Comparisons between Processual and Reformed Soteriologies

Comparisons between Processual

and Reformed Soteriologies

How God’s Love Redeems

through Solidarity,

Transformation, and Co-Creation

A Processual Soteriology of the Cross

PART 3

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT 5

August 9, 2025

Introduction

I.

The past several decades have seen a surge of renewed interest in Reformed theology, especially within the “Young, Restless, and Reformed” movement. Figures like John Piper, Albert Mohler, Matt Chandler, Tim Keller, and Kevin DeYoung shaped a generation with powerful preaching, cultural apologetics, and an unapologetic Calvinist worldview. Reformed soteriology - anchored in:

• Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) - Christ dies to bear the penalty of human sin, satisfying God’s justice so that the elect may be forgiven;

• Monergism - the belief that God is the sole agent in salvation, specifically in the act of spiritual regeneration;

• Divine Sovereignty - otherwise expressed as Divine Rule and Might.

And though these dogmas have provided many Christians with a sense of theological backbone, moral seriousness, and identity, they have also been used to justify oppression, coercion, and cruelty.

And so, for other Christians, the conservative Reformed framework of Calvinism has been alienating, overly deterministic, and framed in a God-image defined primarily by retributive justice.

In comparison, from a process-theological perspective, especially one informed by Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy and by its necessary derivative - Open and Relational Process Theology (ORPT) - there is an opportunity to retain the depth and seriousness of Reformed preaching while redirecting its core toward a co-creative relational, transformative, and cosmic vision of salvation without authoritarian control nor it's subsequent history of misuse and abuse.

II.

For a growing number of theologians, pastors, and laypeople, they are drawn to a more relational, transformative vision of the gospel - one which sees God not as the cosmic judge enforcing a legal verdict, but as the co-suffering companion, creatively working with the world toward its healing.

This alternative biblical belief emerges powerfully in Process Theology. One that is rooted in Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy and developed by scholars such as John Cobb, Marjorie Suchocki, and Catherine Keller. A philosophic-theology which removes the eclectic philosophic core of evangelic theology and which core vibrates intensely with the worth, value, and integrity of all created things. Thus correlating with Jesus' teachings of a God who loves and teaches us to love one another in return.

Conversely, classical and traditional theologies such as Reformed or evangelical theology bear no such generative cores in their philosophic foundations as process philosophy contains:

• Platonism — Values are anchored in eternal, immutable Forms (the Good being the highest). This is a static valuative core — goodness is absolute and unchanging.

• Aristotelianism — Values are tied to telos (purpose) and virtue ethics; the good life is about fulfilling one’s natural ends. This is dynamic in development but still oriented toward a fixed end-state.

• Scholasticism — Merges Aristotelian teleology with Christian theology; values are grounded in God’s immutable nature and natural law. The core is theocentric and hierarchical resulting in judgment and wrath as much as divine love.

• Modern philosophies — Highly diverse. Rationalism, empiricism, Kantian ethics, utilitarianism — each has its own value center, but often detached from metaphysics (e.g., Kant’s categorical imperative as a moral law).

• Process philosophy — Values are rooted in creativity, relationality, and the ongoing enrichment of experience. The valuative core is dynamic, participatory, and future-oriented, measuring worth by how an act contributes to beauty, harmony, and intensity of experience.

In short: Other philosophies have a valuative core, but they are usually static or fixed. Process philosophy’s core is living and evolving making it idea to rest a Christian theology of love upon.

This is a statement Alfred North Whitehead himself would smile at in the re-framing. Here’s why:

• Living & evolving core — Process philosophy treats value as something emergent in the unfolding of relationships, not pre-packaged in a fixed essence. That makes it inherently open to deepening understandings of love.

• Relational metaphysics — Since all actual entities exist in relation, love becomes not just an ethical add-on but the very structure of reality’s becoming.

• Future-oriented — Love in process thought is not a static ideal but an ongoing lure toward greater beauty, harmony, and intensity — perfectly aligning with a Christian theology that sees love as the central telos of God’s work.

• Noncoercive divine action — The process God works by persuasion, not compulsion — making divine love consistent with freedom, growth, and co-creation.

In this sense, process philosophy is not only compatible with - but uniquely suited to - undergird a Christian theology of love, especially one that wants to move beyond fear-based or coercive models of penury salvation.

III.

What follows is a side-by-side comparison between the Reformed soteriological backbone and a processual alternative, an expanded biblical and historical grounding for this approach, and practical reimaginings of popular evangelism tools. The goal is to show how the cross can be understood as the decisive revelation of God’s solidarity, transformation, and co-creation — moving salvation from verdict to vocation.

R.E. Slater

August 9, 2025

---

1. Understanding the Reformed Soteriological Backbone

The New Reformed Calvinism surge has been driven not just by theology, but by identity formation and cultural posture (cf. 2019 article here). The Key points of the Reformed approach to soteriology are:

• Penal Substitutionary Atonement (PSA) as central: Christ dies to bear the penalty of human sin in our place.

• Total depravity: Humanity is utterly incapable of saving itself.

• Monergistic salvation: God alone acts to save; human cooperation is irrelevant to the moment of salvation.

• Deterministic election: Who is saved is decided by God’s eternal decree.

• Pastoral tone: High seriousness, often “heroic” in endurance; suffering is framed as God’s sovereign will for sanctification.

This produces a fortress faith — emotionally strong for some, alienating for others.

---

2. Problems from a Process Perspective

From a Whiteheadian or process-theological lens, several problems emerge:

• God’s coercive violence: PSA presupposes God’s justice as retributive, requiring violence to satisfy wrath.

• Static decree: Reformed theology sees the atonement as a transaction in eternity past, unaffected by actual human history of the temporal past, present, or future.

• One-way causation: God acts on humanity, not with humanity.

• Narrow telos: Salvation is reduced to legal acquittal, not cosmic renewal or relational transformation.

---

3. Biblical and Theological Depth

A processual reading engages the breadth of Scripture:

• Hebrew Bible: God as Liberator (Exod. 3), Healer (Isa. 53 read relationally), Restorer of shalom (Mic. 6:8).

• Gospels: Jesus embodies divine solidarity (John 1:14), calls people into the kingdom’s justice and mercy (Matt. 5–7), and confronts systemic evil.

• Paul: Cosmic reconciliation (Col. 1:15–20) and new creation (2 Cor. 5:17–19) - relational, not purely forensic.

• John & Revelation: Mutual indwelling (John 15), making all things new (Rev. 21:5).

Process theology doesn’t discard biblical atonement metaphors - ransom, sacrifice, reconciliation, victory - but reframes them relationally, as movements of healing love rather than legal transactions.

---

4. Historical Lineage

While PSA dominates modern Reformed circles, other atonement models in Christian history align more naturally with process thought:

• Irenaeus’ Recapitulation: Christ renews creation by summing up human life in himself.

• Abelard’s Moral Influence: The cross transforms hearts by revealing God’s love.

• Eastern Orthodox Theosis: Salvation as participation in God’s life.

• Christus Victor: God’s love triumphs (Love Wins!) over the powers of death and evil.

Processual soteriology can be seen as a metaphysical maturation of these relational models.

---

5. Building a Processual Soteriology

We can keep some of the emotional backbone and seriousness of Reformed preaching but redirect the logic of salvation toward relational transformation and cosmic healing.

Core Features:

1. Atonement as Transformative Solidarity

   • Christ’s crucifixion is God’s full participation in the suffering and brokenness of creation, not a transaction to satisfy wrath.

   • God absorbs, bears, and transforms the worst that evil can do through noncoercive love.

2. Kenotic Love, Not Retributive Justice

   • God does not demand blood to forgive; rather, divine love is self-emptying (Phil. 2:5–11) to the uttermost.

   • The cross shows the lengths God will go to be in redemptive relationship.

3. Co-Creative Redemption

   • Salvation is not a static verdict but a dynamic, ongoing transformation of persons and communities.

   • God and creation work together toward a healed, reconciled cosmos.

4. Universal Scope of the Cross

   • The atonement is not limited to “the elect” but embraces all creation (Col. 1:20).

   • Salvation is God’s persuasive lure toward wholeness, offered universally.

5. Open-Ended Future

   • The effects of the crucifixion are not locked in as a finished decree but unfold in history as free agents respond.

---

6. Processual Reading of Key Biblical Motifs

• Ransom → Liberation from systems of oppression (including the church), not payment to Satan or God.

• Sacrifice → Self-giving, Self-emptying, sacrificial, love that models the way of the kingdom.

• Reconciliation → Restoration of broken relationships across all spectrums of alienated creation.

• Victory (Christus Victor) → Triumph over the powers of death, sin, and systemic evil through persistent love.

---

7. How This Adjusts Reformed Soteriology

• Keeps moral seriousness but removes divine coercion.

• Keeps Christ-centered focus but sees Christ as the relational lure toward life, not the object of divine wrath.

• Keeps missional energy but opens mission to be restorative and justice-oriented, not conversion-and-doctrine enforcement.

• Shifts worldview language from dominion to relational equality and integration with all creation.

---

8. The Processual Mechanism

In Whiteheadian metaphysics:

• God’s Initial Aim: In every moment, God offers the best possibility for beauty, harmony, and intensity.

• Christ Event: In Jesus, God’s aims are made historically concrete — a decisive disclosure of divine character.

• The Cross: A world-shaping event that redefines what futures are possible; evil is met with noncoercive love.

• The Resurrection: The ontological vindication that love is more powerful than death, grounding hope for ultimate renewal.

---

9. Processual Reading of Biblical Motifs

Traditional Term	Processual Reading
Ransom	Liberation from systems of oppression
Sacrifice	Self-giving love that models kingdom life
Reconciliation	Restoration of relational harmony
Victory	Triumph of love over the powers of death

---

10. Pastoral & Missional Implications

A processual soteriology:

• Preaching: Moves from “escape from hell” to “join God’s healing work.”

• Counseling: Frames God as present in trauma - not a producer of trauma - thus luring toward wholeness, healing, and divine co-suffering.

• Mission: Extends salvation beyond the church to ecological care, sociological justice, and institutional peacemaking. Heaven is not the goal, but working out one's salvation in this life is the purpose for living.

• Discipleship: Life-long transformation, not one-time salvific decision that are argued whether lost or kept in fruitless debates. Transformation! Transformation! Transformation!

---

11. Reimagining Methods of Evangelism and Church Planting

Example One: The Romans Road → Processual Path to Life

It begins with creation’s goodness, reframes sin as relational rupture, moves to the cross as God's own healing solidarity with the world, and ends with resurrection as becoming a new creation wherein salvation is entered into as a lifelong journey. (And in the Nones and Dones cases, usually without the church as co-companion when found to have failed in its shepherding duties to its congregant).

The Romans Road is a popular evangelical method of explaining the Christian gospel using a sequence of verses from the book of Romans in the New Testament.

It’s essentially a “step-by-step” theological outline that moves from human sinfulness to God’s provision of salvation in Christ to a call for personal response.

Typical Romans Road Steps

(Verse order and selection can vary slightly, but the core logic is consistent)

1. All Have Sinned — Romans 3:23

   “For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”
   Establishes universal human guilt before God.

2. The Consequence of Sin is Death — Romans 6:23a

   “For the wages of sin is death…”
   Shows that sin leads to spiritual separation from God.

3. God’s Gift is Eternal Life Through Jesus — Romans 6:23b

   “…but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
   Introduces God’s grace as the solution.

4. Christ Died for Sinners — Romans 5:8

   “But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.”
   Centers the gospel in the cross.

5. Confession & Belief Lead to Salvation — Romans 10:9–10

   “If you declare with your mouth, ‘Jesus is Lord,’ and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved…”
   Presents the response of faith.

6. Assurance of Salvation — Romans 10:13

   “For everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”
   Emphasizes the inclusivity of the invitation.

Purpose

• Clarity: Offers a linear, easy-to-remember evangelism outline.

• Authority: Uses only Scripture, appealing to Bible-centered audiences.

• Decision-oriented: Aimed at leading a person to a moment of personal commitment.

Critique

From a process or broader theological perspective, the Romans Road:

• Assumes penal substitutionary atonement as the underlying logic.

• Frames salvation as transactional and individualistic rather than relational and cosmic.

• Focuses on a one-time decision rather than lifelong transformation.

• Uses a courtroom metaphor more than a relational or healing one.

A Processual Alternative: The Processual Path to Life

Step 1: Creation’s Goodness & God’s Relational Love — Genesis 1:31; Acts 17:28

Step 2: The Fracture of Harmony — Romans 1:21–23; Isaiah 59:2

Step 3: God’s Persistent Call — Jeremiah 31:3; Hosea 11:4

Step 4: Jesus as the Full Revelation of God’s Love — John 1:14; Colossians 1:19–20

Step 5: The Cross as Transformative Atonement — 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Peter 2:24

Step 6: Resurrection as the New Creation — 1 Corinthians 15:20–22; Revelation 21:5

Step 7: Joining the Journey of Love — Micah 6:8; Matthew 22:37–40

Key Shifts: From sin to creation’s goodness; from guilt to relational rupture; from substitutionary payment to transformative healing; from individual decision to lifelong transformation; from God as judge to God as co-creating love.

---

Example Two. Kennedy's Evangelism Explosion (EE) Method 

This is method is a diagnostic question made famous by Dr. D. James Kennedy of Coral Ridge Presbyterian Church in Fort Lauderdale, Florida (James Kennedy is not John Kennedy, the U.S. president).

The Two Diagnostic Questions (Kennedy Method)

Dr. Kennedy trained Christians to begin gospel conversations by asking two key questions:

1. Question 1 — The Heaven Assurance Question

   "If you were to die tonight, do you know for sure that you would go to heaven?"
   This is meant to uncover a person’s spiritual assurance (or lack thereof).

2. Question 2 — The Reason for Entry Question

   "If God were to ask you, 'Why should I let you into my heaven?' what would you say?"
   This is designed to reveal what the person is depending on for salvation — good works, moral life, faith in Christ, etc.

Purpose of the Method

• It creates a sense of urgency about eternal destiny.

• It exposes misunderstandings about salvation.

• It opens the door to present the gospel (usually in a Reformed, penal-substitution framework).

Critiques & Concerns

From a process theology or relational gospel perspective:

• It treats salvation as primarily about going to heaven, not about participating in God’s redemptive work here and now.

• It’s rooted in fear-based motivation rather than love-based invitation.

• It assumes a fixed afterlife binary rather than emphasizing God’s ongoing relationship with creation.

• It is transactional (correct answer → heaven) rather  than transformational (lifelong relational journey).

Process-based evangelism shifts from afterlife anxiety to present companionship; from gatekeeping to co-creative reflection.

Processual Reframe: The Processual Invitation Method

Let's reframe Kennedy's “two questions” method into a Processual Invitation Method that keeps the conversational engagement but shifts the theology and tone toward relational, love-centered process thought.

• Q1 Reframe: “If life were to change forever tonight, do you know the One who walks with you into every tomorrow?”

• Q2 Reframe: “If God were to ask you, ‘What have we made together with the life I’ve given you?’ how would you answer?”

Why It Works: Moves from afterlife to present relationship, from judgment to co-creation, from fear to invitation.

---

Example Three: The Processual Invitation Method

The Processual Path to Life: A Relational Gospel Flow

1. Creation’s Goodness & God’s Relational Love — Genesis 1:31; Acts 17:28

   “God saw all that he had made, and it was very good… In him we live and move and have our being.”
   

   God’s intent has always been life, beauty, and flourishing in relationship.

2. The Fracture of Harmony — Romans 1:21–23; Isaiah 59:2

   “They did not honor him as God… their hearts were darkened… Your iniquities have separated you from your God.”
   

   Humanity often chooses self-interest over love, breaking the harmony of relationships with God, each other, and creation.

3. God’s Persistent Call — Jeremiah 31:3; Hosea 11:4

   “I have loved you with an everlasting love… I led them with cords of human kindness.”
   

   God never stops luring creation toward wholeness, even amid human failure.

4. Jesus as the Full Revelation of God’s Love — John 1:14; Colossians 1:19–20

   “The Word became flesh and dwelt among us… God was pleased to reconcile to himself all things… through the blood of his cross.”
   

   In Jesus, God’s character is revealed as self-giving, healing love that confronts evil and restores relationships.

5. The Cross as Transformative Atonement — 2 Corinthians 5:19; 1 Peter 2:24

   “God was in Christ reconciling the world to himself… By his wounds you have been healed.”
   

   The crucifixion is not God punishing Jesus in our place, but God-with-us in suffering, absorbing evil’s worst, and opening the path to new life.

6. Resurrection as the New Creation — 1 Corinthians 15:20–22; Revelation 21:5

   “Christ has been raised… in Christ all will be made alive… Behold, I am making all things new.”
   

   The resurrection is God’s pledge that love’s life-giving power will ultimately prevail.

7. Joining the Journey of Love — Micah 6:8; Matthew 22:37–40

   “Do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with your God… Love God… and love your neighbor as yourself.”
   

   Salvation is an ongoing, co-creative relationship — responding to God’s lure by living love in every sphere of life.

---

Original EE Question 1

"If you were to die tonight, do you know for sure that you would go to heaven?"

Processual Reframe:

"If life were to change forever tonight, do you know the One who walks with you into every tomorrow?"

Why this works:

• Moves focus from afterlife location to present relationship.

• Opens discussion on God’s ongoing companionship in both joy and suffering.

• Avoids fear-mongering while still prompting deep reflection on meaning and hope.

Original EE Question 2

"If God were to ask you, 'Why should I let you into my heaven?' what would you say?"

Processual Reframe:

"If God were to ask you, 'What have we made together with the life I’ve given you?' how would you answer?"

Why this works:

• Shifts from transactional gatekeeping to co-creative partnership.

• Invites reflection on how God’s love has shaped your life and how you’ve joined in God’s work.

• Embeds the process idea that salvation is an unfolding journey of relationship, not a one-time pass/fail judgment.

Follow-up Conversation Flow:

Instead of pivoting into a fixed Reformed “Romans Road” presentation, you might:

1. Listen deeply to their reflections — affirm what is good, explore what is missing.

2. Share your own journey of how you’ve experienced God as a loving, persuasive presence who never forces but always invites.

3. Invite them into that same ongoing relationship — a partnership with God that transforms life now and carries forward into God’s future.

Core Processual Soteriology Principles Embedded Here

• God’s power is persuasive love, not coercion.

• Salvation is about flourishing with God in the present and into eternity.

• Eternal life begins now, in each moment we respond to God’s lure toward love, justice, and beauty.

• The focus is relational transformation rather than transactional escape.

---

Conclusion

Processual soteriology does not dilute the seriousness of sin or the centrality of Christ. Instead, it reframes them in the light of a God whose power is persuasive, whose justice is restorative, and whose aim is the flourishing of all creation.

The cross is not the end of a divine legal proceeding, but the pivot point in a cosmic story of love - a love that enters our suffering, transforms our wounds, and calls us into the vocation of co-creating God’s new world.

This is the shift from verdict to vocation:

• From a static decree about our eternal fate,
• to an ongoing partnership in God’s mission of reconciliation,
• here, now, and forever.

Open and Relational Theology in Evangelical & Processual Contexts

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT5

Open and Relational Theology

in Evangelical & Processual Contexts:

From Arminian Roots to

a Processual Horizon

PART 2

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT 5

August 9, 2025

EXPLANATION OF ILLUSTRATION

Color-code branches signify:

- Calvinism (deep blue)

- Arminianism (green)

- ORT (orange)

- ORPT (gold)

- Evangelical adaptations (red)

Illustration of a layered flowchart or family tree visualizing:

- Calvinism and Arminianism origins (with denominational branches).

- Their evolution into hybrid forms.

- The emergence of Open & Relational Theology (ORT).

- The further development into Open & Relational Process Theology (ORPT).

- The evangelical “hijacking” of ORPT to it's own purposes (evanglicalized ORT).

Introduction

Evangelical-Arminian "Open and Relational Theology" (EA/ORT = ORT) has emerged as one of the most significant theological movements to challenge and reshape Evangelical-Calvinistic thought in recent decades.

While it builds upon earlier Arminian insights into divine love, freedom, and relationality, it also moves beyond them - having itself derived from earlier forms of Process Theology in what is Open and Relational Process Theology (ORPT).

Because process theology is malleable it can morph into various sub-derivations of itself such as ORT. To be sure, ORT is a synthetic position that is part process and part non-process. The non-process part will be related to ORT's earlier continuity with classic Arminian tradition which was built upon non-processual metaphysics and ethics.

As a synthetic adaptation, ORT has been selectively adopted, adapted, or even "hijacked," by sympathetic evangelical leaders and institutions. As a result, this newer synthetic theology has created a significant watershed moment for the broader evangelical movement - forcing evangelicals to confront prior 16th and 20th century metaphysical commitments and theological boundaries prominent in Calvinistic theology either positively - or, more commonly, in defense, apologetically (thus, negatively, implying no helpful forward movement).

Moreover, it is correct to observe  that Open and Relational Theology (ORT) has evolved from core Arminian impulses to radically expand and reframe classic Arminianism through the newer philosophical and theological lens of process philosophy and theology.

This means that to think along open and relational lines is to utilize process thought re-contextualized within the evangelical context thus making evangelical dogma more processual than it once was.

Because Evangelicalism struggles with anything outside of itself, the newer development of a processualized version of (Arminian-based) ORT has been careful to exclude any reference to it's proper progenitor, Process Thought (sic, ORPT). Process theology in many ways is foreign to evangelicalism and common responses of heresy are wildly thrown about.

And yet, it must be acknowledged that "open and relational process theology" is the rightful birth child of process philosophy from which EA/ORT is derived and is being adapted into evangelical doctrine. Thus, ORT is a synthetic derivative of ORPT.

It will therefore be observed here that however much process philosophy and theology is removed or excluded by ORT will likewise correspond to the degree of difficulty ORT will heap upon itself as it creates a pseudo-theologic, philosophic, and scientific world observations/connections based upon non-processual conjectures and assertions. Thus creating for itself processual disconnects with the more rigorous processual theology it delved from.

In mine own surmise, it would be better that ORT conforms to Process itself than to set itself apart from process thought in appeasement to evangelical theology. When doing so, ORT will suffer from it's own philosophic confusions having accepted foreign non-processual philosophic and theologic systems into Whitehead's process philosophy.

Statedly, it's one thing for process thought to evolve naturally but quite another in forcing synthetic process positions such as "evangelicalized" ORT to speak processually when it's voice is already unnaturally mitigated or compromised by non-rigorous allegiance to non-processual systems.

R.E. Slater
August 9, 2025

---

I.

Comparing ORT with Arminianism

1. Continuity with Arminianism

• Free Will & Divine Love — Like classic Arminianism, ORT affirms human freedom as essential for genuine love and moral responsibility.

• Resistible Grace — Both reject the Calvinist doctrine of irresistible grace; God’s call can be accepted or rejected.

• Universal Invitation — Both affirm that salvation is genuinely available to all, not just a predestined elect.

---

2. Where ORT Goes Beyond Arminianism

• Open Future — Arminianism still tends to believe God knows the future exhaustively (simple foreknowledge), whereas ORT says the future is partly unknowable even to God, because it has not yet been decided [remember, this is spoken by the evanglicalized version of ORT. True process theology states that God cannot know the future as it is in a continual flux of evolution from one moment to the next. This does not reduce God's sovereignty, especially since process theology recenters God's sovereignty in God's love and not in God's control. - re slater].

• Relational Metaphysics — ORT is grounded in relational ontology: God is in dynamic give-and-take with a freewill creation, not merely responding to foreknown choices.

• Noncoercive Power — ORT takes the Arminian emphasis on persuasion to a deeper level: God cannot act coercively, even in miracles or judgment, because God’s nature is love [refers to God's amipotent sovereignty: God's power is fundamentally rooted in love and not in power. - re slater].

• Broader Theological Scope — While Arminianism’s debates were mostly soteriological (how salvation works), ORT addresses cosmology, ecology, interfaith dialogue, science & religion, and more. [This is significant because process theology is based upon a process metaphysic. - re slater]

---

3. Philosophical Upgrades

• Arminianism emerged in the 17th century largely in scholastic categories inherited from Reformed and medieval theology. [sic, scholasticism is the system of theology and philosophy taught in medieval European universities, based on Aristotelian logic and the writings of the early Church Fathers and having a strong emphasis on tradition and dogma.

• ORT borrows from process philosophy, open theism, and relational metaphysics, shedding many of those scholastic constraints.

• In this sense, ORT is less of a “patch” and more of a new operating system that still preserves Arminian “apps” like free will and resistible grace.

---

4. Why the Upgrade Matters

• ORT removes the last vestiges of determinism that even Arminianism sometimes carried (e.g., exhaustive foreknowledge as a fixed reality).

• It reframes God’s omniscience and omnipotence in ways that resonate with modern science, pluralism, and lived experience.

• It makes love the metaphysical center, not just the moral attribute, of God.

---

5. Side-by-Side Chart 

Shows the progression from Calvinism → Arminianism → Open & Relational Theology (ORT), with the “upgrade” features highlighted:

---

Theological Feature	Calvinism	Arminianism	Open & Relational Theology (ORT)
View of God’s Sovereignty	Absolute control over all events; decrees everything that happens	Sovereign but allows human free will within a foreknown plan	Sovereign as loving relational partner; does not control all events
Human Free Will	Denied in salvation (monergism)	Affirmed; humans can accept or reject grace (synergism)	Fully affirmed; choices genuinely shape reality, even for God
Predestination	Unconditional election of the elect	Conditional election based on foreseen faith	No fixed future; God calls all and works with unfolding free choices
Grace	Irresistible to the elect	Resistible by all	Always noncoercive; persuasive rather than controlling
Atonement	Limited (only for the elect)	Unlimited (for all humanity)	Unlimited; integrated with cosmic reconciliation and restoration
God’s Knowledge of the Future	Exhaustive definite foreknowledge of a fixed future	Exhaustive definite foreknowledge of a fixed future	Open future: partly definite (past & present), partly indefinite (future free acts)
Problem of Evil	Permitted or ordained for God’s glory	Permitted for sake of free will	Cannot be prevented unilaterally by God; God works with creation to overcome it
Divine Power	Omnipotence as control	Omnipotence as power to allow freedom	Essential kenotic love; God cannot act against love’s nature
Scope of Theology	Primarily salvation-focused	Primarily salvation-focused	Salvation plus cosmology, ecology, ethics, interfaith relations, science & religion
Core Metaphysics	Classical theism (static divine attributes)	Modified classical theism	Relational metaphysics (influenced by process thought)

---

II.

ORT is More Properly ORPT (Open and Relational Process Theology)

Open and Relational Theology (ORT) did not emerge in a vacuum; it has deep resonance with and, in many cases, direct dependence on Process Theology, even if some ORT theologians avoid the explicit label.

OR(P)T’s philosophical DNA draws deeply from process thought, even when its advocates frame it in more biblically familiar or evangelical language.

Recognizing it as “Open and Relational Process Theology” clarifies its intellectual heritage and philosophical coherence.

This fuller descriptor makes it easier to connect OR(P)T to wider dialogues in philosophy, science, and interfaith work, preventing it from being reduced to narrow evangelical dogma and debates about propositional subjects such as foreknowledge, etc.

It also makes transparent the continuity between relational theism and the process tradition’s panexperiential, panentheistic vision.

By naming the process influence openly, theologians acknowledge that OR(P)T is not simply an evangelical restatement of Arminianism but a participation in a much larger metaphysical project.

This identification helps situate OR(P)T within a global, interdisciplinary conversation - aligning it with fields like ecological ethics, cosmology, and comparative religion where process thought has already established a respected voice.

Here’s the fuller picture:

1. Common Core Commitments

• Reality as Relational — Both Evangelical (E)ORT and Process Theology reject the isolated-substance model of classical theism, affirming instead that all entities exist in webs of relationship.

• God’s Power as Persuasive, Not Coercive — Both see God’s love as the defining divine attribute of God's sovereignty thus redefining divine power as incompatible with unilateral control.

• Dynamic God-World Interaction — God responds to the unfolding of creation, not simply executing a predetermined plan per classic dogma re divine transcendence. [sic, what good is a far-away God to here-and-now creational dilemmas??]

• Openness of the Future — The future is genuinely undetermined because of (i) creaturely freedom and (ii) God’s non-coercive nature.

2. Distinct Emphases

• ORT’s Evangelical/Arminian Bridge — ORT often uses Arminian language to make process-friendly ideas accessible to evangelicals.

• Process Theology’s Philosophical Depth — Rooted in Alfred North Whitehead’s metaphysics, with a fully articulated ontology of becoming, panexperientialism, and cosmic teleology.

3. Historical Lineage

• 20th-century evangelical "Open Theism" (Clark Pinnock, John Sanders) questioned exhaustive foreknowledge.

• These open theists were influenced - either directly or indirectly - by Process Theology’s critique of classical theism (Charles Hartshorne, John Cobb).

• Thomas Jay Oord and other leading ORT figures openly affirm many process commitments (panentheism, persuasive power, relational ontology), even when distinguishing themselves from "full" process philosophy.

4. Why the Full Descriptor Matters

Calling it "Open and Relational Process Theology":

• Acknowledges the philosophical scaffolding that supports ORT.

• Connects ORT to the broader, richer cosmology of process thought.

• Prevents the narrowing of ORT into a purely soteriological or biblical-theological conversation.

• Positions ORT in interfaith, science-religion, and ecological dialogue where process thought already has credibility.

---

III.

Evangelical Hijacking and the ORT Watershed

What happened with Open and Relational Theology (ORT) in evangelical spaces is a textbook case of theological cross-pollination meeting institutional resistance. Here’s how it unfolded and why it became a watershed

The “hijacking” of ORT by certain evangelical leaders has often involved taking its most comforting pastoral themes - like God’s genuine empathy in suffering - while ignoring or rejecting its deeper metaphysical foundations. This selective adoption can produce theological hybrids that sound relational but still operate within rigid classical frameworks.

While this allows for minimal disruption within evangelical systems, it also dilutes ORT’s transformative potential. The resulting tension has created a watershed moment, where evangelical communities must decide whether to remain with these hybrids, revert to classical theism, or fully embrace process-informed relational theology.

This dynamic has also revealed the underlying philosophical discomfort many evangelicals feel toward process categories, such as God’s temporal experience or the rejection of unilateral divine control. These tensions often lead to partial acceptance of ORT’s language without fully integrating its implications, creating both internal inconsistencies and opportunities for deeper theological growth.

1. Selective Adoption

• Evangelical theologians saw in ORT certain tools that could make their theology more pastorally compassionate and biblically defensible (e.g., God doesn’t cause suffering, the future is open).

• However, they often avoided process philosophy’s deeper metaphysical commitments — such as panexperientialism, dipolar theism, and cosmic teleology — for fear of breaking from classical categories entirely.

• Result: a hybrid theology that kept many traditional evangelical assumptions (e.g., inerrancy, individualistic salvation) while borrowing relational language from ORT.

2. Theological Watershed

ORT quickly became a point of division within evangelicalism because:

• It challenged exhaustive divine foreknowledge, shaking the foundation of classical omniscience.

• It denied meticulous providence, undermining Calvinist determinism.

• It recast God’s power as persuasive love rather than controlling will, raising questions about miracles, sovereignty, and “God’s plan” language.

• It reoriented theodicy away from “mysterious divine will” toward shared God-world suffering.

3. Fragmentation of Evangelical Theology

• Progressive Evangelicals embraced ORT as a theological upgrade of Arminianism and a bridge toward process thought. [progressive evangelicalisim is not process-based Christianity; however, process-based Christianity is deeply centered in progressiveness. - re slater]

• Moderate Evangelicals cherry-picked relational language but kept classical metaphysics intact, creating a conceptual mismatch.

• Conservative Evangelicals rejected ORT entirely as a “slippery slope” toward liberal theology or heresy. [a common fear tactic. For many Christians this means withdrawing from their local fellowships if they were to move towards embracing process theology.]

4. Why It Matters

Because ORT sits between Arminianism and Process Theology, it forces evangelicals to decide:

• Stay in the classical fold (Calvinist or Arminian).

• Adopt a transitional position (Evangelical ORT).

• Step into full philosophical process theology, accepting its metaphysical implications.

In this way, ORT has become:

• A theological fault line that reveals the deep philosophical differences under the surface of evangelical unity.

• A gateway theology for those ready to move from classical evangelical categories into a more open, pluralist, and scientifically informed worldview.

---

Conclusion

The evolution from Classical Arminianism through Open and Relational Theology to its fuller processual form reflects both theological continuity and transformation.

ORT has provided a bridge for evangelicals to rethink God’s nature in relational and dynamic terms, but its selective adoption has also exposed deep divisions within evangelicalism.

The emergence of process theology (ORPT) offers a coherent philosophical framework that extends beyond the boundaries of traditional evangelical thought, aligning theology with contemporary philosophical and scientific developments.

This trajectory represents not just a change in doctrine but a fundamental shift in how God, creation, and the future are understood - marking a much more genuine watershed in modern Christian theology than simple ORT can offer.