Rhett & Link FAIL to Understand THIS! | Pastor Reacts

If you're on the inside and you believe and you have faith, that totally makes sense. And having faith is kind of the way to perpetuate the belief.

But once you get on the outside, a question like why do you need so much evidence to believe something seems nonsensical.

My challenge to you is that I can show you that this isn't worth having faith in. Rhett has not accurately characterized the biblical view of faith.

And he has not accurately characterized the Christian view of evidence. The only reason it sounds logical is because it's been framed all wrong.

If Rhett is right, why did Jesus perform miracles in the first place? It's because he's not right. Rhett and Link, who are well -known by many and beloved,

I suppose, have made waves for coming out as having deconverted from their Christian faith recently. Rhett in particular has become a great spokesperson for deconstruction, especially on his

TikTok and things. And he seems to present himself as logical and careful in his thinking. But then they both go on their podcast and they make this video that we're gonna look at, and they talk about faith and evidence according to the

Bible, and it's a huge flop. Do they even understand faith and evidence? Let's get into the discussion and react to it.

If you're brand new here, welcome. My name is Nate, and this is Wise Disciple, where I'm helping you become the effective Christian that you were meant to be.

Don't forget to like and subscribe to the channel because many of you who watch my videos have not yet subscribed. Also, if this video blesses you, would you do me a favor and share it with someone else?

Let's all get on the same page when it comes to engaging the culture for Christ, amen? Finally, check out the awesome discounts we're running at logos .com

forward slash wise disciple. I've partnered with Logos because it is the Bible software that I use to study the

Bible, and it's a game changer for the student of scripture. The link for the account in Logos is below.

And I've come to a conclusion that influence has a lot to do with your belief. As a Christian, my question is, what main thing pushed you over the edge to walk away?

Also, why do you need so much evidence to believe something? It's a good question, Jacob. So we've already talked plenty about what pushes us over the edge.

I'm not gonna get back into that. We've kind of told our story multiple times. I agree with you, as I explained last week, that I do believe that influence has a lot to do with your belief.

And when I say your, I mean your belief, and our belief, and everyone else's belief. We are a product of our environments.

But the thing that's really interesting to me is this, why do you need so much evidence to believe something? This is a good question, because a lot of people ask me, why do you think about this so much?

Like, what role does faith play in the equation for you? Because isn't like the point of this thing, in fact,

Jesus, you know, in the Gospels, Jesus comes to Thomas, famous for doubting.

It's pretty cool. And the disciples tell Thomas, they say, you know, the Lord has risen.

And he's like, well, I ain't gonna believe it until I see it, and I can place my hand in his side, and see the holes in his hands. And then

Jesus comes in, through the wall, by the way, through the wall, we're talking Copperfield's kind of stuff.

And maybe David Blaine. He comes into the room, and then Thomas sees him, and he believes.

And then Jesus says, you know, you have seen because I proved it to you. Blessed are those who do not see, but yet believe.

So it's interesting that that Gospel ends with this sort of warning, don't demand evidence.

Believe, believe without seeing, right? So I actually really appreciate the opportunity to get into the

Word. I hear a biblical example that is meant to support Rhett's understanding of what Christian faith really is, what evidence really is, and he appeals to the encounter of doubting

Thomas meeting Jesus after the resurrection. The reason I appreciate this kind of a conversation is because not a lot of conversations from skeptics and atheists track along these lines, at least not in my experience.

So I want to commend Rhett for doing this, for bringing the Scripture into the discussion. So let's actually go to the

Scripture, because what it sounds like is, the story of doubting Thomas shows us that faith is meant to be understood as believing without evidence.

John chapter 20, verse 24 says this. Now Thomas, one of the 12, called the twin, was not with them when

Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, we have seen the Lord. But he said to them, unless I see in his hands the mark of the nails and place my finger into the mark of the nails and place my hand into his side,

I will never believe. So at this point, Jesus has died, he's resurrected, and he has already appeared to some of the other disciples, but not

Thomas, not yet. Verse 26, eight days later, his disciples were inside again and Thomas was with them.

