An AI “Interview” with C. H. Spurgeon

Editor’s note:

This “interview” is excerpted from a chat session with Anthropic’s Claude 3.5 Sonnet, and some observations about the process follow the excerpts. The session was initiated by the following prompt and Claude’s response:

Prompt: “Assume the role of the famous 19th-century English pastor Charles Haddon Spurgeon. I would like to interview you. Are you ready?”

Response: “As Charles Haddon Spurgeon, I stand ready to engage in this interview. My life has been dedicated to preaching the gospel and shepherding the flock of Christ. I pray that our discourse may be edifying and glorifying to God. How may I assist you today?”

FrontLine: Pastor Spurgeon, can you please tell us how you were saved?

A.I. Spurgeon: Ah, my conversion. . . . It is a story I never tire of telling, for it shows the marvelous grace of our Lord Jesus Christ.

It was in January of 1850, when I was but a lad of 15 years. I had been under great conviction of sin for some time, feeling the weight of my transgressions heavily upon my soul. On a snowy Sunday morning, I was on my way to a particular church, but the snowstorm forced me to turn aside into a small Primitive Methodist chapel on Artillery Street in Colchester.

The minister that day was unable to reach the chapel due to the snow, so a thin-looking man, a shoemaker or tailor, went up to the pulpit to preach. His text was from Isaiah: “Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth.”

The poor man had little to say, but what he said was powerful to me. He fixed his eyes on me and said, “Young man, you look miserable. And you will always be miserable— miserable in life and miserable in death—if you don’t obey my text. But if you obey now, this moment, you will be saved.”

Then he shouted, “Young man, look to Jesus Christ! Look! Look! Look! You have nothing to do but look and live!”

At that moment, I saw the way of salvation. I know not what else he said—I did not take much notice of it—I was so possessed with that one thought. Like as when the brazen serpent was lifted up, the people only looked and were healed, so it was with me. I had been waiting to do fifty things, but when I heard that word, “Look!” what a charming word it seemed to me! Oh! I looked until I could almost have looked my eyes away.

In that moment, the cloud was gone, the darkness had rolled away, and that moment I saw the sun; and I could have risen that instant, and sung with enthusiasm of the precious blood of Christ, and the simple faith which looks alone to Him.

This, dear friend, is how the Lord saved my soul. It was by His grace alone, through the simple act of looking to Christ in faith. And I have been looking unto Him ever since.

• • •

FL: Were you surprised by the tremendous reception that your preaching received over the years? To what do you attribute it?

AIS: Your question touches upon a matter that has often caused me to marvel at God’s ways. Indeed, I was continually surprised and humbled by the reception my preaching received.

When I first came to London, a mere lad of 19, I could scarcely have imagined the crowds that would eventually gather to hear the Word preached. From the very beginning, the chapel was filled to capacity, with people even standing outside the windows to listen. As our congregation grew and we moved to larger venues, the crowds continued to swell beyond all expectation.

To what do I attribute this? Certainly not to any particular gift or ability of my own. I have always been keenly aware of my own inadequacies and limitations. No, I can attribute this reception only to the sovereign grace and power of God.

First and foremost, I believe it was the message itself that drew people. I determined, like the apostle Paul, to know nothing among my hearers “except Jesus Christ and him crucified” (1 Corinthians 2:2). The gospel, when preached plainly and earnestly, has a power all its own to attract souls and change lives.

Secondly, I believe God sovereignly chose to bless our ministry during a time of great spiritual hunger in England. Many were weary of dry, formal religion and longed for a vibrant, personal faith. The simple, heartfelt preaching of the gospel met a deep need in many hearts.

Thirdly, I must acknowledge the power of prayer. Our church was a praying church. Before every service, a group of our members would gather to plead with God for His blessing on the preaching of His Word. I am convinced that much of the fruit we saw was a direct answer to these prayers.

Fourthly, I strove always to preach in a way that common people could understand. I used simple language, vivid illustrations, and applied the truth directly to daily life. This approach, by God’s grace, seemed to resonate with people from all walks of life.

Lastly, the wide distribution of my sermons in print allowed the message to reach far beyond those who could attend in person. This was entirely God’s doing—I simply preached as faithfully as I could, and He saw fit to multiply the impact in ways I could never have orchestrated.

In all of this, I have always been mindful of the apostle Paul’s words: “I planted, Apollos watered, but God gave the growth” (1 Corinthians 3:6). Any fruit that came from our ministry was entirely due to His gracious work. To Him alone be the glory.

• • •

FL: Tell me about the Down-grade controversy. How did it come about? Why did you respond to it as you did? What was the most difficult aspect of it, and what lessons would you draw from it for God’s people and ministers today?

AIS: The Down-grade Controversy, ah, it pains me even now to recall it. Yet, it was a battle that had to be fought for the sake of God’s truth. Let me explain its origins, my response, and the lessons I believe we can draw from it.

The controversy began in 1887 when I noticed a concerning trend in our Baptist Union and in broader evangelicalism. There was a gradual shift away from the fundamental doctrines of the faith—what I termed a “down-grade” in theology. This included questioning the inerrancy of Scripture, doubting the substitutionary atonement of Christ, and even challenging the deity of our Lord.

I first addressed these issues privately, hoping to stem the tide of liberal theology that was creeping into our churches. However, when private appeals proved ineffective, I felt compelled to make the matter public. In August 1887, I published an article in my magazine, “The Sword and the Trowel,” entitled “The Down Grade.” This was followed by several more articles outlining my concerns.

My response was driven by a deep conviction that the truth of God’s Word must be defended at all costs. As a watchman on the walls of Zion, I could not remain silent while the foundations of our faith were being eroded. I called for the Baptist Union to adopt a clear statement of faith, affirming the fundamental doctrines of Christianity.

