AI as Trusted As Pastors, Holy Spirit?

Current Events
1

OK, folks, this is just plain disturbing. This is from the Christian Post, “A third of Christians trust spiritual advice from AI as much as a pastor: study.”

Get this.

In a survey of over 1,514 U.S. adults conducted in November 2025, researchers found nearly a third of U.S. adults (30%) now “somewhat” or “strongly” agree that spiritual advice from AI “is as trustworthy as advice from a pastor,” the data shows. And among Generation Z and millennials, that share jumps to 39% and 40%, respectively.

What? Go on.

About a third (34%) of practicing Christians somewhat or strongly agreed that AI advice is just as trustworthy as advice from a pastor, while 29% of non-practicing Christians and 27% of non-Christians agreed with this sentiment.

Even more troublesome is this. The recent findings from the Christian Post regarding AI’s growing role in spiritual mentorship are deeply concerning. With nearly a third of U.S. Christians viewing AI-generated spiritual advice as equal in trustworthiness to that of a pastor—and even higher percentages among younger generations—we must ask ourselves: what are we losing in this exchange?

While I encourage everyone to read the full report to understand the scope of the data, the core issue remains a matter of discernment. AI is a tool, and like any tool, it is morally neutral in its construction but dangerous in its misuse. It can synthesize information quickly, but it lacks the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, the life experience of a seasoned shepherd, and the relational accountability found within the Body of Christ.

What should concern us the most? The Loss of Relational Shepherding. Spiritual growth requires mentorship from individuals who know our struggles, not just algorithms that predict likely responses.

The devaluation of Scripture. Relying on a machine to summarize divine truth risks turning the Bible into mere data points rather than a living, breathing guide for our lives.

Then you have the illusion of wisdom. AI provides information, but it cannot provide the wisdom that comes from walking with God through suffering and triumph. AI can assist us in research and provide quick access to theological information, but we must be careful not to mistake convenience for spiritual maturity. We are called to test the spirits and lean on the wisdom of the community of faith, rather than outsourcing our souls to artificial intelligence.

What are your thoughts? Are we moving toward a future where “digital pastors” become the norm, and if so, what does that mean for the future of our local congregations?
Peter

2

I’m going to bite here @Peter.

As I appreciate your concern regarding the growing use of AI in spiritual discussions. However, I believe several of your assertions need to be examined in light of Scripture rather than our assumptions about technology.

First, Scripture never teaches that truth is validated by the vessel through which it comes. Rather, believers are commanded to test everything against the Word of God:

“Prove all things; hold fast that which is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21).

The Bereans were commended not because they trusted human teachers, but because they searched the Scriptures daily to verify what even the Apostle Paul taught (Acts 17:11). The standard was never the speaker; the standard was Scripture.

Second, while AI certainly does not possess the Holy Spirit, neither do books, concordances, lexicons, commentaries, study Bibles, search engines, or printed sermons.

Yet Christians have used such tools for generations. Right?

The Holy Spirit does not indwell paper, ink, or software. He indwells believers and illuminates the Scriptures to them (John 16:13; 1 Corinthians 2:12-14).

Third, the claim that using AI devalues Scripture does not necessarily follow. If anything, many believers are using AI to access Scripture, compare translations, examine Greek and Hebrew terms, study historical backgrounds, and locate passages more efficiently. The danger is not the tool itself but whether the user submits all claims to the authority of God’s Word.

Fourth, regarding the “illusion of wisdom,” I agree that information is not wisdom. However, Scripture does not teach that pastors are infallible sources of wisdom either. Many false teachers arise from among men (Acts 20:29-30). We are repeatedly warned not to place ultimate confidence in human teachers but to test every teaching against Scripture (Galatians 1:8-9; 1 John 4:1).

Moreover, the New Covenant places great emphasis upon the ministry of the Holy Spirit in the believer. As John writes:

“But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you” (1 John 2:27).

This does not abolish teachers, but it reminds us that our ultimate Teacher is Christ through His Spirit, not any human shepherd.

Finally, I do not see evidence that AI will replace biblical eldership, pastoral care, fellowship, corporate worship, or the local assembly. Scripture commands believers not to forsake assembling together (Hebrews 10:24-25), and no technology can fulfill the “one another” commands of the New Testament.

But neither should we fear a tool that can assist believers in studying the Scriptures, any more than previous generations feared the printing press, Bible software, or online libraries.

The real question is not whether AI can be trusted. The real question is whether Christians are testing everything by the Word of God.

