 4. The Inspired KJV View19:25 5. The “New Revelation” Position23:00 Why the Debaters Talk Past Each Other26:10 The “Perfect Line of Manuscripts” Claim30:25 The 1611 vs 1769 KJV Issue34:40 How KJV-Only Arguments Use “Things That Are Different…”39:02 The Psalm 138 Translation Issue44:16 Evaluating the Debate Arguments47:40 Emotional Appeals vs Evidence49:40 “The Language Got Purer and Purer” Claim52:30 Numerics vs Numerology57:00 The WWII Chapter-Verse Claim01:01:40 Misreading Romans Through Numerics01:05:30 Erasmus and Codex Vaticanus01:07:00 Is English the Closest Language to Hebrew?01:09:10 Moderator InterventionSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailWhat 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 truthSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn 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 equalHow textual variants actually affect the New TestamentThe difference between preservation and re-inspirationWhy less than 1% of textual variants meaningfully impact the textWe 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn 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 ScriptureHow definitions of baptism shape the entire discussionColossians 2 and the relationship between baptism and circumcisionCovenant theology and the inclusion of believers’ childrenWhy the absence of one specific verse changed my mindMy 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 questionSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks examines a common claim in the KJV-only debate: that faithful Bible translations must follow a strict “word-for-word” method.Engaging arguments made by James Canupp and Jeff Cravat, this episode explores what the King James translators themselves believed about translation, how Hebrew and Greek actually work, and why “word-for-word” accuracy often misunderstands how language conveys meaning.Rather than polemics, this conversation aims at careful, charitable evaluation—asking whether the claims being made can truly hold up to scrutiny.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this crossover episode, Jonathan is joined by his friend Rev. Don Baker—Presbyterian minister, YouTuber, and fellow former Independent Fundamentalist Baptist—for a wide-ranging conversation about growing up in Fundamentalism, wrestling with dispensationalism and King James-onlyism, and eventually embracing the Reformed faith. From Israel trips and rebaptisms in the Jordan River to covenant theology, worship, and Reformed ecclesiology, this episode explores how theology, history, and pastoral ministry intersect on the road to Presbyterianism.Links:Don Baker’s testimony / life story video:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4ajmKsFZJMU&feature=youtu.beA Case for Amillennialism – Kim Riddlebarger:https://a.co/d/fSja3P4Desiring God (John Piper):https://a.co/d/goEF1NoLigonier Ministries (R.C. Sproul):https://www.ligonier.org/?srsltid=AfmBOopbmHe8H-lVfL78rGuV-_oCGCjnKDzW7lLl_4w_wmJYy-nMenMnSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode, I analyze Mitch Canupp’s rebuttal in the first question of the Canupp–Cravatt debate on King James Onlyism. After summarizing the structure of the debate and the opposing positions, I focus on Canupp’s central argument: that if God has preserved His Word, then that preservation must involve a re-inspired English translation—specifically, the King James Version.I evaluate this argument logically, showing that while the structure of Canupp’s reasoning may be valid, its premises are deeply flawed. I also address his attempts to cast doubt on the original biblical languages, his skepticism toward scholarly tools and lexicons, and his apparent rejection of a teaching office within the church.Along the way, I discuss the role of non-believing scholars in linguistic study, the proper place of the Holy Spirit’s illumination, and the difference between denying an infallible magisterium and denying teaching authority altogether. I conclude by explaining why the question is not whether Christians have a perfect Bible, but whether the King James Version alone can bear that claim.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailWhat does a good theological argument actually look like?In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, I return to the 2021 debate between Nathan Cravat and Mitch Canupp—not to rehash personalities or score cheap points, but to use the debate itself as a case study in how arguments should (and should not) be made.Focusing on Cravat’s response to the opening question—“Do we have a perfect Bible today?”—I walk through what makes an argument strong: careful definitions, sound exegesis, historical awareness, logical consistency, and above all, clarity without cruelty. Along the way, we contrast this with the kinds of sloppy claims, moving goalposts, and shrinking definitions that often characterize weak positions.This episode is not an attack on individuals, nor is it a rant against the King James Version itself. Instead, it’s an exercise in discernment: learning how to recognize when an argument stands on Scripture—and when it’s propped up by rhetoric, conspiracy, or special pleading.If you care about truth, charity, and intellectual honesty—especially in theological debates—this episode is for you.