Biblical Repentance

Source: Biblical Repentance

By: Brian G. Chilton, Ph.D., M.Div. | March 19, 2023

Editor’s Note: This question is about biblical repentance. But to submit your question to the Bellator Christi team, visit https://bellatorchristi.com/submit-a-question-to-bellator-christi/, fill out the form, and add your question. Your question may be featured in a future article at Bellator Christi or on the Bellator Christi Podcast.

 Question

“Since the Greek word for repent is metanoeo, which means ‘change your mind.’ Was Jesus using this term [to mean to] change your mind about who I am? The Pharisees were strict keepers of the law. Yet Jesus told them to (change your mind) about him. With that said, is that saying universal salvation is given to all who just change their mind about God? Yet with no repentance, change of action. Hypers-gracers say no need to confess sin. It is forgiven for the past and present future sins. Also, if any man(woman) is in Christ they are new creatures said by Paul. So basically, it would be said, at least according to those that propose Hyper-grace, can sin freely with no consequence. Sin because it is forgiven, but this does not sound logical from Christ’s point of view. With no change of action in behavior.” -Kerry Parker

 Response:

 Kerry,

First of all, thank you for your question. This is an issue that is of extreme importance in the modern church and Christian faith. There are numerous issues that you addressed in your question. You first discussed the Greek definition of metanoeo—the term defined as “repentance.” Then, you mentioned Jesus’s use of metanoeo with the Pharisees. Finally, you noted the use of repentance by a group that advocates a position termed “hyper-grace.” All of this encircles one quintessential question, what is biblical repentance? We’ll come back to that question in a moment. Let’s first dissect the minor question before coming back to the major one.

Terminology for Biblical Repentance

 It is true that a Greek word for repentance is metanoeō. The word speaks of changing one’s mind about a particular person, thing, or position. Prior to the New Testament times, the Jewish use of metanoeō described someone who “comprehensively turned back to God.”[1] This was the way repentance was viewed in the Apocryphal book Sirach, stating, “Despite all this the people did not repent, nor did they forsake their sins, until they were carried off as plunder from their land,

and were scattered over all the earth” (Sirach 48:15).[2] In this sense, the people were to turn back to God. Metanoeō was used in the same manner in Acts 3:19; Acts 26:20; by John the Baptist (Mark 1:15); and Jesus in certain circumstances (e.g., Matt. 4:17). Thus, repentance with metanoeō means to repent and turn to God.

However, there is another term often used for repentance, and that term is metanoia. Like metanoeo, metanoia speaks of a change evoked in a person’s life. However, it is a bit more extensive in that it calls for a “comprehensive change of one’s orientation toward following God” (LTW, Logos). In New Testament times, metanoia spoke of repenting of one’s sins and turning everything over to God. John uses the term to speak of the “baptism of repentance for the remission of sins” (Mark 1:4). Jesus also uses metanoia when exhorting people to repent (Luke 5:32). Jesus used metanoia when instructing his disciples to preach a message of repentance and for the forgiveness of sins to all nations (Luke 24:47).

Taking these two words together, it is safe to say that biblical repentance includes a changing of the mind toward Christ, turning oneself toward God, and repenting of sinful behaviors. We will come back to this definition as we conclude the article.

Jesus’s Use of Biblical Repentance with the Pharisees

 In the question, no particular passage of Scripture was referenced when discussing Jesus’s interactions with the Pharisees. Therefore, it is difficult to say with any certainty which passage of Scripture is in mind. With that in mind, let us look at all the times where Jesus used the term metanoeo when speaking of repentance. The times Jesus speaks to the Pharisees will receive special attention.

In the Gospel of Matthew, Jesus uses metanoeo in Matt. 3:2 when he began preaching, “Repent, because the kingdom of heaven is near!”[3] Jesus denounced the unrepentant towns of Chorazin and Bethsaida, where his miracles had been performed, and called them to repentance (Matt. 11:20–21). He did address the Pharisees when they asked for a sign, but then Jesus spoke of the people of Nineveh who repented (metanoeo) when Jonah preached the message of God.

On two occasions in Mark’s Gospel (Mk. 1:15; 6:12), Jesus uses the term metanoeo. However, Jesus does not directly speak to the Pharisees either time. As in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus denounces Chorazin and Bethsaida, and he uses the illustration of the Ninevites’ repentance.

