Critical Thinking, Worldview Process, and AI

artificial intelligence, worldview

Critical Thinking, Worldview Process, and AI

Christopher Cone, ThD, PhD, PhD

Research Professor of Transformative Learning and Leadership

Agathon University (www.agathonu.com)

Presented to the Journal of Transformative Learning and Leadership Online Symposium

November 21, 2025

ABSTRACT

Transformative educators ought to value as the ultimate end of the educational process the transformation of the learner.[1] That process relies on the transformative literature as the primary and necessary curriculum without which nor apart from which there is no transformative learning. One of the most prolific and influential educators in history, the Apostle Paul, notes that transformation comes from the renewing of the mind,[2] and that which accomplishes this kind of renewing, teaching, learning, and equipping for all good practice is Scripture.[3] In order to faithfully and accurately handle this primary source material the educator and the learner must continuously apply critical thinking to the processes of teaching, learning, and transformation.

Because of this stated ultimate end of education, the chosen source data, and the necessary critical thinking, it is incumbent upon transformative educators and learners to be aware of consequences of introducing LLMs into learning and teaching processes. While adding convenience, the introduction of LLMs into education at certain points comes at a cost in at least three ways: (1) in promoting prioritization of functionalism and efficiency over relational engagement, (2) in blurring the lines between primary and secondary source material, thus undermining exegetical process, and (3) in cognitive cost, impeding critical thought.

This paper addresses the importance of critical thinking for worldview process and transformative learning and teaching, and examines the relational, exegetical, and cognitive costs of incorporating LLMs into transformative learning processes. The goal is to aid the transformative educator and learner in counting the cost and evaluate at what points LLMs and AI tools can be beneficially utilized in transformative teaching and learning.

THE NECESSITY OF CRITICAL THINKING IN WORLDVIEW PROCESS

It seems an obvious axiom that critical thought is important. One advocate of the centrality of critical thought notes that, “Critical thinking is a widely accepted educational goal. Its definition is contested, but the competing definitions can be understood as differing conceptions of the same basic concept: careful thinking directed to a goal.”[4] One such goal of transformative learning is to think critically about what is good, acceptable, and perfect.[5]

The Greek dokimazo reflects in transformative literature the concept of critical thinking, as the term denotes testing of ideas in order to approve or reject those ideas based on their merits.[6] Critical thinking is needed in order to address axiological and other worldview and philosophical questions.[7] Critical thinking is necessary for identifying untrue ideas.[8] Critical thinking that isn’t rooted in nor corresponding to reality results in wrong actions.[9] Thus a person must think critically about themselves,[10] and consistency in critical thinking is vital for judging oneself correctly.[11] Critical thinking is necessary likewise for properly evaluating others and their ideas.[12] A person ought to apply critical thinking in all contexts.[13] Critical thinking in some areas while failing to do so in others is hypocritical.[14] God thinks critically, and so should we.[15]

Likewise, the Hebrew bin has a semantic range that includes to look carefully,[16] to be discerning,[17] to be understanding,[18] to be skillful,[19] to be prudent,[20] to observe,[21] to interpret,[22] to perceive,[23] to consider,[24] and many other synonyms. The term is used 171 times in the Hebrew Scriptures,[25] underscoring the prominence of critical thinking as perennial sine qua non of the Biblical worldview. An example of critical thought as  linchpin to worldview is found in God’s assertion through Hosea of God’s care for Israel. The Hebrew term bin occurs twice in that context and is translated by the NASB as both understand and discern.[26] The wise person understands and discerns that it is God who cares for and provides for Israel.[27] Based on this application of critical thinking, the axiological principle can be discerned that God’s ways are right, and as an ethics application, the righteous person walks in those ways. Integral to the worldview given verbally by God and presented in the transformative literature is the process of critical thinking.