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailOver the past year, Weighed in the Balance has focused on examining claims to see whether they can actually hold up to scrutiny. In this episode, Jonathan Brooks takes a step back to explain both why the podcast has been quieter in recent weeks—and where the show is headed next.Jonathan reflects on the realities of pursuing a Master of Theology, the significant increase in academic workload, and why stepping back briefly was necessary. But this episode is more than an update—it’s also a case study in how bad arguments often work, and why they can feel persuasive at first glance.Using real examples from online debates and apologetic exchanges, Jonathan walks through how “honest questions” can quietly smuggle in false assumptions, frame the discussion unfairly, or demand answers on terms that already concede the conclusion. Rather than simply rebutting individual claims, the episode models how to slow down, examine premises, and recognize when a question itself is the problem.Along the way, Jonathan explains how Protestant ecclesiology actually functions, why disagreements don’t automatically imply chaos, and how theological triage helps Christians distinguish between essentials, secondary disagreements, and issues that require separation without condemnation.This episode sets the stage for what’s coming next on Weighed in the Balance: deeper analysis, sharper tools for discernment, and continued engagement with arguments that deserve careful examination—not just quick reactions.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn 2021, logic took a day off and apologetics Twitter held a debate.This episode reviews the infamous Bible-defense showdown featuring arguments so poorly formed they didn’t need rebuttals—they needed a mirror. Rather than analyzing who was right, this episode asks a better question: How do you recognize a terrible argument in the wild, no matter what side it comes from?By walking through real excerpts, claims, and rhetorical strategies from the 2021 debate (between Mitch Canupp and Nathan Cravatt), we uncover the anatomy of bad reasoning:Proof-texting without grammatical awarenessConfident claims with missing premisesAssertions louder than their evidenceAppeals to rhetoric over realityA theology argument smuggling in a logic problemThis is not about Bible translations. It’s about argument translation—from nonsense into a lesson.Whether you’re a pastor, apologist, student, or someone who just wants to smell a bad argument before stepping in it, this episode will equip you with something better than ammunition:Discernment. Self-awareness. And a really shiny mirror.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan uses the 2021 Cravatt–Canupp debate as a case study in how to recognize weak reasoning—no matter what issue is being discussed. This is not an attack on the King James Version. Instead, Jonathan walks through the debate to highlight common pitfalls: irrelevant tangents, historical inaccuracies, shifting the topic, attacking people instead of arguments, and redefining terms mid-stream.By analyzing what went wrong in this debate, listeners learn how to spot the same patterns in any conversation—whether theological, political, or personal. If you want to sharpen your ability to think clearly, evaluate claims, and hold arguments to the actual question being asked, this episode offers a practical, real-world example of how to do it.Original VideoSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Rev. Jonathan Brooks closes the book on the proposed debate with Phillip Parker—a discussion that could have clarified major misconceptions about Calvinism, grace, and the gospel itself. Instead, Parker declined, calling debate “a waste of time.” Jonathan takes listeners behind the scenes of what really happened, addressing why debates matter, what’s truly at stake when people call Calvinism “a false gospel,” and how misunderstanding Reformed theology leads to needless division among believers. It’s an honest, pastoral, and unapologetic reflection on faith, dialogue, and standing firm in truth without losing compassion.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailWhen an old acquaintance, Philip Parker, mocked Calvinism online, Jonathan Brooks didn’t fire back with insults—he offered a public debate. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan explains why the challenge matters and what’s really at stake in the ongoing Calvinism vs. Arminianism controversy. He walks through common misconceptions about the Reformed view of grace and free will, showing that Calvinism doesn’t deny human choice—it reveals how God’s sovereign grace makes real choice possible. Jonathan also shares his vision for a respectful, Scripture-based dialogue that replaces memes and mockery with biblical reasoning. If you’ve ever wondered whether Calvinism can stand up to scrutiny, or if Christians can disagree passionately without dividing, this episode shows how conviction and charity can meet in the same conversation.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailThis Reformation Day, we let the conversation flow! From Luther and Erasmus debating Scripture, to the question of whether the Reformation led to the Enlightenment, we cover history, theology, and some hilarious side notes about church quirks. Jonathan, along with Alex and Matt talk private interpretation, visions, medieval philosophy, and what it really means for Scripture to be the ultimate authority. Whether you’re a history buff, a theology nerd, or just curious about Reformation Day, this episode is full of insights, laughs, and “aha” moments.