Luke records more occurrences of metanoeo by Jesus than in any other Gospel. Like Matthew and Mark, Luke records Jesus’s denouncement of Chorazin and Bethsaida (Lk. 10:13), and he also highlights Jesus’s teaching on the Ninevites’ repentance (Lk. 11:32). Other incidents of metanoeo do not include a precise interaction of Jesus with the Pharisees either. Jesus affords a general call to repentance (metanoeo) in Luke 13:3 and 13:5. In Luke 15:7 and Luke 15:10, he speaks about the joy in heaven over one person who repents (metanoeo). The term is also used in the parable of Lazarus and the rich man (Lk. 16:30). Finally, Jesus uses metanoeo when speaking of dealing with a person who repents (Lk. 17:3, 4).

Interestingly, the Gospel of John does not use metanoeo. So, there is nothing in the Gospel that directly impacts our study of the word.

In all the instances we have observed, we do not see where Jesus used the term metanoeo in the sense that was used in the question. Therefore, we cannot address the means by which Jesus addressed the Pharisees specifically. However, we can speak of Jesus’s theology of repentance.

Biblical Repentance and Hyper-grace

 Kerry mentions concerns with the hyper-grace movement, and for good reason. Hyper-grace refers to a modern movement that argues that a person merely needs to confess Christ without adopting the moral and ethical teachings of Christ. Some have called hyper-grace “easy believism” since nothing more than intellectual assent is required for the Christian life. That is, a person can live as they please as long as they profess Christ.

Though hyper-grace is a new movement, it is based on an ancient heresy. As Solomon said, there truly is nothing new under the sun (Eccl. 1:9). Antinomianism means “anti-law.” An early branch of Gnosticism—a well-known heretical movement in the apostle John’s time—taught that a person should live a hedonistic lifestyle since they were under God’s grace. Some believed that the more a person sinned, the more they experienced God’s grace. While no one should fall into legalism, antinomianism is just as dangerous. John combatted this movement by writing, “Little children, let no one deceive you. The one who does what is right is righteous, just as [God] is righteous” (1 Jn. 3:7).

When it comes to Jesus’s theological view of repentance, he emphasized intellectual assent (Matt. 4:17; 16:16; Mk. 1:15), emotional trust (Matt. 11:20), and moral volition (Lk. 3:8; 17:3–4).[4] Therefore, Jesus’s understanding of repentance matched that of Jewish theology in the OT and Second Temple Judaism. That is, repentance involved a change in one’s entire being.

Conclusion

 To summarize, a singular word study was not overly helpful in this endeavor, at least as it pertained to the interactions that Jesus had with the Pharisees on repentance. Nonetheless, when we look at the overall teachings of Jesus, we then see that his theology required more than simply an acceptance of a few facts and figures. Rather, true repentance involves a total commitment of oneself to the Triune God.

About the Author

Brian G. Chilton earned a Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Manual-Christian-Apologetics-Essentials/dp/1532697104

Notes

[1] Douglas Mangum, Derek R. Brown, et. al., eds, Lexham Theological Wordbook (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2014), Logos Bible Software.

[2] Apocryphal quotations from the New Revised Standard Version (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1989).

[3] Unless otherwise noted, all quoted Scripture comes from the Christian Standard Bible (Nashville, TN: Holman, 2020).

[4] See also Thomas C. Oden, Life in the Spirit (San Francisco, CA: HarperSanFrancisco, 1992), 138–143.

© 2023. Bellator Christi.

What is Divine Omnipresence?

Bellator Christi is an online Christian education site that deals with issues in theology, apologetics, philosophy, history, and biblical studies.

Source: What is Divine Omnipresence?

By: Brian Chilton, PhD | February 19, 2023

What is divine omnipresence? This is a question featured by a recent visitor to https://bellatorchristi.com. Often, our team answers questions submitted to the Bellator Christi team. To submit your question, visit https://bellatorchristi.com/submit-a-question-to-bellator-christi/ and fill out the form. Your question could be featured in a future article or episode of the Bellator Christi Podcast.

Question: “What does it mean to say that God is omnipresent? How should we understand the omnipresence of God?” -StudyingRel2023

Answer: The term omnipresence describes the all-presence of God. Omnipresence is a compound word comprised of the word “omni” from the Latin term omnus, meaning “all,” and “presence” that defines a person or being’s location. Thus, “omnipresence” speaks of God’s all-present nature. This means that spatial locations do not limit God. Existing as a transcendent being, God is present in all places at all times. Let’s take a brief look at how omnipresence impacts our understanding of God.