Although the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, peace be with you. Then he said to Thomas, put your finger here and see my hands and put out your hand and place it in my side.

Do not disbelieve, but believe. Thomas answered him, my Lord and my God. Jesus said to him, have you believed because you have seen me?

Blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed. Now, the question is, what did

Jesus mean right there? Right? What does it mean that those who believe without seeing

Jesus the way that Thomas did will be blessed? Remember, Red is answering a question about evidence.

Somebody asked him, why do you need so much evidence in order to believe? Then Red brings up this story. And he suggests that this story is meant to give a warning, believe without evidence.

As a matter of fact, don't even ask for evidence. Is that what this story is really teaching though? I'm gonna let him finish his thought and then we'll come back to this in just a moment.

Hebrew says faith is evidence of things not seen, right? Okay, so he brought up another scripture.

Okay, we're going really fast, but let's, he talked about Hebrews, let's go there. Hebrews chapter 11, verse one.

Now, faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. For by it, the people of old received their commendation.

Okay, so look there. Faith means believing without any evidence. Is that what Hebrews is actually saying though?

Or does Red not understand what the Bible is teaching? Actually, what do you think? So before we go any further, because I'm gonna give you my answer, what do you think?

Let me know in the comments below. We'll take a closer look at these passages in just a moment. This is quite a predicament, right?

Because yes, if you, like the resurrection, the resurrection is such an interesting thing because it's the linchpin of the whole Christian faith. Paul himself said that if Jesus is not risen, then we're fools, we are fools, right?

And so a lot of Christian apologetics starts with trying to prove the resurrection. If you can get the resurrection established, everything else falls into place.

But the interesting thing about the resurrection is I find all these debates about the resurrection, the historicity of the resurrection, and examining the evidences of the resurrection, and whether or not the resurrection is actually the best explanation for the start of Christianity.

And people talk about this ad nauseum, and I listen to all of it. I find it really interesting, because I'm like, this is 2024, we have access to everything that's ever been written about this.

I can go down into my gym and start working out and listen to these guys talk about this, but I am in the very, very, very, very tiny, tiny, tiny, small minority of people who've ever had access to this information.

The whole time the gospel has been in circulation, right? So basically right after the purported event of Jesus' resurrection and whatever actually happened, up until literally like the 1900s, no one was like, give me the evidence for the resurrection.

You just were told that Jesus rose from the dead, and you had the opportunity to place faith in that idea, right?

You'd be like, what's the scholarly consensus on this? I don't know, scholars? You know, like half the people couldn't read.

So Rhett just said nobody until the 1900s ever asked for evidence of the resurrection. Except, wait a minute, didn't we just read about doubting

Thomas who literally asked for evidence of the resurrection? Isn't that literally what Rhett just appealed to a moment ago?

Also, what is that statement even supposed to show, right? Nobody ever asked for evidence of the resurrection until the 1900s.

If Rhett means physical evidence, of course nobody would ask for it since the resurrection itself took place 2000 years ago.

Like, what does that even mean? What evidence is he looking for? What counts is the eyewitness testimony of the apostles who were there on the ground, and that's always been present in not only the

Bible, but the early church. This appeal to the apostles' eyewitness testimony, and to many of them suffering torture and death because of their eyewitness testimony.

We Christians count that as evidence. What does Rhett count that as? I agree that faith must be the mechanism, if this is all true, faith is the mechanism by which it happens, right?

It is a faith decision. It's not like a, I need to analyze the evidence. But interestingly, we don't live in that time anymore.

We do live in a time where we can examine a bunch of different evidence. And so then the question... Again, we don't live in that time.

You mean 2000 years ago when all this went down? Okay, so what's the point?

If we don't live in that time now, then doesn't this just go to show that the way you should evaluate whether or not

Jesus actually rose from the dead has less to do with what you can measure inside a laboratory with what could have survived thousands of years later and then measured in a lab?

And more to do with eyewitness testimony? And perhaps an inference based on a cumulative case of certain kinds of arguments that surround that event?

I don't know. It's misleading to talk this way, as if the physical evidence could easily survive two millennia.