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailReformation Week continues! Many people — Protestants and Catholics alike — repeat historical claims about Martin Luther and the Reformation that simply aren’t true. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, we bust five of the most common myths:- Did the Reformation actually begin on October 31, 1517?- Was Luther trying to start a brand-new church?- Did Henry VIII launch the Reformation so he could dump his wife?- Do Protestants really believe in “easy-believism”?- Is Rome teaching salvation by works alone?Whether you’re Protestant, Catholic, or still exploring the theology behind the Reformation, this episode brings clarity, context, and the gospel itself back into focus. Join us as we cut through the caricatures and point to what Scripture teaches: salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks makes the case that justification by faith alone (sola fide) and salvation through Christ alone (solus Christus) are not two doctrines—but one glorious truth seen from different angles. Drawing on Romans 3 and the Ten Commandments, Jonathan shows how the law exposes our sin and drives us to Christ’s finished work, not our cooperation with grace. While Roman Catholic theology teaches that grace enables human effort toward salvation, the biblical gospel proclaims that Christ’s obedience alone saves—from start to finish. This episode isn’t just theology—it’s a call to rest in the Savior who kept the law perfectly, died in our place, and left nothing undone.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks returns to Joe Heschmeyer’s “Ranking the Best and Worst Arguments Against Catholicism” — and this time, the topics cut right to the heart of Rome’s teaching. From the Immaculate Conception and Marian dogmas to indulgences and the sacrifice of the Mass, Jonathan breaks down where these doctrines came from, how they developed, and why even Catholic apologists can’t defend them consistently.Along the way, he shows how the early church’s high view of Christ — not Mary — gave rise to legitimate theological development, while later dogmas crossed into dangerous territory. From Greek grammar in Luke 1 to Vatican II’s teaching on salvation, this episode challenges the listener to think biblically, historically, and critically about what the Church of Rome claims — and what Scripture actually says.If you’ve ever wondered how the Reformation’s core convictions still matter today, this is a conversation you won’t want to miss.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailCatholic apologist Joe Heschmeyer just made a stunning admission — and he probably didn’t even realize it. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks reacts to Heschmeyer’s claim that the Bible’s canon was known long before it was ever “infallibly defined.” What does that mean for Rome’s argument that Protestants need an infallible Magisterium to know which books belong in Scripture? Jonathan breaks it all down with sharp analysis, historical insight, and a bit of irony that you won’t want to miss.Timestamps 00:00 – The “Worst” Catholic arguments ranked 03:15 – Assurance of salvation and confusion with “once saved, always saved” 08:00 – Why Protestants say “Roman Catholic” instead of “Catholic” 13:00 – The real meaning of the Whore of Babylon 16:00 – Did Rome really kill millions in the Dark Ages? 20:00 – Did Catholics add books to the Bible? 26:00 – The line Joe Heschmeyer shouldn’t have said 27:15 – Why his admission undercuts Rome’s entire canon argumentSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailWe love our heroes of the Reformation—Luther, Calvin, Knox, Zwingli—but if church history teaches us anything, it’s that even the greatest defenders of the gospel still needed the gospel themselves. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks reminds us that the same grace these men preached was the grace they depended on. Their flaws don’t discredit the Reformation; they magnify the mercy of God who saves sinners through faith in Christ alone. From the pride of reformers to the failures of modern Christians, Jonathan draws a straight line to the only One who never failed.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks digs deep into one of the most explosive truths of the Christian faith—justification by faith apart from works. While Rome insists grace must be earned through cooperation and merit, Scripture declares the opposite: that the sinner contributes nothing to salvation except the sin that made it necessary. Drawing from Paul’s letters, the Reformers, and the ongoing debates about faith and works, Jonathan explains why this “offensive” gospel is actually the best news imaginable. If you’ve ever wondered why sola fide was worth dying for—or why it still divides the church today—this episode is for you.