Divine Omnipresence Implies that God is Not Limited by the Physical Realm

First, God’s omnipresent nature implicates that the physical realm does not limit God’s presence. Contrary to popular opinion, God is not limited by the physical sphere. Thomas Aquinas argues that in addition to God’s omnipresent nature, God is the only Being in all existence that exists as pure act.[1] That means everything else, including the laws of nature, are potentialities. God is pure existence.

We will return to the distinction between God’s presence and the physical realm in a moment. But for now, one should understand as the psalmist extolled in his rhetorical question, inquiring, “Where can I go to escape your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?” (Psa. 139:7, CSB). David continues by saying, “If I live at the eastern horizon or settle at the western limits, even there your hand will lead me; your right hand will hold on to me” (Psa. 139:10, CSB). David teaches that God’s presence is everywhere, at all times and places. Even though the universe is estimated to be some 250 times bigger than what is observed, God is not limited by even the incomprehensible expanse of the universe.

This even impacts dimensional thinking. Physicists claim that the physical universe contains at least 11 dimensions and could escalate to amazingly 28 dimensional realms. If true, this would mean that God would exist in all dimensions and even one beyond. Omnipresence also indicates omnidimensionality.[2] Hugh Ross explains,

“Whoever caused the universe, then, must possess at least one more time dimension (or some attribute, capacity, super-dimension, or supra-dimension that encompasses all the properties of time). To put it another way, God is able to interact with us in ways we interpret (through our time-bound experience of cause and effect) as the result of timelike capacities in the person or essence of God or the existence of other timelike dimensions or properties through which God operates.”[3]

Divine Omnipresence Implies that God is Not Limited by the Spiritual Realm

Second, divine omnipresence also indicates that God is not limited by the spiritual domain. Romans 8:35 says,

“Who can separate us from the love of Christ? Can affliction or distress or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? … No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am persuaded that neither death nor life, nor angels nor rulers, nor things present, nor things to come, nor powers, nor height nor depth, nor any other created thing will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:35, 37–39, CSB).

Notice that the text states that no angelic or spiritual being could separate a believer from God’s love. Neither death nor life could separate a person from God’s incomparable love. But how is this possible? God’s love is inseparable when the tremendous ability of God to transcend the scope of time, space, and the spiritual domains of heaven and hell is understood. Not even the spiritual domain can separate us from the benevolent, loving presence of God Almighty.

Divine Omnipresence Implies that the Special Nature of God’s Essence

Third, God’s omnipresent essence does not indicate that everything in nature is God. Thus, omnipresence does not teach a pantheistic notion of God—that is, the idea that all things are in some way divine. Aquinas contends that “God is in all things by His power”[4] by his presence and essence.[5] In other words, all things are held together by the omnipresent power of God. However, Aquinas distinguishes between God’s essence and the essence of the thing itself.[6] Though the creation is held together by God’s presence and power, that does not indicate that the material thing becomes God. God’s presence is distinct from the physical and spiritual domain.

Divine Omnipresence Implies that God Alone Possesses Omnipresence

Fourth, nothing and no one can possess the omnipresent attribute that God possesses. Aquinas asserts, “To be everywhere primarily and absolutely, is proper to God … But a thing is everywhere absolutely when it does not belong to it to be everywhere accidentally … It belongs therefore to a thing to be everywhere absolutely when, on any supposition, it must be everywhere; and this properly belongs to God alone.”[7] Aquinas goes on to eloquently state, “Therefore to be everywhere primarily and absolutely, belongs to God, and is proper to Him: because whatever number of places be supposed to exist, God must be in all of them, not as to a part of Him, but as to His very self.”[8]

Therefore, the claim that people can be God is sheer insanity when considering that people are spatially confined to a singular spatial location. Only God could possess the attribute of omnipresence. No angel or demon, and not even Satan himself, could possess the awesome power of omnipresence. God and God alone is the Omnipresent Being.

Divine Omnipresence Implies that God is the Perfect Judge

God’s benevolent and just judgment serves as one of the more powerful aspects of God’s omnipresent nature. Since God is always present in every place, that indicates that God sees all that happens in every place at every point in time. Just the sheer immensity of such a task overwhelms my feeble mind.