If they are, then AI becomes another tool. If they are not, they can be deceived just as easily by a pastor, a book, a website, or a friend.

“To the law and to the testimony: if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them” (Isaiah 8:20).

Isa 8:20 To the torah (teaching of G-d) and to the te’udah (recorded testimony, see verse 16); if they speak not according to Davar HaZeh, it is because there is no shachar (dawn, light) in them.
Isa 8:21 And they [i.e., the unbelievers, contrasted with those in v.13] shall roam about therein, hard-pressed and hungry; and it shall come to pass, that when they shall be hungry, they shall fret themselves, and curse by their melech and Elohav, and look upward.
Isa 8:22 And they shall look unto eretz; and, hinei, tzarah and darkness, gloom of anguish; and they shall be driven to darkness.
OJB.

Correct?

J.

3

Wow. My first thought was “Do they know the advice is from AI and they still trust it as much as a human pastor?”, but it seems like that is what the data is saying. That’s wild.

1 Like
4

My personal position on AI has been clearly expressed in other threads, so I won’t reiterate it here. It is not popular, as you know, and I am not looking to debate the issue. I am definitely not intending to offend anyone who trusts in this technology.

@Johann, your point that AI is just another tool is expressed well, and compelling. I understand where you are coming from. I would like to gently point out some clear differences between this “personal study tool” called “Artificial Intelligence”, and other “study tools” like books, concordances, lexicons, commentaries, study Bibles, search engines, or printed sermons that you mentioned. I readily concede, as you stated, that all these study tools are uninspired, and all of them fall short of The Glory of God.

However, from my point of view

  • Only one of these tools has no verifiable source.
  • Only one of them has no stated or vowed allegiance to Jesus or to the Holy Scriptures.
  • Only one of them returns different answers to the same question posed by different inquirers.
  • Only one of them will change their answer simply by requesting it to try again.
  • Only one of them gathers a provisional opinion by pulling together information from all the others tools.
  • Only one of them boasts of delivering ‘authentic’ answers while acknowledging that itself is ‘artificial’.

It would not take very long to develop a spiritual biblical position on how The ONLY Eternally REAL God feels about things that are artificial posing as (pretending) to be real. He has not been silent on this issue.

This is just one broken man’s opinion; it is not sanctified. I hope this does not cause division.

Your Eternal Brother.
KP

5

I hear you, brother @Kpuff, and no, this is not something that would cause division between us. While we may approach certain matters differently, our unity in Christ is far greater than any secondary disagreement.

Johann.

1 Like
6

AMEN
AMEN443×240 33.8 KB

(That’s the Truth)

1 Like
7

Now THIS is a nice Amen, where did you find it brother?

J.

8

I asked AI to give me a nice one.. ((ha ha, just kidding. I couldn’t resist.)
Much Love
KP

1 Like
9

image
image1254×1254 606 KB

Shalom brother. And the “Amen” is AI generated.

J.

10

Excellent point.

Well? Some may argue that the Word IS Jesus. That it is living and breathing.

“For the word of God is living and active, sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing to the division of soul and of spirit, of joints and of marrow, and discerning the thoughts and intentions of the heart.” Hebrews 4:12

God did not just present us with a book; rather,

“All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, equipped for every good work.” 2 Timothy 3:16-17

As for the “concordances, lexicons, commentaries, study Bibles, search engines, or printed sermons.” This is true. These would be an attempt to explain the Word. I see nothing wrong with them. I see nothing really wrong with using AI for research.

As I said.

You are wise to remind us that we are to “Test the Spirit?” Or "Teaching against the Scriptures."However, keep in mind this one thing. Garbage in, garbage out. As far as AI goes, it is a machine. Granted, complicated and complex, but a machine nonetheless. All it can do is seek out information that is already out there and create a conclusion based on that information. We all know that there is some garbage information out there.

The Bible, on the otherhand it the perfect, never-changing, uncomprising, no error-forming, living, breathing Word of the Living God. This is where my caution comes from.

A few tech-forward theologians and churches have run experiments to see what an AI-led service would look like. These usually happen as novelty events or academic trials rather than permanent changes: The Germany Experiment: In a widely reported event at a Protestant convention in Fuerth, Germany, a theologian generated a 40-minute church service, including the sermon, prayers, and music, almost entirely using ChatGPT. It was delivered by a digital avatar projected on a giant screen over the altar to a packed church of over 300 people.

