ChatGPT Evaluating my post on Roman Catholicism

An interaction with Mr. Garrett Ham (@garrettham_esq) and a Mr. Daniel Harley (@Daniel__Harley) on X on or around 2 Aug 26.
1) Mr. Ham writes: 
“My evangelical upbringing taught me that the goal was to get as close to the early Church as possible. So I started reading what the early Church actually wrote. Now I'm Catholic.”
2) I replied to Mr. Ham: 
“Keep going back, sir. You’ve not gone far enough. I’ve read a great deal from 100-500 too and I’m a Baptist Reformed guy as a result. I believe most of them would be today as well. I focus far and away more on the Apostles than on anyone else. They were after all the only ones in history whose NT letters were inspired thus infallible. The early Christians weren’t modern day Roman Catholics by any stretch of the imagination.”
3) Mr. Ham replied to me:
“Is it that hard to accept that those closest to the apostles, some of whom knew the apostles or knew someone who knew the apostles, might have a better grasp as to what the apostles taught and how to interpret their writings?”
4) I replied to Mr. Ham: 
“Short answer: no sir, this isn’t hard. It’s in fact my standard assumption.
But longer answer, there are points to consider today for balance and wisdom. Here are just three with brief application:
1) They were not Roman Catholics. What Romanism is today; they were not. The ancients were more like modern Baptists than modern Catholics, at least going Didache, Clement, Ignatius oA, Polycarp, etc. far back. No infant baptismal regeneration ideas, none of them had a pope by any stretch of late 19th century definition, they all treasured what they had of the Scriptures above all things for the same reasons we do today, etc. Garrett, they would almost surely stand with us against Rome today. To see it you’d have to present the dogmatics of Trent to them to get their opinion on any semblance of modern Romanism. You’d have to present Vatican 1's dogmatics. You’d have to present the modern catechism. They clearly had none of these ideas.
2) I remember also how close Judas Iscariot was to Jesus. Or in timeline how close Alexander the Coppersmith was, or Diotrephes, or Hymenaeus or Philetus, etc. Have you not considered this? I know also of many that followed (bishops, monks or theologians) like Origen, Marcion, Honorius 1, Pelagius, Pius 9 or 12 (just two of many popes like H 1 with heretical doctrines but still mainly upheld today in the echelons above reality that is Rome), Arius, Nestorius, heretical councils, marian idolaters, Osteens, Dupplantises, Koreshes, etc., etc. all claiming the Faith. For goodness sake my man, if you want to know why you have almost no fidelity today with the ancients as you say you do, just come closer in timeline. Thomas Aquinas (perhaps the most influential RC of all) would be excommunicated and anathematized in vincible ignorance from the RCC today if he dared still uphold his clear denial of Mary’s alleged immaculate conception, an idea relatively new in his day that's dogma since about the end of the 19th century.
3) None of these earliest men wrote lengthy treatises on justification, the doctrine that divides us. It just was not their fight. And they certainly were not involved in their debates with a group like modern Baptists. They were not debating men who affirmed the triune nature of God, practiced baptism, and upheld the supremacy of Scripture. They didn’t have the solidifying vantage since the era of the Reformation (with Bibles in hand) of the drift of western Christianity post the Crusades that demanded a return to our first love. "The Reformation was the greatest act of the medieval Church itself—all that was best in the medieval Catholic Church correcting all that was worst." -Nick Needham.
Proximity is not sure orthodoxy. Orthodoxy is orthodoxy. We Protestants stand far more upon history- as it was- than Roman Catholics can...and all the way back to Jesus. I’m not claiming that the early church was a "First Baptist Church of Jerusalem", but I can’t let you get away with claiming it was Roman Catholic without pointing out at least some of these facts, sir. Grace to you.”
5) Mr. Harley replies to me: 
“ChatGPT gives your rebuttal to Catholicism a rating of 3 out of 10 for historical accuracy.”
6) I reply to both men what’s below: 
I’ve never done this before with ChatGPT, but overall my post actually got:
Historical accuracy: 4.5/10
Historical awareness: 7/10
Rhetorical effectiveness (for a Protestant audience): 8.5/10
Fairness toward opposing views: 3/10
I admit some parts here were overstatements. I do this sometimes to come near the level of the constant overstatements of Catholics and Orthodox folks. It can sure throw off an AI assessment. I realize that these things must in every case be argued for, which I'm prepared to do. But please pay particular attention to much of what it showed me right about. I won’t answer every point to keep this somewhat short. It’s just an AI program after all, but this was fun. ChatGPT’s full reply to my shown prompt is below without edit.
I understand why it didn't support my point about Baptists in the early days, but I like how it said the following: "The earliest Fathers resemble neither modern Roman Catholicism nor modern Baptist theology perfectly." This was my point by the end of my reply. This defeats modern Roman Catholic continuity claims, however, not modern Baptist ones. I know they weren’t Baptists. I should not pretend they were something they weren’t, and neither should the Roman Catholic or Eastern Orthodox person. What I “proved” (8.5 of 10) is the early church wasn’t modern Romanists on various key grounds. Of course, no Catholic is going to leave this fact unmassaged. History is not safe from Catholic apologists. It’s like going to a cafeteria. A little bit of this, a smidgen of that, a touch of the other, and a tray of grab-bagged items.
