Send us a text

Catholic 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=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

In 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 show

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

Click here to find us everywhere!!

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!!