Weighed in the Balance

Jonathan Brooks & Co
  • 0.0 (0)
  • Christianity

Weighed in the Balance, the show where we weigh claims against scripture and see if they hold up, of if they fall flat. 

  1. 2d ago

    Does the PC(USA) Still Teach the Christian Faith? | Everhard vs. Redeemed Zoomer

    Send us Fan Mail Does the PC(USA) still hold forth the Christian faith? And when a denomination tolerates teaching and practices that contradict Scripture, is separation justified—or is it schism? In this episode of Weighed in the Balance, I continue examining the debate between Dr. Matthew Everhard and Redeemed Zoomer over whether the founders of the Presbyterian Church in America were wise to leave the mainline Presbyterian Church in 1973. Before evaluating Dr. Everhard's argument, I want to establish the biblical framework by which we should evaluate these questions. What is the Christian faith? What does Scripture teach about sin, salvation, and the righteousness of God? And what does it mean for a church to remain faithful to the gospel? Working through Romans 1–3, I consider the universal sinfulness of humanity, our need for Christ's righteousness, and justification by faith alone. From there, I examine several of the issues raised in Dr. Everhard's opening statement: • The Lord's Supper: Why does Scripture require the church to take the holiness of God and the discipline of the table seriously? • Church discipline and the constitution: What happens when a denomination's constitutional provisions appear to conflict with biblical teaching? • Lawsuits over church property: How should we understand Paul's prohibition against believers bringing civil disputes against one another, especially when congregations seek to leave a denomination? • Ordination and the deity of Christ: What does it mean when a denomination appears to tolerate the denial of Christ's deity while restricting those who hold a complementarian view of church leadership? • The vows we take for our children: Why is the church in which we raise our children a matter of Christian faithfulness, rather than merely an emotional preference? Throughout this discussion, I want to be clear: I am not claiming that every congregation or individual within the PC(USA) is outside the Christian faith. I recognize that there are faithful Christians within that denomination, and that leaving can carry profound personal, spiritual, and financial costs. The question, however, is whether the denomination's institutional commitments remain faithful to Scripture—and whether those commitments can justify separation. What do you think? Do the examples discussed in this episode strike at the vitals of religion? And if a denomination tolerates teaching that contradicts the essentials of the Christian faith, is separation justified? Leave your thoughts in the comments. Subscribe to Weighed in the Balance, the show where we examine to see if claims can hold up to scrutiny. Support the show Do you think this claim is found wanting? Let us know on social!!  Click here to find us everywhere!!

    Does the PC(USA) Still Teach the Christian Faith? | Everhard vs. Redeemed Zoomer

  2. Oct 13

    Christian Discourse Has a Problem

    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!!

    Christian Discourse Has a Problem

  3. Oct 6

    Was the PCA Right to Leave the PCUS? | Schism & the 1973 Split

    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!!

    Was the PCA Right to Leave the PCUS? | Schism & the 1973 Split

  4. Sep 22

    Cameron Bertuzzi's Argument Fails

    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!!

    Cameron Bertuzzi's Argument Fails

  5. Sep 17

    Turretin’s Argument for the Perspicuity of Scripture (We Finally Got to It!)

    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!!

  6. Sep 15

    This "Protestant Dilemma" Doesn't Work

    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!!

    This "Protestant Dilemma" Doesn't Work

  7. Sep 8

    Are Unitarians Christians? Responding to the "Biblical Unitarian" Argument

    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!!

    Are Unitarians Christians? Responding to the "Biblical Unitarian" Argument

  8. Aug 25

    "Biblical Unitarianism" vs. the Trinity: What Does Scripture Actually Teach?

    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!!

    "Biblical Unitarianism" vs. the Trinity: What Does Scripture Actually Teach?
See All (86)

About

Weighed in the Balance, the show where we weigh claims against scripture and see if they hold up, of if they fall flat. 

Information

  • Creator
    Jonathan Brooks & Co
  • Years Active
    2025 - 2026
  • Episodes
    86
  • Rating
    Clean
  • Copyright
    © 2026 Weighed in the Balance
  • Show Website
    Weighed in the Balance

You Might Also Like