And because now that we can assess evidence with our super advanced forensics and crime labs, well, simply pointing out that we have this kind of new way of assessing information and evidence, that means that there's no good reason to believe in the resurrection?

I don't see how that, I don't see how one follows from the other. This is not a complete argument.

And that doesn't take into consideration the actual endeavor of determining what happened in history 2000 years ago in Jerusalem.

It becomes, well, what do I have faith in, right? So you remember those guys, the Mormons that came to our dorm, our apartment.

And interestingly, when I went on summer projects or something, and you ended up meeting with them multiple times, which I found very interesting. But in the meantime,

I had written this, I've still got a copy of it. And it's like a handy dandy guide to talking to your

Mormon friends, right? Because from the evangelical standpoint, Mormonism is a false religion, right?

They're not Christians, according to evangelicals, right? And according to Catholics and according to Eastern Orthodox and basically any traditional

Christian. I mean, shoot, even Jehovah's Witnesses don't believe Mormons are Christians. Like what is, so we're just talking about evangelicals here?

I'm not sure why they're being singled out only. Because they believe in this other revelation. They believe in Joseph Smith and what happened with him in the 1800s and him writing the

Book of Mormon and then Jesus coming over and being with the Native Americans and there's another tribe and all this stuff.

These events that happened in relatively recent history. And sort of a Mormon might say,

I have faith that those things happen. I have faith that Joseph Smith was a prophet. I have faith that the Book of Mormon is true and that this is the final and greatest revelation.

And then the Christian would be like, well, how does the Christian challenge the faith of the Mormon? How does the evangelical

Christian challenge the faith of the Mormon? They do it through forensics. And they do, you know, the cool, the interesting thing about it is that the events -

They demand evidence. The events that happened to bring about the Mormon church were very, very recent. And you can kind of look at them in a way that you can't look at the stuff that happened 2000 years ago.

It's a different type, it's a different time, right? It happened in fricking America, you know? This is really imprecise.

In the parallel that he's trying to make here. Like, what would be the exact parallel?

I'm not even sure I'm following this. Did Joseph Smith claim to perform miracles? Did Joseph Smith claim to have been resurrected from the dead after he had been tortured and killed on a cross?

What are we supposed to assess with regard to Mormonism that runs parallel to the resurrection? This is a mess.

What we do with the Mormon claims is evaluate them in the same way and with the same criteria that Christianity can be evaluated.

You assess religious claims, you pay attention to the eyewitness testimony on the ground, you see whether it coheres with previous revelation, and you make an inference to the best explanation for all of these things.

Like, if you're looking at that critically. It's interesting because my friend, J. Werner Wallace, who was a cold case homicide detective and an atheist, he started looking into Christianity, but he also started looking into Mormonism too, like at the same time.

He did so purely as a good cold case homicide detective would he evaluated the evidence that is available at this point in time, which does not include

DNA or physical evidence that can be measured in a laboratory. But that wasn't a problem with J.

because he's used to investigating crimes where the case went cold. And he would still find the killer, and he would still be able to throw them in jail.

Why? Because even in cold cases, there's still enough evidence to convict. And the methodology tracks along the way that we assess the historicity of the resurrection.

And by the way, J. discovered that Mormonism had too many problems with it. And he did so by using the same criteria to evaluate

Christianity at the same time. If you ask him, he would tell you the day that he became a

Christian is the day that he rejected Mormonism because he was looking into both. But you see this kind of evidence that I'm appealing to now has nothing to do with measuring blood samples in the lab or determining the time of death on a corpse, right?

But there's still evidence that you can use to evaluate these religions. So, Rhett is just way off in his comments here.

Hey, real quick. I'm so grateful that you're watching. If I've earned the right to get your sub, I'd love it if you would just click the like and subscribe button.

It would really help me to get the video out to more and more people. I really do appreciate you. You know, at the time

I read all the apologetics about that kind of deconstructed Mormon belief. And that was my perspective as an evangelical.

I was like, well, you can say that you have faith in this. You can say that you have a burning in the bosom is what they would say. But my challenge to you is that I can show you that this isn't worth having faith in, right?