Understand that this is not just mere philosophical prognostications; the statement is found securely in the context of Scripture. For instance, Solomon conveys that the “eyes of the Lord are everywhere, keeping watch on the wicked and the good” (Prov. 15:3, NIV). Because of God’s omnipresent vision, God is able to issue just and fair judgment as God knows all the circumstances of an event while even understanding the internal thought processes of each person involved.

God’s omnipresent judgment should cause a believer to pause before judging their neighbor. Paul asks, “why do you judge your brother or sister? Or you, why do you despise your brother or sister? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God” (Rom. 14:10). James, agreeing with Paul, writes, “There is one lawgiver and judge who is able to save and to destroy. But who are you to judge your neighbor?” (Jms. 4:12, CSB).

Conclusion

God’s omnipresent nature is truly awe-inspiring. God’s omnipresent nature ensures that God can help us at any point in our lives and in any place. It assures that God can be with our friends and families even when we are physically separated from them by hundreds of miles. God’s omnipresent nature also guarantees that nothing can separate us from God’s loving presence, not even death. With a firm grasp of God’s omnipresent nature, we should be led to live our lives with courage and faith rather than fear and doubt. If we have a personal relationship with God, then we are never alone.

About the Author

Brian G. Chilton earned his Doctor of Philosophy in the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); and earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University. Also, he is enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for nearly 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain and serves as an interim pastor in northwestern North Carolina.

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Manual-Christian-Apologetics-Essentials/dp/1532697104

Notes

[1] “First, because it was shown above that there is some first being, whom we call God; and that this first being must be pure act, without the admixture of any potentiality, for the reason that, absolutely, potentiality is posterior to act. Now everything which is in any way changed, is in some way in potentiality. Hence it is evident that it is impossible for God to be in any way changeable.” Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica I.q9.a1, in A Summa of the Summa: The Essential Philosophical Passages of St. Thomas Aquinas’ Summa Theologica, ed. Peter Kreeft (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1990), 105.

[2] That is, God is not limited by any dimension.

[3] Hugh Ross, Beyond the Cosmos: What Recent Discoveries in Astrophysics Reveal about the Glory and Love of God (Colorado Springs, Colo.: NavPress, 1999), 33–34.

[4] Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.q8.a3.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Aquinas, Summa Theologica 1.q8.a4.

[8] Ibid.

© 2023. Bellator Christi.

S6E16 Glorification: Intermediate State, Paradise, Resurrection, and the New Creation

Dr. Brian Chilton and Curtis Evelo discuss the concept of glorification and how it impacts our future in the afterlife and new creation.

Source: S6E16 Glorification: Intermediate State, Paradise, Resurrection, and the New Creation

The Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

Brian discusses how quantum mechanics suggests that an eternal Cosmic Observer may in fact exist. This may show that God exists.

Source: The Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

Brian Chilton, PhD | January 22, 2023

Modern understanding of quantum mechanics suggests that an eternal Cosmic Observer may in fact exist. If true, this holds numerous positive ramifications for arguments concerning the existence of God. Before we investigate the data, we must first ask what is meant by an eternal Cosmic Observer. A conscious observer is a living being that observes another entity. For instance, I am currently staring at the words being typed onto my computer screen. I am a living, conscious being that is observing the documentation of this piece. Spectators watching a sporting event are conscious observers of the events taking place in the stadium.

Physicists have observed that conscious beings can have an impact on physical objects and events simply by observing them. This impact precedes the dawning of conscious human beings, and really the existence of anything. Thus, this new body of research argues that all of reality is based upon the prior existence of an eternal cosmic observer. That Cosmic Observer must be God. While this article pushes a conclusion in a direction that is not necessarily implied by the biocentric physicists, it certainly appears that this would be the logical direction that the research leads.

So, what exactly does the data from the quantum world reveal about the Cosmic Observer? This article will note a few areas of considerable interest—biocentrism, consciousness, time, and the afterlife.

