Apologetics for the Masses #511 - Chat GPT vs. a Catholic Apologist

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter

Topic

Who has the strongest historical argument - The Catholic Church of Christ or the Campbellite Church of Christ?

General Comments

Well, we've had a couple hundred or so folks join the new Facebook page - Questions Protestants Can't Answer - that I mentioned in the newsletter last week. Had a few Protestants join so far. Come and take a look if you haven't yet.

Introduction

One of the subscribers to this newsletter took the last issue - where I compared the Catholic Church of Christ and the Campbellite Church of Christ to the Church of Christ as found in the Bible - and ran it through Chat GPT to get an AI perspective on the comparison. While I agree with the ultimate conclusion Chat GPT came to, regarding the historical claims of the Catholic Church of Christ vis-a-vis the Campbellite Church of Christ, I have to strongly disagree with some of its other conclusions and its "logic," such as it is. It seems AI is not immune to contradicting itself, and to bad logic, in general.

So, below is what Chat GPT had to say about things, with my comments interspersed.

Challenge/Response/Strategy

Comparing the Catholic Church of Christ and the Campbellite Church of Christ with the Church of Christ in the Bible

Chat GPT
When evaluating who has the strongest historical argument—the Catholic Church or the Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement)—we need to consider how closely each aligns with the historical record of early Christianity. Here’s a breakdown:

The Catholic Church: Strong Historical Continuity

Strengths:
1) Documented Apostolic Succession: The Catholic Church traces its leadership back to the apostles, particularly Peter, with an unbroken line of bishops of Rome (popes).

2) Historical Writings: Early Church Fathers (e.g., Ignatius of Antioch, Irenaeus, Clement of Rome) in the first and second centuries mention bishops, the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, and the authority of Rome—elements still central in Catholicism.

3) Councils and Creeds: Councils like Nicaea (325 AD) and Chalcedon (451 AD) shaped Christian doctrine and were led by bishops in communion with Rome.

4) Preserved Doctrine: Many Catholic teachings (e.g., sacraments, veneration of saints, apostolic tradition) appear in early Christian writings long before any significant doctrinal divergence.

My Comments
I agree with all four of these "strengths"; however, I would tweak them just a bit. For Strength #1 - "Documented Apostolic Succession" - I would strengthen the "Documented" part of that by adding the descriptor: "Historically". "Historically Documented Apostolic Succession." It cannot be emphasized too strongly, particularly with Protestants - such as the Campbellite Church of Christ - that the Apostolic Succession we claim in the Catholic Church is found in historical documents that anyone and his brother can go and read for themselves. It's not just a claim we make up out of thin air, we have the evidence to back up the claim. And then Strength #2 bolsters that claim a bit more.

Regarding Strength #2 - "Historical Writings" - I would add to that by saying all of the historical writings we have of early Christianity point squarely to the Catholic Church as THE Christian church of those early centuries. There is no "Historical Writing" from the early centuries of Christianity that one can read which would cause them to think: "Oh, that sounds like a description of the Campbellite Church of Christ." And I would say that "bishops, the Eucharist, baptismal regeneration, the authority of Rome, [and others]," are elements mentioned in these historical writings that have been central in Christianity (i.e., Catholicism) for 2000 years.

Strength #3 - Councils and Creeds. I would add the Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.) and the Council of Ephesus (431 A.D.) "and others" in addition to Nicaea and Chalcedon to highlight the fact that there were indeed several early councils, all of which were made up of Catholic bishops, that helped to preserve and develop Christian teaching on such central issues as the Trinity, the Divinity of Christ, and so on.

Now, about Strength #4 - "Preserved Doctrine" - I have a major issue with what Chat GPT says here - "doctrinal divergence"?! Is it saying that the Catholic Church diverged from the original doctrines of Christianity at some point in its history? In other words, the Catholic Church "preserved doctrine" - uniquely Catholic Christian doctrine (vis-a-vis Protestant doctrine) - from the 1st century down to this day, but then it also diverged from doctrine? What doctrine did it supposedly "diverge" from? This is what I was talking about when I said above that Chat GPT isn't immune to contradicting itself. How can "Preserved Doctrine" be a "strength" in the Catholic Church's favor if you then claim that it eventually "diverged" from doctrine? That makes no sense whatsoever. Someone needs to program a little more logic into the Chat GPT software.