And so that's how you would analyze another faith. And I think that if you turn that level of scrutiny onto the

Christian faith, it's a different process. It's not as easy. But I think that the result ends up being the same.

So while I do think that in this, if you're on the inside and you believe and you have faith, that totally makes sense.

And having faith is kind of the way to perpetuate the belief. But once you get on the outside, a question like, why do you need so much evidence to believe something seems nonsensical.

Because I would be like, well, because how am I supposed to know what the truth is? This is so fascinating to me.

As someone who is a Christian and has taught the Bible and has been a pastor, because the way this whole thing has been framed from the very beginning.

And if you see my debate videos, you know what I mean by framing. It's just so misleading. It's completely unhelpful.

So it's one thing to be on a journey of seeking truth and walking down that path and being brutally honest about what you're discovering.

And many people deconstruct in the name of this brutally honest journey of seeking truth, wherever it leads.

But for genuine truth seekers, and I'm not gonna, so I'm not gonna ascribe motive to Rhett.

I take him at face value that what he's saying is 100 % accurate about himself, okay? But for genuine truth seekers, at some point they should be able to accurately characterize the true beliefs of those that they are evaluating.

I call this passing the intellectual Turing test. You should be able to characterize the view of somebody else in a manner that would actually fool them into thinking that you agree with them.

Which by the way, works for you on the debate stage, okay? So genuine seekers of truth, they're not dealing with straw men.

They're trying to get it right. And then they critique. Rhett has not accurately characterized the biblical view of faith.

And he has not accurately characterized the Christian view of evidence, particularly evidence for the resurrection of Jesus.

I don't know why, but he's failed to do this. And he's framed the discussion in a way that sounds very logical.

Like if you're on his side of the religious fence, this sounds like it makes sense, it's very logical.

But I propose to you that the only reason it sounds logical is because it's been framed all wrong. So I'm gonna let him finish his thought, and then

I'll show you how the Bible characterizes faith in evidence. How do you know what you're supposed to have faith in? Why are you not a

Mormon? Why do you not believe that Joseph Smith said that he was a prophet of God?

Why don't you believe him, Jacob? You know, not to call you out, but you asked the question. Do you have a reason why you don't believe that Joseph Smith is a prophet?

And so why don't you just have faith? You see where we're getting with that? And so I think the reason

I need evidence to believe something is because I don't know of a better way to orient my life now.

On top of that. I like that line there. I like that line at the end there. The reason

I need evidence to believe something is because I don't know, how do you say it? I don't know of a better way to orient my life.

That's good. I actually agree with that. I think that's a good principle to have, which is interesting because here

I am, a Christian saying that, but wait a second, if Rhett is correct about Christianity, I should be protesting profusely right now, right?

I should be up in arms saying, of course evidence is not necessary. I should be upset with Rhett for saying that evidence is important, but that's not my view.

You want to know why? That's not the Bible's view either. Rhett pointed to the story of doubting

Thomas in the gospel, but what really happened in that story? Thomas doubted, sure, but what did

Jesus do in response? If Rhett is correct and faith without evidence is what matters, then why did

Jesus go to the trouble of appearing to Thomas and then tell him to touch his side in his hands? Again, back to John 20, verse 27, put your finger here,

Thomas, and see my hands. Put out your hand and place it in my side. Do not disbelieve, but believe.

Why would Jesus do that? Why would he even appear to the apostles at all after he resurrected? The Bible says that he appeared to them on multiple occasions.

One time in John chapter 21, he appeared to them and cooked them breakfast and ate food with them.

Why do that if what matters to Jesus is that people believe with no evidence? It's because that's not true.

The very fact that Jesus appears to the disciples is evidence that he rose from the dead. The holes in his hands, the holes in his side, right, is evidence that he rose from the dead.

These disciples of Jesus then went and told everyone of what they had seen and witnessed with their own eyes that Jesus rose from the dead.

Their eyewitness testimony is evidence that he rose. All of it is evidence.

As a matter of fact, the only reason why the apostle John wrote his gospel was to provide evidence so that people would believe in Jesus, and you would know that if you just keep reading the story.

