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!!

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!!