Biocentrism and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

Robert Lanza, MD, and Matej Pavsic, PhD spoke of biocentrism in their book The Grand Biocentric Design. Biocentrism holds that nothing can exist unless a conscious observer observes it. Lanza and Pavsic lay out seven key principles for biocentrism:

  • “What we perceive as reality is a process that involves our consciousness … Space and time are not independent realities but rather tools of the … mind.”[1]
  • “Our external and internal perceptions are inextricably intertwined.”[2]
  • “The behavior of subatomic particles—indeed, all particles and objects—is inextricably linked to the presence of an observer.”[3]
  • “Without consciousness, ‘matter’ dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe that could have preceded consciousness only existed in a probability state.”[4]
  • “The structure of the universe is explainable only through biocentrism because the universe is fine-tuned for life—which makes perfect sense as life creates the universe, not the other way around.”[5]
  • “Time does not have a real existence outside of animal sense perception. It is the process by which we perceive changes in the universe.”[6]
  • “Space, like time, is not an object or a thing … Thus, there is no self-existing matrix in which physical events occur independent of life.”[7]

While Lanza and Pavsic make connections to conscious human observers, the reality is that the universe existed prior to our conscious observations. If reality depends on life, then it stands to reason that a Conscious Observer must have lived before the creation of the universe. If the findings of biocentrism hold, then we could then say that reality depends on the existence of an eternal living Being. That Being we know as God.[8]

Consciousness and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

According to experimentation, photons and electrons could appear, disappear, and rematerialize. The question was, what caused the wave function to “collapse and give birth to the object as an actual enduring entity.”[9] According to the double-slit experiment, it was observations by conscious entities that made the difference. This finding is not something that is only made by Lanza and Pavsic. Max Planck, John Bell, and Niels Bohr also confirm the change evoked by consciousness.

But what exactly is consciousness? That is the million-dollar question. However, the best understanding of consciousness is that it is an awareness accompanied by volition, emotion, thought, and mind. Some claim that consciousness emerges from the brain.[10] Yet how could it be that the human consciousness is dependent on the brain when reality is dependent on the conscious mind? Rather than consciousness stemming from the physical world, it must be independent of the body while certainly connected to it.

If reality is dependent on consciousness and consciousness is dependent on physical reality, one eventually reaches an impasse. Because if one goes back far enough into the past, then one reaches Ground Zero, a time before physical entities existed. If reality is dependent on consciousness and there is a time when consciousness did not exist, then reality could not have come about. Thus, if reality is dependent on consciousness, then an eternal consciousness must exist independently of the space-time continuum that is our creation. As such, there must be an eternal Cosmic Observer. That Being we know as God.

Time and the Case for an Eternal Cosmic Observer

Lanza and Pavsic later contend that time also depends on a cosmic observer. They aver that “space and time are relative to the individual observer—we carry them around as turtles do their shells.”[11] This led Lanza to believe that death is merely an illusion for conscious, living beings. While Lanza does not necessarily take a Christian perspective on the passage of death, he does note the everlasting aspect of living consciousness. With the volumes of objective evidence for near-death experiences (NDEs), we have a strong case to believe that death does not bring an end to the conscious, everlasting soul.

Conclusion: What Can We Deduce about the Eternal Cosmic Observer

Biocentrism is a fascinating field of study in quantum mechanics. Though it is relatively new, its findings have tremendous value in how we view the universe. According to the data presented in biocentrism—and if its deductions hold true—all material reality is dependent on consciousness. This is a revolutionary concept! Like NDEs, biocentrism completely shakes the concept of materialism—the idea that all reality is materialistic with no spiritual entities—to the core. Not only does biocentrism show that materialism is dependent on consciousness, but it also logically implies that a form of consciousness existed prior to the creation of the universe.

Furthermore, consciousness created reality. Or, one might say that reality is contingent upon the continued observance of the ultimate Cosmic Observer. These implications align perfectly with what one finds in the pages of Genesis and throughout the biblical text. For it was God who brought creation into existence (Gen. 1:1) and sustains it by his power. For God is “before all things, and in him all things hold together” (Col. 1:17).

About the Author

Brian G. Chilton earned a Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Manual-Christian-Apologetics-Essentials/dp/1532697104

Notes

[1] Robert Lanza and Matel Pavsic, The Grand Biocentric Design: How Life Creates Reality (Dallas, TX: BenBella, 2020), 19.

[2] Ibid., 20.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid., 21.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] For a scholarly scientific article describing the impact of an observer on reality, see Dmitriy Podolskiy, Andrei O. Barvinsky, and Robert Lanza, “Parisi-Sourlas-like dimensional reduction of quantum gravity in the presence of observers,” Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (2021).

[9] Lanza and Pavsic, The Grand Biocentric Design, 76.