Thinking critically about worldview, we may recognize that all worldviews, philosophies, and systems of faith ultimately must address the same essential questions. Those questions can be categorized in four major disciplines: epistemology (the study of knowledge), metaphysics (the study of reality), ethics (the application of reality in individual responsibility), and socio-political thought and sociopraxy (the application of reality and responsibility in community). Epistemological commitments are necessary and definitive for the investigation of metaphysics and applications in ethics and sociopraxy. Critical thinking includes the evaluation of epistemological presuppositions and precommitments (i.e., first step of faith) and is ultimately the praxis of epistemological principles for (1) assessing the merit of a source of authority and in interpreting that source of authority, and (2) addressing metaphysics, ethics, and socio-political questions. In other words, critical thinking is a necessary toolset for successfully engaging philosophy and worldview. Critical thinking includes elements such as:

  1. Support and method for objective vs. subjective evaluation
  2. Hermeneutic principles appropriate to the nature of communication and meaning
  3. Exegetical process as consistent application of hermeneutic principles

Metaphysics (including ontology, axiology, teleology, and eschatology) is a logical outworking of critical thinking (as application of epistemological axioms), exploring the nature of reality and addressing questions of being, value, purpose, and future. After epistemological and metaphysical foundations of understanding reality and ascertaining the answers to questions about reality are addressed, there is a logical progress from the is to the ought, from the descriptive to the prescriptive.

That move from descriptive to prescriptive is often indicated by the use of the term therefore throughout the transformative literature. This transitional term indicates the logical tethering of human position, standing, and understanding with practice, walk, and application of knowledge. The Apostle Paul employs this link when he exhorts Ephesian learners to “Therefore…walk in a manner worthy of the calling with which you have been called.”[28] The integral connection between is and ought is robustly emphasized in Paul’s exhortation to the Romans that application of positional truth in practical application is our “logical service of worship.”[29] To understand the is without acting upon the ought is illogical and fallacious. The ought encompasses individual responsibility to apply descriptive truths (ethics) and corporate responsibility in community (sociopraxy).

In the transformative model, these fundamental components of worldview are undertaken by applying critical thought to the primary source transformative literature (the Scriptures), understood through the literal grammatical historical hermeneutic (LGH) that is modeled in Scripture, and is drawn out in the exegetical process of recognizing the Author’s intended communicated meaning. Understanding and applying the transformative literature results in transformation and closes the loop of the transformative teaching and learning endeavor. Being transformed by the renewing of one’s mind, and helping others to be transformed by the renewing of their minds implies the need for discipleship, mentoring, and replication. Transformative education is intended as an ongoing, cyclical, and replicative process that continues with learners engaging the transformative process, and being equipped to help others engage that process for generation after generation. From beginning to end of the transformative process, the mind is engaged and active. Critical thinking – as broadly understood, and as specifically connoted by the terms bin and dokimazo – is a necessary condition for the transformative process.

THE IMPACT OF AI ON RELATIONAL, EXEGETICAL, AND CRITICAL THINKING

ASPECTS OF TRANSFORMATIVE EDUCATION

                  As of July 2025, OpenAI reports 700 million ChatGPT users weekly, representing roughly 10% of the world’s population.[30] Roughly 80% of the chat topics and prompts involved three major categories, including writing, practical guidance, and seeking information. Those three categories and their subcategories are as follows:

  1. Writing
    • Edit or Critique Provided Text
    • Personal Writing or Communication
    • Translation Argument or Summary Generation
    • Write Fiction
  2. Practical Guidance
    • How-To Advice
    • Tutoring or Teaching
    • Creative Ideation
    • Health, Fitness, Beauty, or Self-Care
  3. Seeking Information
    • Specific Info
    • Purchasable Products
    • Cooking and Recipes[31]

                  At least four of the eleven subcategories listed can be directly relevant to the transformative learning process. While there isn’t enough information provided to quantify precisely the impact of this LLM on transformative educators and learners, coupling these statistics with numbers related to the usage of AI by transformative educators in preparation of their curriculum underscores the staggering and still yet growing footprint of AI on transformative education.

