AI Theology

This week it was announced that the Reformed Presbyterian Theological Seminary was establishing a committee on the theological student's use of artificial intelligence. As I thought about this committee, I wondered what reasons against AI use in a theological context I could consider. Here are ten reasons to avoid AI dependence in a theological-ministerial context.*

Violates Academic Integrity and Seminary Honor Code

Using AI to write theological papers is an act of academic dishonesty. Seminaries, like most institutions of higher learning, expects students to produce original work. More importantly, as a seminary, it holds students to a standard grounded in Scripture: truthfulness, integrity, and personal accountability. Passing off AI-generated content as one’s own misrepresents the student's labor and violates the Ninth Commandment.

John Calvin wrote, “A lie is the destruction of society” (Commentary on the Psalms, Ps. 5:6), emphasizing that deception—even in seemingly small ways—undermines trust and the bonds of Christian fellowship. Seminary is a community where trust between students, faculty, and the broader church must be cultivated. Theological training is not merely about gaining knowledge but about developing character and trustworthiness for ministry. Dishonesty in writing, even with good intentions, signals a deeper breach of spiritual responsibility.

Hinders Spiritual and Theological Formation

One of the most spiritually formative aspects of seminary is the struggle of thinking, writing, and praying through theology. The effort it takes to formulate a theological argument, exegete a passage, or wrestle with a doctrine refines the soul and strengthens conviction. When students outsource that labor to AI, they deprive themselves of the refining process the Lord uses to shape future ministers of the Word.

Richard Baxter counseled ministers to study with the heart as well as the mind: “He must be a man of a deeply serious spirit… who studies as for life” (The Reformed Pastor). Theological writing is a spiritual discipline, not an intellectual convenience. Artificial shortcuts hinder sanctification through study. Students who let a machine do their theological thinking distance themselves from communion with God in the process of meditation, prayer, and diligent effort.

Impedes Mastery of Reformed Theology

Reformed theology requires careful thought, logical clarity, and confessional precision. AI systems often provide vaguely Christian language but lack the careful theological categories forged by centuries of covenantal and confessional thought. Students who rely on AI will not develop fluency in Reformed distinctives such as federal headship, the ordo salutis, or the regulative principle of worship.

The Westminster Confession urges clarity and fidelity in theology: “The whole counsel of God… is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture” (WCF 1.6). Learning how to “deduce by good and necessary consequence” takes time, repetition, and feedback from instructors. AI does not engage students in a dialogical process that builds theological discernment. It may replicate the form of Reformed theology, but not its spirit, depth, or biblical grounding.

Undermines Pastoral Preparation

Pastors must write sermons, counsel souls, defend the truth, and comfort the suffering—all tasks requiring theological fluency, personal conviction, and wisdom. Seminary writing is preparation for these duties. Students who habitually rely on AI risk entering ministry with underdeveloped skills. A pastor who cannot write clearly will struggle to preach effectively or articulate doctrine to a hurting member.

As John Owen wrote, “A minister may fill his pews, his communion roll, the mouths of the public, but what that minister is on his knees in secret before God Almighty, that he is and no more” (Works, Vol. 16). The same applies to study. A man who has not labored over theology in private will have little substance to give in public. The habits formed in seminary carry into lifelong ministry. Forming the habit of easy dependence on technology can dull the tools needed for faithful gospel labor.

Produces Shallow or Theologically Inaccurate Work

AI-generated content often lacks theological nuance. Even when it mimics a Reformed tone, it can misquote sources, misrepresent doctrines, or confuse categories. For example, AI might conflate justification and sanctification or cite apocryphal sources as if they were canonical. Students unaware of these errors may pass them along unknowingly, compounding theological confusion.

William Perkins warned against careless theology: “A good divine must be a logician,” meaning that theological clarity must flow from ordered thought (The Art of Prophesying). Reformed seminaries train students to write with exegetical precision and logical order. Using AI undermines that discipline. Faculty trained to detect lazy argumentation or generic content can often tell when a paper lacks the spiritual fingerprint of a struggling student. Better to turn in a flawed but honest paper than a polished but impersonal one.

Contradicts the Seminary’s Commitment to Sola Scriptura and Confessionalism

Reformed seminaries upholds the sufficiency of Scripture and the system of doctrine contained in the Westminster Standards. AI, trained on wide-ranging and often theologically contradictory sources, is unable to uphold that confessional integrity. It does not operate from a framework of sola Scriptura but instead blends Protestant, Catholic, liberal, and even heretical material without discernment.

The Puritan Thomas Watson wrote, “The Scripture is both the breeder and feeder of grace” (Body of Divinity). To let AI interpret Scripture on our behalf or generate theological content is to let something other than the Spirit speak into our understanding. Seminary students must learn to handle the Word for themselves and in light of Reformed standards—not to rely on vague summaries generated by tools without a theological conscience.

Prevents Development of Biblical Exegesis Skills

One of the most critical skills a seminarian must develop is how to interpret Scripture. This requires wrestling with original languages, textual context, biblical theology, and application. AI may produce a summary of a passage, but it cannot teach a student how to reason from Scripture with spiritual insight. The loss is not merely academic but pastoral and devotional.

William Ames said, “Theology is the doctrine or teaching of living to God” (The Marrow of Theology). Exegesis is part of that living—it’s where we encounter God in His Word. If AI does the interpreting for students, they will not cultivate the reverent awe and exegetical confidence required to preach with authority. True preaching grows from the soil of deep personal engagement with Scripture, not from machine summaries.

Dishonors the Vocation of the Minister

The ministry is a high and holy calling. Paul charged Timothy, “Study to show thyself approved unto God” (2 Tim. 2:15). Theological study is not busywork—it is preparation for the most consequential vocation in the world: the care of souls. Substituting AI for that study belittles the sacredness of the call and the seriousness of the office.

Samuel Rutherford wrote of the minister’s duty: “The preacher must have his message not from books only, but from God Himself.” AI can rearrange sentences, but it cannot give a message from God. That requires prayer, suffering, study, and submission. Those preparing for ministry must practice faithfulness in the small tasks—writing included—so that they may be faithful in greater tasks.

Devalues the Work of Faculty and Church Supporters

Professors at Reformed seminaries pour themselves into lectures, mentorship, and feedback with the goal of forming godly shepherds. Church members, families, and donors often sacrifice to support students financially and spiritually. To turn in AI-generated work is to squander that investment and insult those who have trusted the student with such a solemn opportunity.

Thomas Boston described the ministry as a “work of the highest consequence… in which the glory of God and the salvation of souls are deeply concerned.” Those who support seminary students do so in view of that weighty calling. To bypass real learning through AI is to fail those who have entrusted students with their hopes, gifts, and prayers.

Neglects Personal Devotion and Dependence on God

True theological work is born from prayer. Each paper should be an act of devotion, a labor of dependence on God for wisdom. When students turn to AI instead of to Scripture, prayer, and the Spirit, they substitute technical efficiency for spiritual vitality. The danger is subtle, but real: learning to rely on machines more than on God.

Matthew Henry put it this way: “Those who would have wisdom must get it from God by prayer. It must be fetched in by prayer.” Seminary writing is a place where students learn this very thing—seeking wisdom not by automation but by submission. Using AI to write theological papers trains the heart away from humility and toward self-sufficiency.

*Full disclosure: I did not write any of this, I promoted Chat-GPT to write it, and honestly, I have not even read it. Seriously. This took less than 10 minutes from start to finish.