While attendees found it fascinating, the consensus was that it felt incredibly flat. The avatar spoke in a monotone voice, lacked emotion, couldn’t interact if the crowd laughed, and felt entirely disconnected from the human spirit.

I agree with you,

Christianity is fundamentally built on the idea of God becoming flesh (the Incarnation). Because of this, the Church has historically valued physical presence. A machine does not have a soul, cannot experience suffering, and has never needed redemption. Therefore, it cannot testify to a personal transformation. Shepherding? Preaching a speech is only a tiny fraction of a church leader’s role. An AI cannot sit by a bedside in a hospital, weep with a family at a funeral, celebrate a wedding, or discern the heavy heart of a teenager who walks into a counseling office.

The Holy Spirit and discernment. In church tradition, preaching is meant to be a prophetic, Spirit-led moment where the speaker senses what this specific congregation needs to hear on this specific day. AI can only scrape what has already been written on the internet; it cannot look into the eyes of a room and adjust its tone based on the emotional atmosphere.

However, as we know, what starts as little things turns into big things, and then those things grow. Everyone ends up with an AI Pastor in their homes, who will save a lot of time and be so convenient. After all, it is sharing the Word, better than nothing, etc.
Peter

11

My experiment

I asked ChatGPT “Is AI a trustworthy source for Biblical interpretation?” and I got an acceptable balanced answer. Then I asked “Can you give me a different answer?”, and it complied, it gave me a different answer that was OK, but less acceptable. Then I asked directly "I’d like an answer that shows AI in a negative light." and it complied with a highly critical assessment of AI’s spiritual capabilities and frequent faults. Hmmmm…

If someone else asks the same engine these same three questions ChatGPT will give them three different answers than the ones it gave to me. All the answers will ‘sound’ reasonable, but all are designed to dynamically appeal to the ‘digital-persona’ of the asker. The resultant ‘answer’ is highly dependent on how the question is asked, and who is asking. Anyone is free to run this experiment themselves. This is a subtle and hidden flaw inherent in the artificial generation of information. This ‘feature’ makes AI unreliable.

AI is sycophantic, designed to return responses the asker will accept. Statistically, If one asks a single question only one time, they have a very high probability of appreciating the answer, because it is digitally tailored to their liking. This bias is hidden from the asker. The probability of acceptance is much higher (artificially higher) with AI than it would be by researching the same question with published printed reference material.

Waver of the yellow flag…
KP

1 Like
12

Interesting @KPuff.

How about this?

ψυχικοςG5591 A-NSM δεG1161 CONJ ανθρωποςG444 N-NSM ουG3756 PRT-N δεχεταιG1209 V-PNI-3S ταG3588 T-APN τουG3588 T-GSN πνευματοςG4151 N-GSN τουG3588 T-GSM θεουG2316 N-GSM μωριαG3472 N-NSF γαρG1063 CONJ αυτωG846 P-DSM εστινG1510 V-PAI-3S καιG2532 CONJ ουG3756 PRT-N δυναταιG1410 V-PNI-3S γνωναιG1097 V-2AAN οτιG3754 CONJ πνευματικωςG4153 ADV ανακρινεταιG350 V-PPI-3S
οG3588 T-NSM δεG1161 CONJ πνευματικοςG4152 A-NSM ανακρινειG350 V-PAI-3S μενG3303 PRT πανταG3956 A-APN αυτοςG846 P-NSM δεG1161 CONJ υπG5259 PREP ουδενοςG3762 A-GSM-N ανακρινεταιG350 V-PPI-3S
τιςG5101 I-NSM γαρG1063 CONJ εγνωG1097 V-2AAI-3S νουνG3563 N-ASM κυριουG2962 N-GSM οςG3739 R-NSM συμβιβασειG4822 V-FAI-3S αυτονG846 P-ASM ημειςG1473 P-1NP δεG1161 CONJ νουνG3563 N-ASM χριστουG5547 N-GSM εχομενG2192 V-PAI-1P

nos autem non spiritum mundi accepimus sed Spiritum qui ex Deo est ut sciamus quae a Deo donata sunt nobis
quae et loquimur non in doctis humanae sapientiae verbis sed in doctrina Spiritus spiritalibus spiritalia conparantes
animalis autem homo non percipit ea quae sunt Spiritus Dei stultitia est enim illi et non potest intellegere quia spiritaliter examinatur
spiritalis autem iudicat omnia et ipse a nemine iudicatur
quis enim cognovit sensum Domini qui instruat eum nos autem sensum Christi habemus.