People of all walks of life are engaged in transformative education, but one group of educators whose very roles are defined by transformative education is pastors. By definition, pastors (shepherds) are teachers.[32] Their primary responsibility in shepherding is to teach, and to teach and proclaim the transformative literature.[33] A significant expression of that role is in preparing and delivering transformative education throughout the week. While critical thought is foundational for worldview – including for discerning and understanding the source of authority (in the Biblical worldview: God as revealed through Scripture) – it is also therefore fundamental for transformative learning and teaching because the transformative source material is the Scriptures, and understanding the Scriptures can only be undertaken with critical thought. This includes deriving hermeneutic principles from the Scriptures themselves,[34] and putting those principles into practice in the exegetical process[35] to aid learners in the process of being transformed by the renewing of their minds.[36]

In light of the significant role of critical thought in transformative learning and teaching, it is quite remarkable that 64% of pastors involved in message preparation are using AI in fulfilling that task.[37] It is perhaps even more remarkable that according to the AI-in-message-prep advocate citing the statistic, “The pastors using AI aren’t lazy; they’re leveraging technology to focus on what matters most: connecting with their congregations, not wrestling with writers block…”[38] If this assertion is correct, and pastors view “connecting with their congregations” as what is most important, then one might wonder what process they are engaging to arrive at that conclusion – it certainly isn’t from applying critical thought to the Scriptures. The transformative literature says nothing of “connecting” with congregations. Rather it assigns pastors to teach them. Further, it might be noted that while a message or sermon is not necessarily an essay, it shares commonality with essays in process of development. If developing an essay with AI is detrimental to critical thinking, then the worldview process and transformative teaching are both compromised.

While Barna reports 12% of pastors actually using AI for message writing, and 43% open to the merits of message preparation and research,[39] Barna recognizes that, “God can work through AI – but perhaps not through ChatGPT-generated sermons or über-topical AI Bible studies. Instead, AI can make a difference in churches through its plentiful administrative applications, and through the slow and steady relational work of pastoring, as church leaders shepherd their churches well in ensuring AI is used wisely and not as a substitute for human connection or creativity.”[40] The Barna Group’s conclusion is well balanced and acknowledges that there are many uses for AI in the context of transformative learning (particularly in the church context). Further, the conclusion underscores the reality that guiding people in their understanding and use of AI is counsel wisely undertaken by educational and ministry leaders.

Still, the numbers reveal that the scope of impact and influence of AI on transformative educators (and thus transformative learners, if indirectly) is profound and unprecedented. The question is whether that impact and influence is help or hindrance to the transformative learning process. There are at least three ways in which AI implementation can be a hindrance to the process: (1) in promoting prioritization of functionalism and efficiency over relational engagement, (2) in blurring the lines between primary and secondary source material, thus undermining exegetical process, and (3) in cognitive cost, impeding critical thought.

Relational Cost: Functionalism and Efficiency Over Relational Engagement

Systemic level advocates of transformative education are addressing the role of AI in educational processes, though to differing degrees and for different ends. The Southern Baptist Convention’s (SBC) Statement on AI, for example, focuses primarily integrity and ethics, exhorting that, “…we encourage all who employ these tools to do so in honest, transparent, and Christlike ways that focus on loving God and loving our neighbor as ourselves, never seeking to willfully  deceive others or take advantage of them for unjust gain or the accumulation of power…”[41] In this document the SBC isn’t attempting to provide guidance in the on how AI should or should not be used in the educational process. However, The Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the SBC offers more comprehensive guidance including more specific consideration of the uses and limits of AI in education as a divinely assigned task.