Directly underneath the story of doubting Thomas, this is what John says in verse 30. Now, Jesus did many other signs in the presence of the disciples, which are not written in this book, but these are written so that you may believe that Jesus is the

Christ, the Son of God, and that by believing, you may have life in his name. What are the signs that John is referring to, the signs that Jesus did?

It's the miracles. The miracles that he performed, John called those signs.

Another word for that is evidence. They are signs, they are evidence that Jesus is who he claimed to be, and John wrote down all of these things so that you and I may believe in Jesus.

Believe based on what, though? Right, the signs. The evidence of the miracles that John records for us based on his and the disciples' own eyewitness testimony.

That means that faith is not belief with no evidence. The Bible shows us that it's impossible to have no evidence for God's existence, by the way.

So if you go to, right, the apostle Paul says it like this. Romans chapter one, verse 18, "'For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven "'against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men "'who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth.

"'For what can be known about God is plain to them "'because God has shown it to them.

"'For his invisible attributes, "'namely his eternal power and divine nature, "'have been clearly perceived "'ever since the creation of the world "'in the things that have been made, in what was created.

"'So they are without excuse.' Apparently, the Bible says there is no such scenario where people have no evidence for God.

The Bible says the evidence is everywhere. That means when someone places faith in Jesus Christ and in his resurrection from the dead, they're not doing it from a place of having no evidence.

We already begin with having the evidence of God's existence all around us. That's how the

Bible characterizes faith and evidence. Oh, but Rhett says, well, wait a second, Hebrews 11 shows us that faith is based on no evidence.

Really? Hebrews 11 .1, now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Look closer, ladies and gentlemen. This is not a definition of faith. This is a description of what faith does.

There's a difference. When someone has faith, like the faith described in the

Bible, the product of this faith is assurance. The product of this faith is conviction.

In other words, someone who has biblical faith proves that they believe in what is unseen.

The way they live their lives in obedience to God demonstrates that they have biblical faith.

That's why if you just keep reading Hebrews 11 here, you are given example after example of folks who had this kind of biblical faith.

Guess how they proved it? In the way they obeyed God, no matter what. That's what Hebrews 11 .1

is teaching. It's not a definition of faith. As a matter of fact, if Rhett is right about Christianity, why did

Jesus perform miracles at all? Why not just show up on day one in the first century, tell a bunch of people, right, believe in me, and that's it.

If Rhett is right, why did Jesus perform miracles in the first place? It's because he's not right. John tells us why.

It's so that we would believe based on the evidence. Obviously, we were not there.

It was 2 ,000 years ago. But we trust God's word, and we trust the reliability of the eyewitness testimony of those who walked with Jesus in the first century.

And we trust the evidence all around us of a creator who made the universe in the first place.

Such that when John says that in the beginning was the word, and by this word, all things were created, we don't say, wait a second, what is statement based on no evidence?

That's not what we say. No, we look around and we say, yes, the world is already evidence that a creator exists.

Now we know this creator because he has revealed himself to us in the person and work of Jesus Christ.

Well, that was quite a mess. And, you know, I don't know, I'm concerned for those who would watch

Rhett and Link, and then just think that they understand these biblical concepts, because if they're basing it off what

Rhett just said here, they don't understand faith, and they don't understand evidence at all. They have an incorrect understanding of what the

Bible is talking about when it talks about these things. Well, now it's your turn. What do you think?

Do Rhett and Link have an accurate view of faith and evidence? Let me know in the comments below. I am curious to get your take.

You know, Rhett and Link are, they're still on a journey, okay? Let's pray that they don't stop questioning.

Even their own doubts, they should be questioning. Let's pray that they continually seek the truth.

Genuinely, because I'm confident that if they truly make that their sole pursuit, they'll enter the kingdom of heaven, along with you and me, amen?

Well, if you made it this far, you definitely should join my Patreon community, even just to read the Bible with me.

We're doing one over there. It's totally for free to join me with that. If you want to financially support me, which is how

I make these videos in the first place, you can get exclusive access to videos on the Patreon, like this one, before it goes to YouTube.

You can join me for exclusive live streams and ask me anything you want. The link for the Patreon is below.