Finally, I would have added at least one more strength - "Compiled the Bible". It was the Catholic Church that put together the Bible as we have it today. It was the Catholic Church that provided the authentic, and infallible, testimony as to which books are, and are not, the inspired, inerrant, Word of God. Not making mention of that is a failure of Chat GPT.

Chat GPT
Limitations:
1) Over centuries, Catholic theology became more complex and institutional, leading some to argue that it departed from the simplicity of the New Testament church.

My Comments
What does that mean - "more complex and institutional"? In what way has Catholic theology gotten "more complex"? Does that mean that the deeper you dive into the mysteries of God and His teachings, that it adds a layer or two or three of "complexity" to Christian theology? That's like saying, "Well, over the centuries, mathematics became more complex as it went from simple arithmetic and geometry to calculus. So, it departed from the simplicity of origins." As if that's a bad thing?

Or, is it implying that the Protestant dogma of Sola Fide is indeed true, and that the Catholic Church made its theology more "complex" by saying works - such as the Sacraments, keeping the Commandments, forgiving others of their sins, caring for the poor, etc. - were a necessary part of the process of salvation? In which case Chat GPT would need some major reprogramming to make it a bit more sensible...and biblical.

And what does it mean that Catholic theology became more "institutional"? Does that mean that the "institutional" Church guarded the Deposit of Faith against the "simplicity" of each and every person who can read picking up a Bible and deciding for themselves what is or is not authentic Christian teaching and practice?

And what's with, "...leading some to argue that it departed from the simplicity of the New Testament church?" "Some?" Who are "some"? "Some" who believe in the false dogma of Sola Scriptura? "Some" who believe in the false dogma of Sola Fide? What authority do "some" have to judge this particular issue? Sorry, but this "limitation" is not a limitation of the Catholic Church, it is a limitation of Chat GPT

Chat GPT

Churches of Christ (Restoration Movement): Restorationist Approach [aka the Campbellite Church of Christ]

Strengths:
1) Commitment to New Testament Christianity: The movement, begun in the early 1800s by Barton W. Stone and the Campbells, aimed to restore the doctrine and practice of the original church as described in Scripture.

2) Rejection of Extra-Biblical Traditions: They focused on returning to practices found explicitly in the Bible—weekly communion, baptism by immersion, and congregational autonomy.

3) Biblical Literacy: Strong emphasis on individual Bible study and authority of Scripture.

My Comments
This was not a good moment for Chat GPT. Strength #1 - "Commitment to New Testament Christianity". Sorry, but the Campbellite Church of Christ (CCoC) is not committed to New Testament Christianity; rather, it is committed to what it thinks New Testament Christianity was, based on the fallible interpretations of Scripture of its all too human founders - the Campbells - 1800 years after the fact. The CCoC completely ignores any Christian literature from the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th century - or any other century for that matter - that is not part of the Bible and from which one can draw information as to what "New Testament Christianity" was actually like. Furthermore, the Catholic Church also has a "Commitment to New Testament Christianity", which is why it zealously guards the Deposit of Faith and which is why, as Chat GPT itself stated, it "Preserved Doctrine". Doesn't preserving doctrine from the 1st century of Christianity show more of a "Commitment to New Testament Christianity" than does a commitment to what one "thinks" New Testament Christianity looked like 1800 years later?

So-called Strength #2 - "Rejection of Extra-Biblical Traditions". Chat GPT says the CCoC "focused on returning to practices found explicitly in the Bible—weekly communion, baptism by immersion, and congregational autonomy." First of all, where, oh where, are those specific practices - weekly communion, baptism by immersion, and congregational autonomy - found "explicity" in the Bible? They're not. Chat GPT got that wrong. Secondly, where does it say in the Bible, that Christians should believe and practice only that which is found "explicitly in the Bible"? Give me book, chapter, and verse, Mr. Chat GPT. It can't, because that belief is not found explicitly in the Bible. So, again, Chat GPT has a bit of a logic problem here. It's obviously using Protestant theology to make such a statement, and thus it has resulted in what Protestant theology always results in - a contradiction.

Strength #3 - "Biblical Literacy". Chat GPT says the Campbellite Church of Christ has a "Strong emphasis on individual Bible study and authority of Scripture." That they do. However, how does that argue in their favor that they are like the church of the 1st century? Does the Bible say that the Christians of the 1st century church had a "strong emphasis on individual Bible study and the authority of Scripture"? In Acts 2:42, it says the early Christians "devoted themselves to the Apostles' teaching and fellowship, to the breaking of bread, and to the prayers. Nowhere does it say they devoted themselves to individual Bible study and the authority of Scripture.

