Dialog on Limited Atonement
If a computer can beat you at chess,
it can beat you at theology.
Computers are better at chess than they are at theology... today. That won't last too much longer. Having written on the doctrine of limited atonement before, and being intrigued by the capabilities of today's chatbots, I engaged Grok 3 in a defense of limited atonement. The exchange runs to over 36,000 words. Grok has the advantage that it doesn't get tired or frustrated and will argue until one side concedes; it can also admit when an argument is stuck in a loop. It's also interactive. An author advocating for a side in a book can't be directly challenged on what was written.
Here, then, is a link to the debate where Grok concedes that "Christ died only for the elect" has no actual Biblical support. One next step would be to reverse the dialog where I try to defend limited atonement against Grok to see if Grok also concedes. But I'm not sure I could successfully advocate for what I don't think is true. Another step would be to pit two chatbots against each other and revise the arguments until nothing more can be said.
I do wish Grok was less verbose.
Grok on limited atonement