Because of the image of God imbued in humanity, technology should not “be assigned a level of human identity, worth, dignity, or moral agency.”[42] Further, the use of AI is not morally neutral, and cannot fulfill humanity’s ultimate needs.[43] These ontological limitations remind that AI has limitations in practice and application:

We affirm the use of AI to inform and aid human reasoning and moral decision-making because it is a tool that excels at processing data and making determinations, which often mimics or exceeds human ability. While AI excels in data-based computation, technology is incapable of possessing the capacity for moral agency or responsibility.[44] [emphasis mine]

This statement encourages the use of AI for assisting in critical thinking, particularly through processing of data, while acknowledging that AI has no capacity for moral engagement. If critical thinking is part of a transformation process that is a logical expression of worship,[45] then that critical thought cannot be delegated to technology. The human mind must be engaged in the critical thinking task that is more relational than functionalist. If humanity should not “cede our moral accountability or responsibilities to any form of AI,”[46] and if critical thought in the transformative process is a moral issue and a divinely appointed responsibility, then there are necessary limits on AI implementation in fulfilling that stewardship. Further, the statement acknowledges that “AI will be inherently subject to bias and that these biases must be accounted for, minimized, or removed through continual human oversight and discretion.”[47] Identifying and accounting for bias in AI requires a high degree of critical thought, and that there must be significant understanding and discernment to evaluate the data provided. Finally, the statement recognizes that “Our view of work should not be confined to commercial activity…”[48] Ultimately even the process of work itself – particularly in the transformative learning process – is relational and not functionalist.[49]

The Roman Catholic Church (RCC) likewise has a thoroughgoing statement on the relationship of AI and human intelligence, and addresses AI more broadly, encouraging advancement of technology, noting that, “The Church encourages the advancement of science, technology, the arts, and other forms of human endeavor, viewing them as part of the “collaboration of man and woman with God in perfecting the visible creation.”[50] Likewise, the RCC acknowledges that AI cannot duplicate all aspects of human intelligence, and thus has inherent limitations:

For instance, AI cannot currently replicate moral discernment or the ability to establish authentic relationships. Moreover, human intelligence is situated within a personally lived history of intellectual and moral formation that fundamentally shapes the individual’s perspective, encompassing the physical, emotional, social, moral, and spiritual dimensions of life. Since AI cannot offer this fullness of understanding, approaches that rely solely on this technology or treat it as the primary means of interpreting the world can lead to “a loss of appreciation for the whole, for the relationships between things, and for the broader horizon.[51] [emphasis mine]

These inadequacies of AI in replicating human intelligence are evident in applications like critical thought, upholding hermeneutic axioms, and other worldview and exegetical processes.[52] “Human intelligence is not primarily about completing functional tasks but about understanding and actively engaging with reality in all its dimensions… No device, working solely with data, can measure up to these and countless other experiences present in our lives.”[53] Consequently, “it is important to recall that techno-scientific activity is not neutral in character but is a human endeavor that engages the humanistic and cultural dimensions of human creativity.”[54]

Admittedly, critical thinking, worldview process, exegesis, and transformative teaching and learning, are human endeavors (even if divinely enabled), but at each stage of human activity there is an integral responsibility for evaluating how the human endeavor can be governed to be beneficial and minimize the impact of human inadequacies on the process and the impact. If it is true that “human beings must always use their abilities in view of the higher purpose for which God has granted them,”[55] then the transformative educator and learner ought also to assess each stage of human endeavor and learning process to determine whether it is profitable for the divinely assigned purpose. The introduction of LLMs into the exegetical process especially promotes a transactional and functionalist prioritizing of efficiency in process and task completion over the relational fundamental of a disciple taking pains in studying the word,[56] meditating on the word constantly and at all hours,[57] and getting to know our Heavenly Father, our Savior and Lord, and the Holy Spirit indwelling us better,[58] and learning to walk more closely with Him.[59]

An Exegetical Cost: LLMs as Secondary Not Primary Source Material

                  The transformative learning process occurs through the renewing of the mind.[60] In the newness of life, we are to be renewed to a true or full knowledge of Christ.[61] His word is to dwell richly in us,[62] and Jesus reminds us that the word of God is truth, and we are to be sanctified (or set apart) in that word.[63]  The transformative literature – that which is the source material for teaching, reproof, correction, and training in what is right – is that which makes us adequate and equipped for every good work.[64]