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks reacts to Joe Heschmeyer’s video ranking “arguments against Catholicism”—and exposes the confusion at the heart of Rome’s dogma. What’s the difference between doctrine and dogma? Why does Rome make salvation hinge on believing things Scripture never commands? And how do Protestants balance biblical truth with genuine assurance of salvation? Jonathan unpacks these questions while showing why the Reformation’s message of faith alone is not an excuse for complacency but the only path to real peace with God.Find Joe's original video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwim4iDSKe4&t=1378sSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailWhat is faith? Protestants confess that we are justified by faith alone—but unless we know what faith actually is, that claim means very little. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks unpacks Philip Melanchthon’s definition of justifying faith in the Apology to the Augsburg Confession. Is faith just historical knowledge? Or is it the living trust that clings to Christ’s promise of forgiveness? Along the way, Jonathan exposes how the Roman Catholic system either puffs people up with self-righteousness or drives them into despair—and why only the gospel of Christ offers true comfort. If you’ve ever wrestled with the question of faith, works, and justification, this episode cuts through the confusion and gets to the heart of the matter.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailRoman Catholic apologist  @JosephHeschmeyer   has built a reputation for producing short, punchy videos that claim to deal “devastating” blows to Protestant theology. But are his arguments as airtight as they sound in sixty seconds? In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks takes a careful look at some of Heschmeyer’s most popular shorts—on topics like purgatory, Luther, and the authority of Scripture—and shows why they collapse under scrutiny. Far from being devastating, these arguments rely on selective quotes, rhetorical sleight of hand, and historical half-truths. The Reformation wasn’t built on sound bites, but on the enduring truth of God’s Word. If you’ve ever been unsettled by a slick Roman Catholic video online, this episode will help you see why the gospel of grace still stands firm.Find Joes original videos here: https://youtube.com/shorts/L_r8dtaO_NA?si=oVBegzJsdwaay_aJhttps://youtube.com/shorts/s0kdTYRyDoo?si=4dpiKmXbdNA4P8pKhttps://youtube.com/shorts/KmdCJKG1hMg?si=opZVKMQb6nNVjYbkSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailPhilip Melanchthon was Luther’s right-hand man, the author of much of the Lutheran Confessions, and a brilliant theologian—and yet history remembers him more for his compromises than for his faithfulness. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks shows why Melanchthon deserves far more credit than he gets. From his role in defining Reformation theology to his struggles with compromise and his reputation as a peacemaker, we explore the legacy of a man who fought the good fight and finished his course. Whatever his flaws, Melanchthon clung to Christ, and his confession of the gospel still speaks powerfully today.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks continues his walk through the Apology of the Augsburg Confession, where Philip Melanchthon dismantles Rome’s teaching on merit. While Rome no longer openly teaches that sinners can earn forgiveness by their own acts of love, the Catechism of the Catholic Church still insists that believers must “merit eternal life” through good works after receiving initial grace. Jonathan shows why this development isn’t enough, how it still misses the heart of the gospel, and why Paul’s words in Romans—“if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works”—remain the dividing line. If you’ve ever wondered whether Catholic teaching has really changed since the Reformation, this episode lays it all out.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks reacts to a series of Roman Catholic “shorts” that make bold claims about Scripture, the Eucharist, Peter, and authority. Are these arguments really as airtight as they sound in 60 seconds? Jonathan puts them to the test, showing where they misrepresent history, twist Scripture, or simply leave out crucial details. If you’ve ever scrolled past a Roman Catholic apologetics short and thought, “Wait… is that really true?”—this episode is for you.Find the videos from this episode here: https://youtube.com/shorts/Bhr2ghJSxSQ?si=0pYkMawiZQuQshjJ https://youtube.com/shorts/MzKKExNBNCw?si=i4jLvzvPzkH4ANw5https://youtube.com/shorts/i8JRFqHfTXw?si=Wuf7wJpIXV8mkpVfhttps://youtube.com/shorts/m5i6R5mTXi0?si=Qe_MdzpGgx7ichQnSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailRome’s doctrine of merit sounds complicated—dividing works into “congruent” and “condign” categories—but the outcome is always the same: it either puffs up the self-righteous with false confidence or crushes tender consciences under unbearable despair. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks walks through Philip Melanchthon’s critique of Rome’s merit system in the Apology of the Augsburg Confession and shows why the gospel of Christ alone is the only true comfort for sinners. We’ll see how Rome’s teaching fails both the hypocrite and the humble, why Vatican II didn’t solve the problem, and how the Reformation’s emphasis on grace through faith still speaks hope to weary hearts today.