Also, what if your "Biblical Literacy" was based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of biblical interpretation? Where does the Bible say that each individual reading the Bible on their own, should interpret for themselves - answering to no authority outside of themselves - what is or is not authentic Christian doctrine and practice? Where does the Bible say that each Christian reading and interpreting the Bible for themselves is an authority unto themselves in regard to deciding what is and is not authentic Christian teaching and practice? What if, by rejecting Sacred Tradition, the CCoC is essentially rejecting the context within which to properly understand Sacred Scripture? What if, by rejecting Sacred Tradition, the CCoC is essentially rejecting the canvas upon which Sacred Scripture is painted? Could they still be considered to be biblically literate no matter how much they studied the Bible? I think not. Again, Chat GPT has failed in its analysis.

Chat GPT

Limitations:
1) Historical Discontinuity: The Churches of Christ do not claim unbroken succession from the apostles. Their roots are in a 19th-century American movement, not the early church.

2) Selective Restoration: Their model reflects an interpretation of the New Testament, but doesn’t match the historical structure or liturgy found in second- or third-century Christianity.

3) Lack of Writings from Early Christianity: Their ecclesiology (structure of the church) and views on tradition are difficult to trace in early historical sources.

My Comments
Notice how Limitation #2 directly contradicts Strength #1? In Limitation #2, Chat GPT acknowledges that the Campbellite Church of Christ "reflects" an interpretation of the New Testament as opposed to actual historical Christianity. Yet, in Strength #1, it claims the CCoC has a commitment to "New Testament Christianity". No. It has a commitment to its interpretation, 1800 years after the fact, of what New Testament Christianity was.

Limitation #2 also contradicts Strength #2. How can you say the CCoC rejects "Extra-Biblical Traditions" when what they consider biblical vs. extra-biblical is based solely on someone's private interpretation of the Bible? Is the Real Presence a biblical or extra-biblical tradition? Depends on your interpretation. Is regenerative Baptism biblical or extra-biblical? Depends on your interpretation. Is confession to a priest biblical or extra-biblical? Depends on your interpretation.

Finally, Limitation #2 contradicts Strength #3, as well. How can you say they have a "strong emphasis" on the "authority of Scripture" when what they think Scripture teaches is based solely on someone's private interpretation of the Bible? Chat GPT should instead have said that the CCoC has a "strong emphasis" on the authority of their private interpretations of Scripture. Which should be in the "Limitations" column as opposed to the "Strengths" column.

All-in-all, Chat GPT totally screwed up in terms of the "Strengths" of the Campbellite Church of Christ and, once again, turns out to have contradicted itself.

Chat GPT

Conclusion:
Historically, the Catholic Church has the stronger argument in terms of continuity, early documentation, and apostolic succession. It can show a clear, traceable development from the early centuries of Christianity, supported by extensive historical writings and councils.

The Churches of Christ, while sincere in their desire to imitate the New Testament church, base their identity on restoration rather than continuity. Their argument is stronger theologically or biblically (from a sola scriptura view), not historically.

My Comments
Well, at least Chat GPT got the right conclusion in regards to the historical argument. However, to say that the Campbellite Church of Christ has the stronger biblical or theological argument, even from a "sola scriptura view", is an absolute joke. Chat GPT recognizes that the CCoC bases its theology on private interpretation of the Bible, and that it has no historical connection whatsoever with the original Church of Christ; yet, apparently doesn't recognize that those facts pretty much disqualify any argument that the CCoC has the stronger theological and biblical argument. It doesn't matter how "sincere in their desire" they are. Once again, Chat GPT essentially contradicts itself...and fails in its analysis. My job is safe.

Closing Comments

Please keep the Bible Christian Society in your prayers. We keep you and yours in ours daily.

Donations

The Bible Christian Society is a non-profit organization that relies solely on your support to bring the truths of the Catholic Faith to tens of thousands of people throughout the U.S. and all around the world each year. If you would like to help us do what we do, you can donate online at:

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/donations

or send a check to:

Bible Christian Society

PO Box 424

Pleasant Grove, AL 35127.

Anything you can do is greatly appreciated!

Unsubscribe/Subscribe

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter/unsubscribe - to unsubscribe from this newsletter

https://www.biblechristiansociety.com/newsletter - to subscribe to this newsletter