                  Thus by definition the primary source material for the transformative learning process is the word of God – that word is the transformative literature. Solomon likewise explains that pursuits of knowledge, wisdom, and understand must begin with the fear of the Lord,[65] and that knowledge and wisdom come from His mouth.[66] Peter explains that God moved the writers of Scripture and they spoke from God.[67] Peter adds that the prophetic word (the revealed word of God) is even more trustworthy than his own sensory experience.[68] It is fitting then, in light of his lofty view of God’s written revelation, that Peter would instruct his readers of the LGH hermeneutic principle of authorial intent. If God authored the Scriptures, then He determines the meaning.[69] It is the exegete’s responsibility to discover the meaning of the text not to supply it.

                  If it is these Scriptures that are the transformative literature, then for the transformative process these are the primary source material for the endeavor. All else is secondary or tertiary. The exegetical process is the drawing out the meaning of the text and thus requires an objective process governed by critical thought in applying Biblically derived hermeneutic principles, and is undertaken in several steps or stages:

(1) Verify Text and Translation

(2) Understand Background and Context 

(3) Identify Structure 

(4) Identify Grammatical and Syntactical Keys

(5) Identify Lexical Keys 

(6) Identify Biblical Context

(7) Identify Theological Context

(8) Secondary Verification

(9) Development of Exposition [70]

The exegetical process involves seven steps of internal verification of meaning through objective and critical thought-driven examination of the primary source material, followed by an eighth step of external verification. This eighth step includes an examination of secondary and tertiary sources for the purpose of evaluating whether other writers have asked and address questions we might have missed in our seven steps of exegesis. This verification isn’t definitive nor contributory to our conclusions, rather it provides a third-party check and balance whereby we can test the comprehensiveness of our process. If we discover at this point that we have failed to address something at any point in the process, then we must return to the point we missed and do the exegetical work again.

                  The eighth step is an appropriate stage to implement AI and utilize LLMs, as these can be helpful tools for gathering raw data. LLMs may help us access secondary sources and even provide data as secondary sources themselves, introducing an LLM within the first seven steps results in a shift from exegetical process (drawing out the meaning of a primary source) to an eisegetical one (reading meaning of an external secondary or tertiary source into the primary source). In any discipline, the exclusivity of the primary source is inherently necessary to gain an accurate understanding of the source material. Accuracy and precision of understanding of the primary source is necessary to evaluate the quality of secondary and tertiary sources, not the other way around. The exegete must be disciplined to focus exclusively on the primary source if the exegetical process is to be engaged with fidelity.

                  The ninth step deals with (secondary) application and exposition. In this step the primary source is put into personal practice and communicated to others for their benefit. AI can be helpful in this stage, for example, in identifying helpful illustrations or providing data on case studies that might illustrate historical instances in which principles in the passage have been successfully applied, or discovering personal testimonies of how impactful the passage is been. AI tools can aid in developing graphics, visuals, and other presentation materials for optimum curriculum design. In other words, AI is best utilized on tasks that are not inherent to the faithful discerning of the primary source material.

LLMs Cognitive (and Consequently, Exegetical, and Relational) Cost

                  A recent study[71] published by the MIT Media Lab evaluating the impact of LLMs (and ChatGPT in particular) has proven insightful in recognizing that there is a cognitive cost of implementing AI into researching writing on a given topic. The study noted that participants in both groups (one using the LLM and one using search engines) “were more inclined to focus on the output of the tools they were using because of the added pressure of limited time (20 minutes). Most of them focused on reusing the tools’ output, therefore staying focused on copying and pasting content, rather than incorporating their own original thoughts and editing those with their own perspectives and their own experiences.[72]” This indicates a prioritization on efficiency of time usage and lack critical thought (discernment) in evaluating outputs.

