#25 Artificially Intelligent Theologians and Debate

There is something about the present moment in online theological discourse that should trouble anyone who cares about truth. The internet has always been a breeding ground for unmerited confidence untethered from accountability, but the rise of AI has taken the problem to a new level entirely. Any man with a browser and a low moral compass can now generate what looks like a carefully researched theological argument in seconds — without having spent any time in the Scriptures, having read a single primary source, and without ever having to look another person in the eye and defend what he claims to believe.

The keyboard warrior was already a long‑standing presence on social media before AI arrived. But now he has access to instant rebuttals in his pocket. He can prompt a machine to do his thinking and to seem as if he has actually opened his Bible in the past month. The lies will be more polished and his errors will reach more readers due to the arguments appearing more plausible. And the men spreading them will be no more accountable than they were before — because accountability is precisely what they are trying to avoid.

Though what they need is repentance, maybe we can do something to expose their deceit.

——————————

“Be Ready Always”

The Apostle Peter says: “But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear” — 1 Peter 3:15. The Greek word rendered “answer” is apologia — a formal defense, a reasoned account given under scrutiny.

The principle is simple: if you have the courage to speak the truth, you must have the courage to defend the truth. To assert without being willing to answer is not boldness — it is cowardice dressed in theological vocabulary.

——————————

A Practice Worth Recovering

The formal theological debate is not a novelty; it is one of Christianity’s oldest and most productive tools in bringing out the false teachers’ inconsistencies.

Going back only to the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, we can see this practice flourish in American church life. James Robinson Graves (1820–1893), one of the most influential theological voices of his generation, was celebrated as one of the ablest debaters of his era — a man who did not merely write his convictions but took them to the floor. Ben Marcus Bogard (1868–1951) stands as perhaps the most prolific public debater in American church history, having engaged in some 237 formal debates. Who can count all the brave Christians who stood before opponents of the gospel, defending the truth before large crowds? To name only a few: B. H. Carroll, T. T. Eaton, Abel Morgan, J. N. Hall, D. B. Ray, H. Boyce Taylor, and many others.

What made these debates valuable was their structure. Propositions were agreed upon in advance, each man was given equal time to affirm and cross-examine, a moderator kept the proceedings fair, and the transcript was published. Many historic Christians also conducted debates by correspondence — and in either format, there was no question of whether it was them actually doing the thinking.

——————————

The Barriers Are Gone

The coming wave of AI-assisted theological controversy makes the recovery of this practice urgent, not optional.

Readers should pay no further attention to someone who isn’t willing to study the Bible and give an answer for what they claim to believe.

In the present day, obstacles that once made public debate difficult have largely disappeared. A man does not need to travel across the country to debate his opponent. Anyone with a smartphone can conduct a recorded, live video discussion with anyone else in the world — for free. There is no financial barrier. There is no geographical barrier. If a man has the confidence to publish a theological claim to thousands of followers, he has everything he needs to sit down in front of a camera, invite his sharpest critic, and defend it. The day of mean-spirited claims written by a computer and passed off as one’s own scholarship — hurled from behind a screen with no accountability — should be over. The technology for real dialogue is already in everyone’s pocket.

A shepherd who won’t fight the lions has no business leading the lambs.

Even between brethren, “Iron sharpeneth iron; so a man sharpeneth the countenance of his friend”. — Proverbs 27:17

——————————

A Call to Accountability

Churches, associations, and theological institutions should recover the moderated public debate as a regular instrument of doctrinal clarity. In addition, it seems like a better investment of an afternoon than most of what already fills our calendars.

Those who are willing to generate theological controversy from behind a keyboard should be invited — courteously, formally, and publicly — to defend their positions before a camera and a capable opponent. Many will decline. That declination is itself an answer. Those who accept will either be sharpened or corrected, and in either case, those involved will benefit.

The practice is ancient. The need is urgent. The age of the AI theologian makes it all the more necessary.

A final word of personal honesty: I am not a trained debater and I have no experience on a public platform of this kind. But it would be the height of hypocrisy to call others to accountability while exempting myself from it, and I am convinced enough of the principle to be bound by it myself. If someone wishes to challenge what I have written here or elsewhere on this site, the invitation is open.

“Holding fast the faithful word as he hath been taught, that he may be able by sound doctrine both to exhort and to convince the gainsayers.”— Titus 1:9