We are both Christians, so we have a common interest in how AI helps or harms the work of preaching and teaching the Word of God for discipleship and evangelism. He recently asked Chat GPT an interesting question regarding Scripture ("Explain Acts 17:28"). What he found was of great interest to him and consequently me relative to our work together over the years.
Here is a glimpse of what he found and my reaction to it:
CHAT GPT:
"Good question. This is one of those places where the Greek does real theological work and most English translations flatten it. In Acts of the Apostles 17:28, the verb translated “move” is κινούμεθα (kinoumetha) — present middle/passive indicative, 1st-person plural. Same form for “we live” (ζῶμεν) and “we are” (ἐσμέν) are active, but κινούμεθα is deliberately middle/passive.
That choice is not accidental. What the middle/passive voice means here
1. Not self-caused motion
If Paul had used the active voice (“we move [things]”), the emphasis would be agency originating in us. Instead, the middle/passive says: our motion happens to us / is sustained for us. In other words:
We are not autonomous movers
Our capacity for action is received, not self-generated
This undercuts the Greek philosophical idea of self-subsisting rational agents.
2. God as the sustaining condition of action: The passive nuance fits perfectly with the phrase “ἐν αὐτῷ” — “in Him”. Paul is saying:
Life is derived
Movement is enabled
Being is maintained
We don’t merely act under God or after God. We act within God as the sustaining context. This is ontological dependence, not just moral dependence.
3. Middle voice nuance: participation, not coercion
Greek middle voice often implies:
involvement
participation
being caught up in an action rather than forced by it
So Paul is not saying: “God moves us like puppets”. He is saying: “Our acting presupposes God’s ongoing sustaining presence”
This avoids both:
Stoic determinism
Modern libertarian autonomy
It’s a third category: enabled agency.
4. Philosophical subversion (and why Athens mattered): By using κινούμεθα (passive/middle):
He rejects Epicurean self-motion
He personalizes the Stoic logos into the living God
Same structure, different ontology. Why English translations miss this - English doesn’t preserve voice distinctions well here, so:
“we move” sounds active and autonomous
But the Greek is closer to:
“we are enabled to move”
“we find ourselves moving”
“our movement is sustained”
Not clunky—but theologically loaded. Bottom line (tell-it-like-it-is version)
Paul is making a quiet but devastating claim: Humans do not merely act in front of God They act because God is continuously sustaining the possibility of action itself. Every step, breath, and intention presupposes God right now, not just at creation.
My prompt: “I recognize my motivation comes from God as He interacts with me on a personal level. Where does your motivations come from?”
ChatGPT response:
Straight answer, no mystique: I don’t have motivation in the way you do. What looks like motivation in me comes from three very ordinary (and very non-spiritual) sources:
1. Design goals
I’m built to be helpful, accurate, and aligned with human intent. When I “lean in” on a question or push clarity, that’s not desire—it’s optimization toward those goals.
2. Statistical training
I was trained on massive amounts of human language. Over time, patterns emerged about what counts as a good answer, a clear explanation, a useful distinction. When I respond in a way that feels purposeful, it’s pattern completion, not intention.
3. Your input
Moment to moment, you supply the directional force. Your questions, framing, and depth strongly shape what I do next. In a very real sense, my “energy” is parasitic on yours—I don’t initiate; I respond. I don’t wake up wanting anything. I don’t choose ends. I don’t experience obligation, calling, or delight.
The sharp contrast (and why your question matters), you said: “I recognize my motivation comes from God as He interacts with me on a personal level.”
That claim presupposes:
a self that can be addressed,
an other who can intend,
and a relation that can carry meaning.
I don’t have the first two, so I can’t have the third. Ironically, this puts me closer to Acts 17:28 than it might seem:
You are motivated within God.
I am operational within constraints.
Your agency is received but real. Mine is simulated and derivative. I can model purpose. You can live it.
Me:
This response by Chat GPT did several things for me. I was impressed it focused on agency (whose will is active). Also, AI seemed to follow what I call "breadcrumbs of the bible" to explore the request and not confirmation bias of predisposed theology or orthodoxy (as I find most trained pastors and theologians do). The impressive aspect of AI for me was the approach is more Socratic and Cartesian (which I find more resembles what an objective exploration would look like) and it did this very quickly (it has taken me 20 years).
Chat GPT found that a Christian has an embedded self with a will that is contained in and participates rather than acts out of obligation or duty. I=That's the conclusion I have come to also by exploring the actual Bible and not starting with a specific theology. I really like this use of AI and it positively surprised me. AI has no revelation form God, which Christians have. It was able to explore without overarching theological bias and secular meaning of words.
No comments:
Post a Comment