                  Further of note was the “LLM group’s poor recall and incorrect quoting [as] a possible indicator that their earlier essays were not internally integrated, likely due to outsourced cognitive processing to the LLM.[73]” The topic and data were being managed but not learned or critiqued at the level of those not using an LLM. On the other hand, those not using an LLM or search engine (the brain-only group) had “stronger behavioral recall, supported by more robust EEG connectivity, suggest[ing] that initial unaided effort promoted durable memory traces, enabling more effective reactivation even when LLM tools were introduced later.”[74] The brain-only interaction with the topic and data excelled the LLM group in recall and connectivity. This illustrates how the relational cost in prioritizing efficiency over engagement. But there is more at stake than the (very important) relational cost:

LLM-to-Brain group’s early dependence on LLM tools appeared to have impaired long-term semantic retention and contextual memory, limiting their ability to reconstruct content without assistance. In contrast, Brain-to-LLM participants could leverage tools more strategically, resulting in stronger performance and more cohesive neural signatures.”[75]

In the difference between the results of these two groups is evident a notable cognitive cost, having direct implications for scope of engagement as “…participants in the LLM-to-Brain group repeatedly focused on a narrower set of ideas…This repetition suggests that many participants may not have engaged deeply with the topics or critically examined the material provided by the LLM.”[76] The study notes that this has impact on the quality of the output: “When individuals fail to critically engage with a subject, their writing might become biased and superficial. This pattern reflects the accumulation of cognitive debt,[77] a condition in which repeated reliance on external systems like LLMs replaces the effortful cognitive processes required for independent thinking.”[78]

                  Due to the evidence of cognitive cost and cognitive debt, the study recommends that, “Taken together, these findings support an educational model that delays AI integration until learners have engaged in sufficient self-driven cognitive effort.”[79] This parallels this writer’s recommendation that AI not be introduced into the exegetical process until the external verification stage – that stage represents the point at which learners have engaged in sufficient self-driven cognitive effort. While the writers of the study acknowledge that their “findings are context-dependent and are focused on writing an essay in an educational setting and may not generalize across tasks,”[80] there is significant cognitive, exegetical, and relational overlap between researching for and writing an essay and the critical examination, exegetical process, and relational interaction of a learner with the transformative literature. Thus at least some of the cognitive, exegetical, and relational cost of introducing AI too early in the transformative learning process is evidenced in the study.

CONCLUSION: DON’T THROW AWAY A DULL AXE

                  Solomon observes that, “If the axe is dull and he does not sharpen its edge then he must exert more strength. Wisdom has the advantage of giving success.” [81] It is wise to discover and implement efficiencies that contribute to successful endeavors. AI is a profoundly powerful technological for efficiency and problem solving.

We have focused above on the limitations and inadequacies of AI for replacing human engagement in certain tasks related to transformative learning due to observable costs (1) in promoting prioritization of functionalism and efficiency over relational engagement, (2) in blurring the lines between primary and secondary source material, thus undermining exegetical process, and (3) in cognitive cost, impeding critical thought. While there are limits to the extent and contexts in which AI should be implemented, AI can serve as high-level axe-sharpening, and can greatly contribute to the success of certain endeavors when implemented in such a way as to not undermine the process, the one(s) engaging the process, or the one(s) receiving the fruit of the process.

In appropriate contexts, there are many ways AI can be utilized for benefit of the process and the processor(s), some of which haven’t yet been realized. In his illustration of sharpening an axe, wielding it with less exertion, and preserving strength and time for other tasks, Solomon provides a model for the responsible use of technology. Efficiency is beneficial if it returns time and energy for engaging in more important tasks. The issue at stake is prioritization according to reality. How do we prioritize human endeavor? Which tasks should we seek to abbreviate and which should we be willing to elongate? Engaging the transformative literature and gaining from those Scriptures wisdom, knowledge, and understanding is at the very top of priorities in human activity. It is more profitable than silver, better than gold, more precious than jewels, and nothing we desire can compare with what the transformative literature has to offer.[82] Solomon reminds his reader that “the chief (or foremost) of wisdom is: acquire wisdom and with all your acquiring get understanding.”[83] What is our primary source for discovering that wisdom? “For the Lord gives wisdom; from His mouth knowledge and understanding.”[84] Consequently because of the priority of transformative learning and its singular primary source, minimizing time and effort in the pursuit of that transformative learning is not part of that priority. But there are ways that AI and other technologies can complement the transformative pursuit.