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailRoman Catholic apologist Trent Horn often claims that Protestants can’t make sense of James 2, but the Protestant position he attacks isn’t the one we actually hold. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks unpacks Horn’s misrepresentation of sola fide and shows what Protestants really teach about faith, works, and justification. Drawing from Scripture and the historic Reformation confessions, we’ll see how Protestants affirm that saving faith is never alone—but always produces good works as its fruit. If you’ve ever wondered how to respond when Catholics argue that “faith alone” means lazy or empty belief, this episode will set the record straight and ground you in the richness of the gospel.Find Trent's original video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LwEgFig00ASupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailAt the heart of the Reformation was a simple but world-shaking question: is salvation something we earn by doing more, or something Christ has already finished on our behalf? In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks takes us back to Augsburg and Philip Melanchthon’s defense of the gospel against Rome’s teaching of works plus grace. We’ll see how the Reformers drew a sharp line between law and promise, why Rome’s “do more” gospel could never bring assurance, and how the good news of justification by faith alone set consciences free. This isn’t just a history lesson—it’s a reminder that our hope rests not in what we do, but in what Christ has already done.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn 1530, the Lutheran princes presented the Augsburg Confession before the emperor, boldly declaring their faith. But Rome didn’t accept it quietly. In response, Philip Melanchthon penned the Apology of the Augsburg Confession—a careful, powerful defense of justification by faith alone. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks explores why this moment mattered, how Protestants responded to pressure from both the emperor and the papacy, and why their stand for the gospel still shapes us today. The Reformation wasn’t just about defying Rome—it was about clinging to the truth of God’s Word when everything was on the line.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailCatholic apologist Trent Horn loves to bring out Martin Luther quotes that sound shocking or extreme, especially when trying to argue that Protestants can’t make sense of James 2. And to be fair—we’re happy to admit that Luther sometimes got James 2 wrong. But here’s the key point: Protestants don’t follow Martin Luther, we follow Scripture. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks unpacks Horn’s latest arguments, showing how they rely on strawmen, selective soundbites, and bad faith debate tactics. We’ll take a closer look at what Luther really said, why his misstep doesn’t undermine the doctrine of justification by faith alone, and how Protestants can respond when Catholics try to score easy points by twisting history. If you’ve ever been rattled by “scary Luther quotes” or confused about the role of works in salvation, this episode will give you clarity, confidence, and a renewed trust in the gospel.Find Trent's original video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LwEgFig00ASupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailIn 1530, a group of Protestant leaders stood before the most powerful man in Europe—the Holy Roman Emperor Charles V—and refused to back down. Their bold stand became known as the Augsburg Confession, a declaration of faith that would shape the Reformation for centuries to come. In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, Jonathan Brooks explores the courage it took to confess Christ when political pressure, imperial power, and even the threat of persecution were on the line. We’ll see why this moment wasn’t just about theology—it was about conviction, unity, and the unstoppable truth of the gospel. And we’ll ask what it means for us today to hold firm when the world pushes back against our faith.Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailJames 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=0LwEgFig00ASupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailCatholic 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=gTEQj0ppThQBook 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=8-1Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailMany 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=1sSupport the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailToo 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailDid 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailDo 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailMartin 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailMartin 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 VideoBook 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 showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!

Send us Fan MailWas 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 1–10Resources:Cameron's Original VideoJohn Chrysostom’s Homily on Matthew 54John Calvin’s Commentary on Matthew 16Support the showDo you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!! Click here to find us everywhere!!