[10] Such is the case implied by Boris Kotchoubey, “Human Consciousness: What It Is and Where It Is From,” Psychology 23, 9 (April 2018), https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00567/full

[11] Lanza and Pavsic, The Grand Biometric Design, 150.

© 2023. BellatorChristi.com.

AI: A New Form of Plagiarism

Brian Chilton cautions readers of the dangers in AI apps for the next generation of writers, researchers and students.

Source: AI: A New Form of Plagiarism

By: Brian Chilton, Ph.D. | January 13, 2023

Recently, a friend of mine sent me a private message on Facebook asking me about my thoughts on AI writing apps. I must confess that I was not entirely sure what he was talking about. He later explained that certain apps offer the opportunity for artificial intelligence (i.e., AI) to write a paper or article with a few prompts given by a person. Afterward, the app would then write the article or paper according to the prompts given with no other input.

After giving it some thought, I concluded that AI apps such as these cause one to become guilty of a new form of plagiarism. How so? Because plagiarism is defined as “taking someone else’s work or ideas and passing it off as one’s own.”[1] Even though the writer adds some prompts, the AI app is the device that creates the work and ideas. Thus, the writer is not providing his or her voice to the article. Furthermore, the writer is not necessarily putting in the work. Rather, he or she allows a computing device to do the work. Multiple problems come to mind when it comes to using AI writing apps. Here, the term “plagiarism” is used to describe the falsehood that accompanies the cheap and lazy use of AI technology to write documents.

Plagiarism of Research

While one could say that one still adds the prompts to the automated document, it does not hold that the finished document is an original product of research. Good research is the collaboration of ideas and communicating the premises in the researcher’s own voice. It is one thing to read several books, but it is another to be able to communicate what was read in print or in person. Using this kind of technology robs an individual of the ability to do just that.

Plagiarism of Voice

When reading various authors, the reader begins to detect certain wording choices and stylistic preferences that define the writer’s voice. For instance, it does not take long to see how much different John’s voice is in his Gospel when compared to that of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. They speak of the same Jesus and address similar topics, but their voices are unique. Original voice is completely lost when relying on artificial intelligence for written documents. The voice that is heard is that of the AI, not the one producing the piece.

Plagiarism of Integrity

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a person loses integrity when depending on automated technology when producing written documents. If you are writing a piece and have your name on it, then everyone will assume that you are the one who wrote the document and not an AI writer. If a person loses one’s integrity, then one has lost everything. Proverbs states that a “good name is to be chosen over great wealth; favor is better than silver and gold. Rich and poor have this in common: the Lord makes them all” (Prov. 22:1–2, CSB). It is far better to take the time to produce good quality writing rather than to lose one’s integrity just to save a few minutes.

Conclusion

In addition to the problems mentioned above, I would like to mention one last issue that troubles me concerning our continued reliance on technology. We are blessed to have many conveniences with technology. Life has become much easier due to our electronic luxuries. While I am not a conspiracy theorist or a doomsday prepper, I am nonetheless very concerned with our over-reliance on the internet and technology. Mainly for this reason—what happens if it fails? Would we know how to live without the luxuries we possess?

Thomas Aquinas in the 13th century researched and wrote thousands of pages without the amenities that we hold today. Could we do the same? The movie WALL-E ended with a futuristic glimpse at what could come if we continue down the trajectory we are currently on. Everyone became nothing more than a glob of goo as they depended on technology to do their every bidding. We must not allow ourselves to do the same, especially when it comes to higher, critical thinking.

About the Author 

Brian G. Chilton earned a Ph.D. in the Theology and Apologetics program at Liberty University. He is the host of The Bellator Christi Podcast and the founder of Bellator Christi. Brian received his Master of Divinity in Theology from Liberty University (with high distinction); his Bachelor of Science in Religious Studies and Philosophy from Gardner-Webb University (with honors); earned a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, and plans to purse philosophical studies in the near future. He is also enrolled in Clinical Pastoral Education to better learn how to empower those around him. Brian is a member of the Evangelical Theological Society and the Evangelical Philosophical Society. Brian has served in pastoral ministry for over 20 years and currently serves as a clinical hospice chaplain as well as a pastor.

https://www.amazon.com/Laymans-Manual-Christian-Apologetics-Essentials/dp/1532697104

Notes

[1] “Plagiarism,” Oxford Dictionary.

© 2023. BellatorChristi.com.