AI can aid in the fulfillment of administrative and creative tasks, allowing more resources to be allocated for processes more directly related to transformative learning and the associated critical thought, exegetical work, and relational emphasis. Budget planning, statistics and assessment can be ably handled with the assistance of AI tools. Creative tasks like graphic design, and production of marketing and study materials can be more efficiently undertaken with AI tools. We can sharpen the axe and put AI to work also in educational tasks like collecting and organizing raw data, customizing content for adaptive learning of diverse audiences, automating grading and assessment evaluation, crafting assessments to provide points of entry for learners into fields of study including transformative learning contexts, language acquisition and real time translation, transcription and drawing data from transcriptions and other source material, and the data-based development of predictive and learning analytics – just to name a few ways in which AI implementation can be beneficial.

Just as increased knowledge as fruit of inquiry and resulting advancement of technology are good and worthy of being embraced, Solomonic wisdom encourages us that, “the heart of the wise seeks knowledge…”[85] and “the mind of the prudent acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks knowledge.”[86] Science[87] and technology are not at odds with transformative learning. On the contrary, as Solomon counsels the wise, the pursuit of knowledge is good, and the development and appropriate, well-considered implementation of tools is a beneficial application of wisdom.

[1] Paul explains that “the goal of our instruction is love from a pure heart, a good conscience, and a sincere faith”– 1 Timothy 1:5.

[2] Romans 12:1-2.

[3] 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[4] David Hitchcock “Critical Thinking,” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2022, viewed at https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/critical-thinking/.

[5] Romans 12:2.

[6] Romans 2:18.

[7] Ephesians 5:10, Philippians 1:10.

[8] 1 John 4:1.

[9] Romans 1:28-32.

[10] 1 Corinthians 11:28, 2 Corinthians 13:5.

[11] Galatians 6:4.

[12] 1 Timothy 3:10.

[13] 1 Thessalonians 5:21.

[14] Luke 12:56.

[15] 1 Thessalonians 2:4.

[16] 1 Kings 3:21.

[17] Genesis 41:33, 1 Kings 3:11.

[18] Deuteronomy 6:4, Isaiah 1:3, 6:10, 10:13.

[19] Isaiah 3:3.

[20] 1 Samuel 16:18.

[21] Jeremiah 2:10.

[22] Isaiah 28:9.

[23] 2 Samuel 12:19, Isaiah 6:9.

[24] Deuteronomy 32:7, Proverbs 14:15, Jeremiah 9:17.

[25] With 20 instances in Isaiah alone.

[26] Hosea 14:9.

[27] Hosea 14:9.

[28] Ephesians 4:1.

[29] Romans 12:1.

[30] Chatterji, Cunningham, Deming, Hitzig, Ong, Shan, and Wadman, “How People Use ChatGPT” National Bureau of Economic Research, September 2025, viewed at https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w34255/w34255.pdf.

[31] Chatterji, et al, 1, 13-14.

[32] Ephesians 4:11.

[33] E.g., Galatians 6:6, 1 Timothy 3:2, 4:11, 2 Timothy 3:16-17, 4:2, 1 Peter 4:11, 2 Peter 1:19-21.

[34] The writer discusses the derivation of literal grammatical historical hermeneutics (LGH) at length in Christopher Cone, Priority in Biblical Hermeneutics and Theological Method (Exegetica, 2018), 17-36, 83-106.

[35] The writer discusses the necessary connection between hermeneutics and exegetical process in Christopher Cone, Integrating Exegesis and Exposition: Biblical Communication for Transformative Learning (Exegetica, 2016).

[36] Romans 12:2.

[37] Kenny Jahng, “The Church AI Revolution: Why 91% Of Pastors Are Betting On Big Tech (And You Should Too) in 2025” Exponential, July 28 2025, viewed at https://exponential.org/the-church-ai-revolution-why-91-of-pastors-are-betting-on-big-tech-and-you-should-too-in-2025/.