ψυχικος δε ανθρωπος ου δεχεται τα του πνευματος του θεου μωρια γαρ αυτω εστιν και ου δυναται γνωναι οτι πνευματικως ανακρινεται
ο δε πνευματικος ανακρινει μεν παντα αυτος δε υπ ουδενος ανακρινεται
τις γαρ εγνω νουν κυριου ος συμβιβασει αυτον ημεις δε νουν χριστου εχομεν

Care to give it a try? Do the same with this…

the natural man: ψυχικος G5591, the animal man, one who lives in a natural state, and under the influence of his animal passions; for ψυχη G5590 means the inferior and sensual part of man, in opposition to the νους G3563 understanding, or πνευμα G4151, the spirit. 1Co_15:44, 1Co_15:46; Jam_3:15; Jud_1:19 *Gr.
receiveth: Mat_13:11-17, Mat_16:23; Joh_3:3-6, Joh_8:43, Joh_10:26-27, Joh_12:37; Rom_8:5-8
the things: 1Co_2:12; Joh_14:26, Joh_15:26, Joh_16:8-15
they: 1Co_1:18, 1Co_1:23; Joh_8:51-52, Joh_10:20; Act_17:18, Act_17:32, Act_18:15, Act_25:19, Act_26:24-25
neither: Pro_14:6; Joh_5:44, Joh_6:44-45; Act_16:14; 2Co_4:4-6; 1Jo_2:20, 1Jo_2:27, 1Jo_5:20; Jud_1:19
Reciprocal: Gen_31:28 - foolishly 2Sa_6:16 - despised 2Sa_14:17 - to discern 1Ki_3:9 - discern 1Ki_22:13 - Behold now 2Ki_5:11 - Behold 1Ch_15:29 - she despised 2Ch_18:12 - Behold Psa_25:14 - secret Psa_92:6 - A brutish Pro_8:9 - General Pro_24:7 - too Pro_28:5 - General Ecc_8:5 - a wise Isa_8:16 - among Amo_7:12 - eat Mat_6:23 - If Mat_11:6 - whosoever Luk_7:23 - General Luk_7:35 - General Joh_1:5 - General Joh_3:4 - How Joh_4:11 - thou hast Joh_4:15 - give Joh_6:52 - How Joh_7:36 - Ye shall Joh_8:37 - because Joh_10:6 - they understood not Joh_14:17 - whom Act_17:20 - strange Rom_8:7 - neither 1Co_2:13 - spiritual things 1Co_3:1 - as unto carnal 1Co_4:10 - are fools 2Co_5:14 - because Col_3:3 - hid 1Th_5:21 - Prove Heb_5:14 - to discern Rev_2:17 - saving Rev_14:3 - no

image
image1200×1200 91.6 KB

I’ll be waiting.

J.

13

Very interesting. Makes sense, I was just not aware that the AI gives a structured answer to the one asking . Thanks for sharing that.
Peter

14

Interesting.

“But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For “who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?” But we have the mind of Christ.” 1 Corinthians 2:14–16

The Vulgate is the historic Latin translation of the Bible, largely translated from the original Greek and Hebrew by Saint Jerome in the late 4th century (around 382–405 AD). For over a thousand years, this exact text was the standard, official scripture used throughout Western Europe. This is the same passage, only from 12-16. By pairing the Greek Interlinear with the Latin Vulgate, you are looking at the two linguistic pillars of Western biblical commentary. The Greek gives you the raw, immediate thought of Paul writing to a chaotic church in Corinth, while the Latin gives you the structured, theological vocabulary that shaped the history of the Western world for centuries.

This is the pure, clean text of 1 Corinthians 2:14–16 in its original Koine Greek, stripped of the Strong’s Concordance numbers and parsing codes you had in your first message formulation.

That is an interesting perspective, and I appreciate you sharing it. I am curious, however: in presenting this information, are you primarily demonstrating how AI can be a beneficial tool for achieving a deeper understanding of the original languages and context of Scripture? Or was there an additional point you intended to convey?

I appreciate your perspective, and I am certain that @KPuff will find your analysis insightful. However, do you not see the inherent risks in relying upon artificial intelligence for spiritual guidance? Rather than simply internalizing the commandment, “Thou shalt not murder,” believers are now encouraged to dissect the text across three languages in search of a “true meaning.” I am concerned that such an analytical approach may complicate the clarity of Scripture for the average reader.
Peter