It (ChatGPT/AI) said, "Rome already enjoyed significant prestige." But that's not the problem. Rome doesn’t today just claim a mild “prestige,” it’s instead more like Pastor Aeternus, Chapter 3 stuff: "And so, whoever says that the Roman Pontiff has merely an office of inspection or direction, and not the full and supreme power of jurisdiction over the universal Church... let him be anathema." That’s not “prestige;” dem’s fightin’ words. The EoC, for example, would maybe accept a mere "prestige" claim…if made among the various patriarchates, but it unequivocally condemned later papal supremacy-based actions (filioque chiefly) and even later supremacy claims...which is the sinful arrogance we Protestants deny also. Then it says as evidence for the “prestige” thing: "For example: Clement of Rome intervenes in Corinth." This is a plainly false claim. Here’s how 1 Clement literally begins: "The Church of God which sojourns in Rome to the Church of God which sojourns in Corinth..." — 1 Clement 1.1 (Greek: Ἡ ἐκκλησία τοῦ θεοῦ ἡ παροικοῦσα Ῥώμην τῇ ἐκκλησίᾳ τοῦ θεοῦ τῇ παροικούσῃ Κόρινθον). I cited Clement above because of how early it is. There is no monarchical head in it. No pope signs it, and scholars argue who Clement even was. He could have been a secretary in Rome. When asked: “Is a pope or single leader in Rome ever mentioned in 1 Clement?” AI answers: “No. A pope or a single bishop/leader of Rome is never mentioned in 1 Clement.” It then also adds on its “research” access: “The author does not introduce himself as: "Clement, bishop of Rome," "the pope of Rome," "the successor of Peter," or "the head of the churches." Instead, the letter speaks corporately as the Roman church writing to the Corinthian church.” This is correct. The letter was written from the elders (plural) in Rome to the elders (plural) in Corinth reflecting the theology of the day. No pope! So, this is not “Rome claiming a supremacy” in prestige. And what was one of the main issues addressed in the letter? 1 Clement 47.6 says it: "It is disgraceful... that the steadfast and ancient church of the Corinthians should, because of one or two persons, revolt against its presbyters." Presbyters, plural. Elders, plural. This is in both places. Multiple elders wrote to multiple elders. AI is simply wrong to cite this as papal supremacy.
Side note: I also cited the Didache for how early it was. Back when they called for days of fasting before baptism (Didache 7.4) because they were all adults being baptized (no babies), preferably in running water (a river) or a baptistry big enough to go down into together in either cold or warm water in proper apostolic model with liberty for sprinkling if it couldn’t for some reason be done rightly. I digress.
It also said: "Irenaeus speaks of Rome's preeminent authority in Against Heresies 3.3.2." Preeminence, again, ain’t the issue. Many churches were in the east claiming to be founded by people; only one city in the west claimed it. Rome’s a big city. Big army. Big money. This makes its later post-Constantinian ecclesiastical claims less from above than from city size. In that, there is a prestige here, yes, but it’s not a divine claim. Note: no one should argue against the value of a centralization of ideas throughout early western church history, and at other times as well. No one can blame the Christians for rejoicing from 313 on in the empire. This still in no way even remotely establishes late medieval papal claims. What Irenaeus shows us is that there were some Christians centered in Rome. That’s all.
"'None of them had a pope...' Rating: 7.5/10." Still pretty high given that my arguments aren’t laid out well for it to weigh, and AI tends to try to avoid perceived polemical favoritism when it can. It's not able to make theological distinctions with conviction as a man can. But it goes on to say some things very helpful: "If by "pope" one means: universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, Vatican I papacy, then yes. No second-century bishop of Rome exercised the office defined in 1870.” But I spoke of 2nd century. I gave it that. I could speak into the sixth. In fact, the insanity of Vatican 1 would take some 1800 years to blind the eyes! Mormonism is older than Vatican 1!  
Oh, and please recall the now almost universally recognized lies of Roman Catholic history that completely undermine Rome’s claims such as the debunked Donation of Constantine, or the pseudo Isidorian and Dyonisian writings. These are now known to be late forgeries that even Catholic scholars don’t get behind anymore. Yet they were the foundation of Roman Catholic theology claims. Aquinas cites what he thought was authentic from Dyonisius approximately 1,700 times in his writings, he didn’t know, but it’s all a known forgery now. Worth a Google. My point is that those who put forth these things are invested in the same real estate as those who produced the papal succession lists. They’re not impressive anyway given the simony of the past. Many but not all claims to the “ancient faith of the apostles…” is lost in this.
Oh, and it’s just something I must add. Of the so-called “catholic” Catholic church, isn’t it curious that 217 of 265 (~82%) popes have been Italian dudes? Apparently, the catholic church just ain’t that catholic. Odd. Note: Do not look up Scipione Rebiba 1541 (one of countless dubious holes).
Consider also 1 Nicaea and the issues debated in the 4th century. I can understand debate, but why debate with a couple hundred scattered and mostly apparently confused bishops at all if there was an infallible head to tell everyone the truth of the Son’s Deity from his infallibly preserved chair? Why not just ask Sylvester 1? Are councils guaranteed somehow to assure papal infallibility up till 1870 and beyond, or is it the head? No one did so because no one believed there was some infallible head over in Italy to consult. Constantine didn’t. It’s instead a sub thirty-year-old clerk named Athanasius whose exegesis (much later than the council’s day) ends up winning the day. A sound interpretation of Scripture did it. Always can.
Origen came way later than all those I cited as not having a pope (which it agreed to) like Polycarp, Ignatius oA, Clement, or the writers of the Didache. It fails to reconcile dating often.
Cyprian died in the middle of the 3rd century supporting my point.
It says "Irenaeus appears to imply infant baptism." Okay, AI can't determine that as well as I can. “Appears to imply” is the key to the deception often in the cafeteria style history of the modern Catholic who has to pretend his faith is ancient, but everyone can appeal to the writings of the early Christians to advocate many things.
Frankly, I grow tired of men in the cafeteria of the first 1K years when the heresies we’ll contend on today came in the last 1K years, and many in the last 500 as Rome’s irreformability became only more and more entrenched post God’s Reformation.
I realize this response is already too long, so I’ll just stop. Consider the comments below if you’d like though and ask yourself if AI “thinks” the early church was Roman Catholic. An argument can always be attempted, sure, but it sure ain’t the slam dunk most historically ignorant Catholics say it is according to this, is it? I’ll cite in closing here the end of my 2nd response to Mr. Ham above: “I’m not claiming that the early church was a "First Baptist Church of Jerusalem", but I can’t let you get away with claiming it was Roman Catholic without pointing out at least some of these facts, sir.”

------------------------------

ChatGPT's response in its entirety for my prompt: "rate the following for its historical accuracy on a scale of 1 to 10:"
Overall, I would rate it 4.5/10 for historical accuracy.
As a piece of Protestant apologetics, it raises some legitimate historical observations. However, it also contains a number of claims that are overstated, anachronistic, or factually inaccurate. Here's how I would evaluate it point by point.
 
1. "They were not Roman Catholics."
Rating: 6.5/10
This depends entirely on what is meant by "Roman Catholic."
Historically, it is true that:
The earliest post-apostolic church did not possess the fully developed dogmatic system defined by the Council of Trent, First Vatican Council, or the modern Catechism of the Catholic Church.
Papal infallibility had not been defined.
The Marian dogmas of the Immaculate Conception and Assumption had not been defined.
Numerous later Roman Catholic doctrines were undeveloped.
All of that is historically correct.
However, the statement
"The ancients were more like modern Baptists than modern Catholics" is historically very difficult to defend.
The earliest Fathers generally affirmed things modern Baptists reject, including:
episcopal church government (especially Ignatius of Antioch), a very high view of the Eucharist, baptismal efficacy (though exactly what they meant varies), sacramental language, liturgical worship.
Conversely, they also lacked many later Roman Catholic distinctives.
A better historical statement would be: "The earliest Fathers resemble neither modern Roman Catholicism nor modern Baptist theology perfectly."
That would be much closer to the evidence.

2. "No infant baptismal regeneration ideas."
Rating: 2/10
This is historically inaccurate.
The earliest writers do not explicitly discuss infant baptism as often as later writers, but by the second and third centuries:
Irenaeus appears to imply infant baptism.
Origen explicitly says infant baptism came from the apostles.
Cyprian of Carthage advocates infant baptism.
Likewise, baptismal regeneration language is extremely common.
Examples include: Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage.
Modern scholars across confessional lines generally acknowledge that sacramental realism is widespread in the early church.

3. "None of them had a pope..."
Rating: 7.5/10
If by "pope" one means:
universal jurisdiction, papal infallibility, Vatican I papacy, then yes.
No second-century bishop of Rome exercised the office defined in 1870.
However:
Rome already enjoyed significant prestige.
For example: Clement of Rome intervenes in Corinth.
Irenaeus speaks of Rome's preeminent authority in Against Heresies 3.3.2.
So saying they had "none of them had a pope" oversimplifies the evidence.
4. "They treasured Scripture above all things."
Rating: 8/10
Mostly true.
The Fathers consistently appeal to Scripture as authoritative.
However, they also appeal to:
apostolic tradition, episcopal succession, the rule of faith.
Modern Baptist sola Scriptura is not simply identical with their approach.
5. Judas, Diotrephes, Arius, etc.
Rating: 8.5/10
The underlying point—proximity to the apostles does not guarantee orthodoxy—is completely fair.
No historian would dispute that.
The list itself is uneven, however.
For example:
Judas, Diotrephes, Hymenaeus, Arius, Marcion all fit. But including people like Pope Pius IX or Pope Pius XII simply assumes Protestant conclusions rather than demonstrating historical error. Likewise, calling them "heretics" is a confessional judgment rather than a neutral historical one.
6. Aquinas and the Immaculate Conception
Rating: 8.5/10
This is largely correct.
Thomas Aquinas did reject what later became the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
However, "he would be excommunicated" is speculative.
Modern Catholic theologians generally argue that if Aquinas lived after 1854 he would submit to the Church's dogmatic definition.
Historically, though, yes: Aquinas denied the doctrine later defined by Pope Pius IX.
7. "None wrote lengthy treatises on justification."
Rating: 8/10
Generally true.
Justification simply was not the central controversy of the second century.
The major debates involved: Gnosticism, Marcionism, Monarchianism, Arianism, Christology, Trinity.
The Reformers later systematized justification in response to medieval controversies.
 
8. "They weren't debating modern Baptists."
Rating: 10/10
Completely true.
This is an important historical caution.
Neither side should pretend the Fathers were answering sixteenth-century debates.
9. "Protestants stand far more upon history than Roman Catholics."
Rating: 2/10 (as historical analysis)
This is not a historical claim that can be demonstrated objectively.
It is a confessional assertion.
Roman Catholics would argue exactly the opposite.
A historian would not present either statement as an established historical fact.
 
Overall strengths
The piece correctly emphasizes: doctrinal development, the danger of chronological snobbery, that proximity to the apostles does not guarantee orthodoxy, that later Roman Catholic dogmas were not fully articulated in the earliest centuries, that the Fathers should not be read anachronistically.
Those are all valid historical cautions.
Overall weaknesses
The biggest problems are: equating the Fathers more closely with modern Baptists than with Roman Catholics, denying early baptismal regeneration, implying the Fathers held a Baptist doctrine of Scripture, treating later Roman Catholic figures as obviously "heretical" in what purports to be a historical argument, several rhetorical overstatements ("almost surely stand with us," "far more upon history than Roman Catholics").
 
Final assessment
If I were grading this in a graduate church history course:
Historical accuracy: 4.5/10
Historical awareness: 7/10
Rhetorical effectiveness (for a Protestant audience): 8.5/10
Fairness toward opposing views: 3/10
With more nuanced language—acknowledging that the early church shared features with both later Protestantism and later Catholicism while differing significantly from both—the piece could be brought into the 7.5–8.5/10 range for historical accuracy.