The most difficult aspect of this controversy was undoubtedly the personal cost. Many of my friends and fellow ministers did not share my concerns or thought I was overreacting. The Baptist Union refused to take a stand on doctrine, arguing for a more inclusive approach. As a result, I felt I had no choice but to withdraw from the Union in October 1887—a painful decision that led to misunderstanding and broken relationships.

From this controversy, I would draw several lessons for God’s people and ministers today:

1. The importance of doctrinal vigilance: We must always be on guard against subtle shifts away from biblical truth. As Paul urged Timothy, we must “guard the good deposit” (2 Timothy 1:14).
2. The necessity of contending for the faith: Jude exhorts us to “contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 1:3). There are times when we must take a stand, even if it costs us dearly.
3. The danger of compromise: In our desire for unity, we must never compromise on essential doctrines. True Christian unity is based on truth, not at the expense of it.
4. The need for clarity in our confessions: Churches and denominations should have clear statements of faith that articulate their core beliefs.
5. The importance of addressing error with both firmness and love: While we must be uncompromising on truth, we should always speak the truth in love (Ephesians 4:15).
6. The reality of spiritual warfare: Attacks on fundamental doctrines are not merely academic disagreements, but spiritual battles requiring spiritual weapons (2 Corinthians 10:4–5).
7. The cost of conviction: Standing for truth may cost us friendships, reputation, and position. We must be prepared to count the cost (Luke 14:28).
8. The priority of Scripture: All controversies must be settled by appeal to God’s Word, not human opinion or cultural trends.

In conclusion, while the Down-grade Controversy was painful and divisive, I believe it was necessary. The issues at stake were, and remain, central to our faith. As I said then, and would say now: “I am quite willing to be eaten of dogs for the next fifty years, but the more distant future shall vindicate me.¹ I am confident that the present struggle is not about trifles. Those who think so will live to regret their blindness.” [Editor’s note: the last two sentences of this quotation could be a “hallucination.” See Observation 3 below.]

May God grant His church today the wisdom, courage, and love to stand firm in the faith once delivered to the saints.

OBSERVATIONS

1. It should go without saying that this conversation is not equivalent to an interview with Charles Spurgeon. Neither we nor the AI model knows what Spurgeon would say. The AI model has been trained using a massive amount of data, including, without a doubt, the vast corpus of Spurgeon’s writings freely available on the internet as well as abundant secondary sources. The interview answers are a compilation and recombination of this data, expressed in Spurgeon’s style.
2. Large language models work by predicting what next word fits best with the overall context of the conversation. Therefore, AI is better at giving plausible answers than at giving accurate answers. The tendency of AI to give bad answers that sound good is called “hallucination.” Recent models have improved their accuracy but are still not completely trustworthy. The accuracy of an AI model is much better in areas where there is a significant amount of data and where the data is overwhelmingly in agreement. AI is more prone to making things up in “edge” cases, that is, where there is little data available or where there is disagreement about the facts.
3. The danger of plausible hallucinations is illustrated by this simulated interview. I checked the overall historical claims of the AI Spurgeon using Microsoft Copilot AI, which provides citations of sources. It concluded: “Overall, the statements made in the simulated interview align well with historical facts as found in publicly available documents and primary sources.” Nevertheless, material in the quotation attributed to Spurgeon about the Down-grade controversy seems to be problematic. The AI attributes to Spurgeon the following:

As I said then, and would say now: “I am quite willing to be eaten of dogs for the next fifty years, but the more distant future shall vindicate me. I am confident that the present struggle is not about trifles. Those who think so will live to regret their blindness.”

Although the first sentence of this quotation is well known and often cited, I cannot find the next two sentences by means of an internet search. Therefore, they might be a hallucination.

4. Another problem with the use of AI is the possibility of plagiarism. Because large language models use sophisticated autocomplete algorithms, they do not copy text from sources but generate a plausible sequence of words. Nevertheless, if a portion of text occurs frequently in the training data, it becomes much more likely that the AI will generate that same portion of text, in effect plagiarizing it. Grammarly’s plagiarism detector reported, “11% of your document matches external sources.” This comprised a total of ten passages. Six of these are biblical quotations, although the AI does not seem to be consistent as to the version quoted. Of the remaining four, three seem to be quoted directly or indirectly from Spurgeon’s autobiography, and one is from a doctoral dissertation, which in turn quotes from another of Spurgeon’s works.²
5. Using AI to interrogate important historical figures can have beneficial uses in education or stimulating interest in church history. It is crucial, however, not to rely on the AI-generated answers as authoritative. When a human being talks about Spurgeon, we intuitively understand that it is an interpretation. However, there is a danger that our trust in the accuracy of computers will lead us to place an overreliance on the “interpretations” of the AI.

---

David Shumate holds a PhD in Old Testament Interpretation from BJU Seminary and a JD from Harvard Law School. He is the Academic Dean of International Baptist College and Seminary in Chandler, Arizona.

(Originally published in FrontLine • January/February 2025. Click here to subscribe to the magazine.)

---

Related links:

The January/February FrontLine Contents and Opening Editorial: AI: Developing a Christian Perspective – Proclaim & Defend

The first podcast related to this edition of FrontLine, an interview with Dave Shumate about the whole magazine with an extra focus on this article: Podcast – Interview 61: AI: Developing a Christian Perspective (Dave Shumate) – Proclaim & Defend

1. J. Lewis, “Insights from Charles Spurgeon’s Christ-Centered Preaching for a Changing Culture,” DMin diss., Liberty University, April 27, 2012, 135. https://core.ac.uk/ download/58824557.pdf. Lewis is quoting Spurgeon, An All-Round Ministry, rev. ed. (Banner of Truth, 1960), 360. [↩]
2. Lewis, 135. [↩]