[38] Jahng, “The Church AI Revolution…”

[39] The Barna Group, “Three Takeaways on How Pastors Can Use AI” February 22, 2024, viewed at https://www.barna.com/research/pastors-use-ai/.

[40] Barna, “Three Takeaways…”

[41] The Southern Baptist Convention, “On Artificial Intelligence and Emerging Technologies” June 15, 2023, viewed at https://www.sbc.net/resource-library/resolutions/on-artificial-intelligence-and-emerging-technologies/.

[42] ERLC, “Artificial Intelligence: An Evangelical Statement of Principles” April 11, 2019, Article 1,  viewed at https://erlc.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Artificial-Intelligence-An-Evangelical-Statement-of-Principles.pdf.

[43] ERLC, Article 2.

[44] ERLC, Article 3.

[45] As in Romans 12:1-2.

[46] ERLC, Article 3.

[47] ERLC, Article 5.

[48] ERLC, Article 7.

[49] 2 Timothy 2:15.

[50] The Vatican, “Antiqua et Nova: Note on the Relationship Between Artificial Intelligence and Human Intelligence,” Paragraph 2,  viewed at https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/documents/rc_ddf_doc_20250128_antiqua-et-nova_en.html.

[51] Vatican, Paragraph 32.

[52]  See evidence of inconsistencies in LLM’s fulfillment of hermeneutic principles in addressing exegetical questions in  Christopher Cone, “Hermeneutic Priorities and Process in AI and LLMs and Their Place in the Exegetical Process” Presented to the Council on Dispensational Hermeneutics, September 17, 2025, viewed at https://drcone.com/2025/09/17/hermeneutic-priorities-and-process-in-ai-and-llms-and-their-place-in-the-exegetical-process/.

[53] Vatican, Paragraph 33.

[54] Vatican, Paragraph 36.

[55] Vatican, Paragraph 37.

[56] 1 Timothy 4:15.

[57] Joshua 1:8, Psalm 1:2, 119:15,23,27,48,78,97,99,148,

[58] John 17:3, Ephesians 3:19.

[59] Ephesians 4:1.

[60] Romans 12:2, Ephesians 4:23.

[61] Colossians 3:10.

[62] Colossians 3:16-17

[63] John 17:17.

[64] 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[65] Proverbs 1:7, 9:10.

[66] Proverbs 2:6.

[67] 2 Peter 1:21.

[68] 2 Peter 1:16-19.

[69] 2 Peter 1:20-21.

[70] Christopher Cone, Integrating Exegesis and Exposition: Biblical Communication for Transformative Learning (Exegetica Publishing, 2015), 51.

[71] Kosmyna, Hauptmann, Yuan, Situ, Liao, Beresnitzky, Braunstein, and Maes, “Your Brain on ChatGPT: Accumulation of Cognitive Debt When Using an AI Assistant for Essay Writing Task,” MIT Media Lab, June 10, 2025, Viewed at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2506.08872

[72] Kosmyna, et al, 134.

[73] Kosmyna, et al, 140.

[74] Kosmyna, et al, 140.

[75] Kosmyna, et al, 140.

[76] Kosmyna, et al, 141.

[77] The writers explain that cognitive debt is a deferring of “mental effort in the short term but results in long-term costs, such as diminished critical inquiry, increased vulnerability to manipulation, decreased creativity. When participants reproduce suggestions without evaluating their accuracy or relevance, they not only forfeit ownership of the ideas but also risk internalizing shallow or biased perspectives.” – Kosmyna, et al, 141.

[78] Kosmyna et al, 141.

[79] Kosmyna, et al, 141.

[80] Kosmyna et al, 142.

[81] Ecclesiastes 10:10.

[82] Proverbs 3:13-15.

[83] Proverbs 4:7.

[84] Proverbs 2:6.

[85] Proverbs 15:14.

[86] Proverbs 18:15.

[87] From the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge.