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.

Calvinist and Arminian Traditions: Denominations, Hybrids, and the Politics of Doctrine

Calvinist and Arminian Traditions:

Denominations, Hybrids, and

the Politics of Doctrine

PART 1

by R.E. Slater and ChatGPT 5

August 8, 2025

A Personal Note

I grew up in the "Regular Baptist" tradition which is classically based in Arminian thought but under 20th century evangelicalism's influences became influenced by strong versions of Calvinism. The more likely because the RCA and CRC synods are headquartered in the city I reside and go to church.

These 16th century Calvinistic projections upon the bible were especially centered in God's sovereignty from which all Reformed dogma then proceeded. This theological persuasion was also my educational training in the several churches I attended including my bible college experience, and the M.Div degree I obtained centered in Reformed Covenantal and not arbitrary dispensational et al schemas.

When moving first towards a progressive form of evangelicalism (known as the Emergent church movement lasting some 20 years, 1995-2015 roughly) I found that Evangelicalism's theological foundation rested upon an eclectic basis of philosophies from Platonism to Hellenism to Medieval, Enlightenment, and Modernism, as example. I had first thought a new biblical hermeneutic might solve the evangelical stigmatization (or overload) upon the bible but I next realized that what was needed was a new philosophical foundation from which all theology derives its energy.

Hence, in the early years of developing this website (2009), Calvinism was systematically removed and replaced by Arminianism (ala Dr. Roger Olson). From that arrangement I then moved logically and quite easily towards Open and Relational theology (ORT) which is the upgraded version of contemporary Arminianism. All the while I was yet ignorant of the need for a new philosophical basis which shortly thereafter came into view (2014?) and into which I at first explored (up to 2021?) and have ever since been presently developing.

Point being, it's taken awhile to get to where I am today having first to deconstruct the entirety of my life's learning and beliefs, to then reconstruct forward with no fixed center, stated goal, or idea where I was going. It further meant expanding and broadening my understandings of the world from what I thought I knew - and was led to believe - and especially away from those areas that I was warned not to examine, thereby staying true to my past Christian heritage. But once the ingrained cultural walls were knocked down and stepped over my theological horizons could expand and new vistas be explored. All this took quite a long while as I did not have the advantage of a mentor or discipler. It was a self learned journey ever guided by the Holy Spirit.

Eventually, I came to process philosophy with its derivations of process theology, process religion broadly, and how to processually view the sciences - including all academic disciplines - such as studies in urban ecological growth, or the development of ecological civilizations... including socio-political economies of scale, transformative process democracies centered in justice and equality, and etc. As a result, process has become essential in viewing all 21st century developments from AI and tech to the family unit and broken human relations.

One last significant observation came to me in my journey which finally put all things into place when realizing that the "Evangelical-Arminian version" of "Open and Relational theology" was essentially a draw down from Whitehead's own process philosophy. The phrase's fuller descriptor was-and-is "Open and Relational PROCESS theology"... which is where it must remain... and not within evangelicalism's hodgepodge of eclectic admixtures of non-processual world philosophies.

To conclude, I will now submit three posts:

Part 1 - An introduction to the Calvinist/Arminian debates (here);

Part 2 - How Process Theology differs from Arminian and Evangelical thought. This post will also include the argument for the complete replacement of both 16th century systems of theology placed upon the bible - that of Calvinism and Arminianism - along with the replacement of 20th century Evangelicalism, by Process Theology alone. Thus enabling broader philosophical-theological discussions in Christian metaphysics, ontology, and ethics will also including more integrative processual dialogues with global religions and contemporary cultural developments.

And finally,

Part 3 - The development of a processual soteriology as more attuned to God's person and work than evangelicalism's own doctrines of salvation.

R.E. Slater

August 9, 2025

List of Christian Creeds -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_creeds

A History of the Calvinist-Arminian Debate -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Calvinist%E2%80%93Arminian_debate

R.E. Slater & ChatGPT5

Introduction

The history of Protestant theology has been shaped profoundly by two major streams of thought: Calvinism and Arminianism. Emerging from the Reformation and its immediate aftermath, these systems represent not only distinct theological convictions but also competing visions of God’s sovereignty, human freedom, and the nature of salvation. Over the centuries, their debates have produced denominational alignments, institutional loyalties, and shifting theological syntheses.

In the modern era, both Calvinism and Arminianism have evolved, adapted, and, in some cases, merged into hybrid forms. These theological developments are deeply intertwined with the historical, cultural, and political contexts of their respective church bodies. Understanding their origins, transformations, and current expressions is essential for grasping the present theological landscape within global Christianity.

1. Historical Origins (16th–17th Century)

Calvinism - The Reformed Stream

• Origins: Rooted in the theology of John Calvin (1509–1564), a French Reformer in Geneva, and his contemporaries in the wider Reformed tradition (e.g., Ulrich Zwingli, Heinrich Bullinger).

• Core Tenets (TULIP acronym codified later in the 17th century at the Synod of Dort, 1618–1619):

  1. Total Depravity — Human nature is wholly corrupted by sin.

  2. Unconditional Election — God’s choice of the elect is not based on foreseen faith.

  3. Limited Atonement — Christ’s atonement is effective for the elect alone.

  4. Irresistible Grace — God’s grace cannot be ultimately resisted by those elected.

  5. Perseverance of the Saints — The elect will persevere in faith until the end.

• Historical Denominational Issuers:

  • Reformed Churches of Switzerland (Swiss Reformed Church)

  • Dutch Reformed Churches (later the Reformed Church in America, RCA, and the Christian Reformed Church, CRC)

  • French Huguenots - The Huguenots were French Protestants who largely adhered to the Reformed tradition of Calvinism, distinct from the Catholic Church that dominated France. They faced intense persecution from the French monarchy and the Catholic Church, leading to the French Wars of Religion, a series of conflicts. At the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and other instances of persecution, many Huguenots fled France, seeking refuge in countries like England, the Netherlands, Germany, Switzerland, and even further afield to North America and South Africa.

  • Presbyterian Churches (Scotland, later Presbyterian Church USA and Presbyterian Church in America)

  • Puritans (in England and New England)

  • Congregationalists (New England origins)

---

Arminianism - The Remonstrant Stream

• Origins: Developed by Jacobus Arminius (1560–1609) in the Netherlands as a counterpoint to strict Calvinism, especially its view of predestination. His followers issued the Remonstrance (1610), prompting the Synod of Dort (1618-1619) to condemn their views.

• Core Tenets (often expressed as “The Five Articles of the Remonstrance”):

  1. Conditional Election — Based on God’s foreknowledge of who would freely believe.

  2. Unlimited Atonement — Christ died for all, though only believers benefit.

  3. Partial Depravity — Humanity is fallen but prevenient grace enables a free response.

  4. Resistible Grace — Humans can resist God’s saving call.

  5. Conditional Perseverance — Salvation can be lost through persistent unbelief.

• Historical Denominational Issuers:

• Remonstrant Brotherhood (Netherlands)

• Certain English Baptists (General Baptists)

• Early Methodism (John and Charles Wesley)

• Some Anabaptist communities

• Armenian Evangelical Church (Middle Eastern Protestant expression)

---

2. Contemporary Expressions (20th–21st Century)

Calvinism - The Neo-Reformed & "Young, Restless, Reformed" (YRR) Streams

• Shifts & Developments:

  • Neo-Calvinism (Kuyper, Bavinck) in the late 19th–20th centuries reframed Calvinism as a cultural mandate — applying God’s sovereignty to all spheres of life, not just salvation.

  • Evangelical Calvinism in the 21st century often emphasizes grace and God’s glory but can blend with contemporary worship and missional approaches.

  • The Young, Restless, and Reformed (YRR) movement (2000s) reignited interest in Reformed theology among younger evangelicals, often tied to celebrity pastors and conferences: John Piper, Al Mohler, Mark Driscoll, Tim Keller, C.J. Mahaney, and Mark Dever, among others.

  • Some churches adopt “soft Calvinism” — affirming perseverance and unconditional election but modifying or downplaying limited atonement.

• Current Denominational Strongholds:

  • Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)

  • Orthodox Presbyterian Church (OPC)

  • Reformed Baptist churches (e.g., Founders Ministries within the Southern Baptist Convention)

  • Christian Reformed Church in North America (CRCNA)

  • Evangelical Free Churches (select congregations)

  • Acts 29 Network (church planting network, often Calvinist leaning)

  • Various independent Bible churches influenced by Reformed theology

---

Arminianism - Wesleyan-Holiness & Evangelical-Arminian Streams

• Shifts & Developments:

  • Wesleyan-Holiness tradition continues to stress free will, prevenient grace, and the possibility of entire sanctification.

  • Open Theism (late 20th century) emerges from some Arminian premises, proposing that God knows all possibilities but not all future free acts as fixed.

  • Many evangelical churches have embraced a practical Arminianism — teaching free will and resistible grace, even if doctrinal statements are vague.

  • Some “soft Arminians” accept perseverance of the saints (eternal security) while rejecting unconditional election and irresistible grace.

• Current Denominational Strongholds:

  • United Methodist Church (and Global Methodist Church offshoot)

  • Free Methodist Church

  • Wesleyan Church

  • Church of the Nazarene

  • Assemblies of God (Pentecostal)

  • Church of God (Cleveland, TN)

  • Foursquare Church

  • Salvation Army

  • Most non-denominational charismatic churches

  • Armenian Evangelical Church

---

3. Hybrid & Blended Models (20th–21st Century)

1. Cal-minianism — A Practical Middle Ground

• Definition: A term (often pejorative) for churches or believers who blend elements from both Calvinism and Arminianism, usually unintentionally as a lay perspective of both theological systems.

• Typical Beliefs:

  • Election: God chooses based on foreknowledge of human choice.

  • Atonement: Universal provision, but only effective for those who believe.

  • Grace: Prevenient grace makes faith possible but not inevitable.

  • Perseverance: Eternal security often affirmed, but sometimes with conditions.

• Examples of Denominations:

  • Southern Baptist Convention (broadly; some churches Calvinist, some Arminian, most in the middle)

  • Evangelical Free Church of America (EFCA) — often a mix depending on local leadership

  • Conservative Congregational Christian Conference (CCCC)

  • Many independent evangelical churches

---

2. Molinism - Free Will Meets Divine Foreknowledge

• Definition: Philosophical middle ground proposed by Luis de Molina (16th c.), holding that God’s “middle knowledge” allows Him to know exactly what free creatures would choose in any circumstance.

• Typical Beliefs:

  • Upholds libertarian free will.

  • God sovereignly ordains the world in which people freely choose in ways that fulfill His purposes.

• Examples of Denominations / Groups:

  • Roman Catholic Church (officially open to Molinism, though Thomism more dominant historically)

  • Some Baptists and non-denominational churches influenced by William Lane Craig

  • Certain Christian apologetics ministries (e.g., Reasonable Faith)

---

3. Amyraldism (Four-Point Calvinism) - Modified Calvinism

• Definition: Named after Moïse Amyraut (17th c.); teaches universal atonement in intent but limited in application.

• Typical Beliefs:

  • Christ died for all people in provision, but God applies salvation only to the elect.

  • Retains unconditional election, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.

• Examples of Denominations:

  • Some Reformed Baptist and Presbyterian churches

  • Parts of the Reformed tradition in France historically

  • Certain faculty/theologians within broader Reformed circles

---

4. Modified Pentecostal-Calvinist Blends

• Definition: Charismatic churches with strong Reformed soteriology.

• Typical Beliefs:

  • Calvinist doctrines of grace alongside Pentecostal/charismatic gifts.

• Examples of Denominations:

  • Sovereign Grace Churches

  • Some Acts 29 Network churches

  • Independent charismatic-Reformed congregations

---

4. Calvinism & Arminianism: Historical → Contemporary → Hybrid Map

Category	Doctrinal Emphasis	Historical Origin	Contemporary Expressions	Hybrid / Blended Forms
Calvinism	God’s sovereignty, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace, perseverance of the saints.	John Calvin & Reformed tradition (16th c.); Synod of Dort (1618–1619) codified TULIP.	Presbyterian Church (USA, PCA, OPC), Reformed Church in America, Christian Reformed Church, many Reformed Baptists, some Anglican/Episcopal.	Amyraldism (Four-Point Calvinism) — Universal provision, limited application (some Presbyterians, Reformed Baptists). Pentecostal-Calvinist Blends — Sovereign Grace Churches, Acts 29 Network.
Arminianism	Conditional election, unlimited atonement, prevenient grace, resistible grace, conditional perseverance.	Jacobus Arminius (16th–17th c.); Remonstrants (1610) challenged strict Calvinism; Wesleyan Methodism (18th c.).	United Methodist Church, Free Methodist Church, Wesleyan Church, Church of the Nazarene, Salvation Army, most Pentecostals (Assemblies of God, Church of God Cleveland, Foursquare).	Calminianism — SBC majority, Evangelical Free Churches, many independent evangelicals.
Molinism	Divine middle knowledge: God knows all possible free will choices and actualizes a world accordingly.	Luis de Molina (16th c. Jesuit theologian).	Some Roman Catholic theologians, Protestant apologists like William Lane Craig, pockets within Baptists & non-denominationals.	Functions as a bridge between Calvinist and Arminian emphases on sovereignty and free will.
Hybrids / Other	Blends of sovereignty and free will doctrines for pastoral, missional, or philosophical reasons.	Emerged in post-Reformation adaptations, evangelical revivals, and ecumenical efforts.	Southern Baptist Convention (non-Calvinist majority but some Calvinist), EFCA, independent Bible churches.	See above — Calminianism, Amyraldism, Molinism, Pentecostal-Calvinist blends.

---

Conclusion

From the early battles of the Synod of Dort to the present-day denominational alignments, Calvinism and Arminianism continue to shape Christian identity, practice, and ecclesial politics.

Their doctrines - once sharply divided - now often coexist in hybridized theological frameworks, reflecting broader cultural shifts toward cooperation, pragmatism, and pluralism within the church.

Yet, the tensions remain:

• For some, the distinctives of each system are non-negotiable;
• for others, they are historical signposts rather than fixed boundaries.

The ongoing conversation between Calvinist and Arminian perspectives reveals not only the resilience of Reformation theology but also its capacity for adaptation in a changing world. 

The challenge for the 21st century is whether these traditions can transcend old polemics to foster a richer, more constructive dialogue rooted in the shared pursuit of faithfulness, justice, and love.

Theologian John Hick: Processual Theologian in Analytic Dress

Theologian John Hicks

Theologian John Hick:

Processual Theologian in Analytic Dress

Examining the Philosophical Basis

of Hick's Plurality of Religion

by R.E. Slater & ChatGPT

Who was Theologian John Hicks? - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick

John Harwood Hick (20 January 1922 – 9 February 2012) was an English philosopher of religion and theologian, who taught in the United States for the larger part of his career. In philosophical theology, he made contributions in the areas of theodicy, eschatology, and Christology, and in the philosophy of religion he contributed to the areas of epistemology of religion and religious pluralism.

---

Introduction

John Hick (1922–2012) was a British philosopher of religion whose work reshaped modern theology by proposing a deeply pluralistic and ethically grounded vision of religious truth. Rooted in analytic philosophy, Hick fused Kantian epistemology, Irenaean theodicy, and global interfaith experience to build a theology that affirmed the value of all religions and the moral growth of all persons.

This document will also contrasts analytic philosophy with Process Philosophy to highlight the differences in methodology and metaphysical commitments. It will also explore how Christian theology would evolve differently if rooted not in analytic versus but in processual thought.

---

1. Kantian Epistemology and the “Real”

Drawing on Immanuel Kant's distinction between the noumenon (the unknowable reality-in-itself) and the phenomenon (what appears to us), Hick proposed that the divine or “Real” lies beyond all human comprehension. Religious traditions do not grasp God as God is, but as mediated through human culture, history, and experience. Thus:

• Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc., are all phenomenological responses to the same noumenal “Real.”

• This underlies his Pluralist Hypothesis—that no single religion has a monopoly on truth.

---

2. Irenaean Soul-Making Theodicy

Rejecting the Augustinian idea that humanity fell from a state of perfection, Hick advanced a vision drawn from Irenaeus: that human beings are created unfinished, with the purpose of moral and spiritual development.

• Evil and suffering are not gratuitous but necessary conditions for soul-making.

• God allows freedom and imperfection so that love, courage, and faith can emerge authentically.

• This leads Hick to embrace universal salvation as the eventual outcome of all souls growing into divine likeness. (please refer to my past two recent posts on Universalism: part 1 and part 2, that universalism is not a guarantee but a processual hope et al.)

---

3. Religious Pluralism as Ethical and Philosophical Imperative

Hick saw religious diversity not as a threat but as a reflection of the many ways humans encounter the Real. Thus:

• Religious exclusivism (e.g. “Only my religion is true”) becomes morally and epistemologically suspect.

• Salvation is not tied to belief in specific doctrines but to the transformation of human beings into compassionate, self-giving persons. That heaven isn't the goal so much as valuative living in peace and harmony with others.

• Truth is practical, not propositional - measured by ethical fruit rather than abstract creed.

3b. Process Ethics as Teleological and Transformational

• Process philosophy (especially Whiteheadian) views the universe as unfolding through becoming.

• Ethical development is not fixed or binary, but part of a long, evolving process.

• Suffering and struggle are ingredients in the creative advance of value—what Hick called soul-making.

• Unlike analytic ethics, which often stays abstract or momentary, process ethics considers the whole arc of existence and the relational effects of each decision.

✅ Resolution: Hick’s vision of soul-making is naturally at home in process thought, which values growth, participation, and moral becoming over time.

---

4. Context in Analytic Philosophy

Educated in the tradition of Anglo-American analytic philosophy, Hick approached theology with clarity and logical rigor. He countered positivist critiques by grounding religious belief in experience—arguing that religious perception is as valid a form of knowing as sensory perception.

• Like empirical data, religious experiences are interpreted through frameworks.

• Faith is justified not by proof but by transformation.

4b. Process Metaphysics as Relational and Dynamic

• Whereas analytic philosophy avoids metaphysics, process thought embraces it—but in a relational, non-static way.

• The “Real” in process theology is not distant and unknowable (impractical transcendence) but is deeply entangled with all becoming.

• God is dipolar—holding both permanence and change—working with the world through persuasion, not domination.

• This allows Hick’s intuitions about the divine drawing all things toward love and transformation to be metaphysically supported.

✅ Resolution: Hick’s need for a fluid, ethical metaphysic is better answered in process thought, where interconnection and becoming are the ground of reality.

---

5. Comparison: Analytic Philosophy vs. Process Philosophy

Feature	Analytic Philosophy	Process Philosophy
Methodology	Clarity, logical analysis, argument structure	Relationality, becoming, metaphysical synthesis
View of Reality	Often dualistic or epistemologically limited	Holistic, dynamic, relational
View of God	Often transcendent, unknowable “Real”	Dipolar God: both changing and unchanging
Emphasis	Language, logic, justification	Creativity, novelty, interrelation
Religious Truth	Culturally mediated, logically defensible	Emergent, participatory, contextual

While Hick remained within the analytic tradition, many of his conclusions—especially regarding religious pluralism and universal salvation—resonate with the relational and evolving vision of Process Theology.

---

6. Evolution of Christian Theology: Analytic vs. Processual Foundations

Aspect of Theology	Analytic Philosophy Approach	Process Philosophy Approach
Doctrine of God	Focus on [impractical] divine transcendence and unknowability	Emphasis on divine relationality and becoming
Salvation	Often juridical or logical coherence in doctrines	Dynamic process of healing, becoming, and lure
Revelation	Emphasis on propositional truth and clarity	Ongoing, relational disclosure through experience
Ethics	Grounded in rational justification and moral law	Emergent from relational well-being and novelty
Church and Other Religions	May lean toward exclusivism or inclusivism	Fully pluralistic and participatory

From an analytic standpoint - Christian theology tends toward propositional clarity, definition, and systematic coherence, focusing on divine constancy and doctrinal boundaries - often at the expense of valuative appreciation for humanitarian transformation or relational difference. Hence, Christianity's philosophical basis is inherently un-pluralistic (or, poorly suited to be pluralistic).

From a processual basis - theology becomes a dynamic, open-ended participation in the divine life, where God and the world evolve together in love, freedom, and creativity.

Here's why - in process-informed terms:

---

7. Analytic Philosophy Tends Toward:

• Propositional clarity and systematic coherence: Seeking truth in fixed statements that can be tested, defined, or logically parsed.

• Doctrinal boundaries: Emphasizing internal coherence and fidelity to tradition or systematic theology.

• Binary logic: Something is either true or false; this leaves little room for multiple coexisting truths.

• Epistemic suspicion: Discomfort with metaphysical or experiential claims that cannot be universally verified.

• God is understood as ontologically fixed, perfect, and impassible.

• Ethics are derived from revealed truths or norms, often seen as unchanging.

From an analytic standpoint, Christian theology tends toward "propositional" clarity, definition, and systematic coherence, focusing on divine constancy and doctrinal boundaries and less on valuative appreciation of humane or humanitarian difference.

Result: These tendencies reinforce exclusivist or inclusivist theological models (e.g., "Only Christ saves"), but resist pluralist frameworks that acknowledge the validity of multiple religious paths.

7b. Process Philosophy Tends Toward:

• Relational truth: Truth emerges in lived relationships and experience, not abstract propositions.

• Open-ended becoming: All faiths are evolving responses to the divine lure, and none are final or complete.

• Value pluralism: God is at work in all cultures, drawing each toward greater love and harmony.

• Persuasive, not coercive divine action: This necessitates theological humility and openness.

• Ethics emerge from mutual responsiveness, context, and co-creation.

• Salvation is viewed as transformative process, not merely legal declaration.

Thus, while analytic theology tends to privilege doctrinal exclusivity, process theology fosters pluralistic inclusion without abandoning theological depth.

Result: Process theology embraces pluralism without relativism - seeing diverse religions as culturally distinct responses to one divine reality.

---

While analytic philosophy can support interfaith respect or liberal theology, its structure tends toward:

• fixity of truth,

• one normative lens,

• and systemic coherence that resists diversity**.

By contrast, process thought starts from relational openness and thus naturally fosters pluralistic Christian theology.

---

8. Was John Hick Aware of Whitehead’s Process Philosophy?

John Hick does not seem to have explicitly engaged with Alfred North Whitehead’s process philosophy in his major works, nor did he adopt process terminology.

However, Hick's formation in analytic and Kantian traditions shaped his language, method, and concerns. However:

• Hick’s pluralistic inclusivity, emphasis on moral becoming, and vision of universal salvation closely align with process themes, even if developed independently of Whitehead's process theology.

• The resonance between Hick’s theology and process thought suggests convergent evolution—two streams of thought arriving at similar insights via different paths.

• Had Hick fully engaged process philosophy, he might have found a metaphysical foundation more congruent with his ethical optimism and religious inclusivity.

In this light, Hick can be seen as a parallel thinker to process theology—his conclusions overlap with process frameworks, even if his philosophical tools were distinct. [This was also true of Pierre Teilhard De Chardin's and Brian Swimme's metaphysical theologies when we examined his works a few months back; there are 9 related articles herein).

9. Summary Table: Key Foundations

Philosophical Basis	Role in Hick's Theology
Kantian Epistemology	Links religious traditions to the unknowable “Real”
Irenaean Soul-Making Theodicy	Frames evil as part of moral/spiritual growth
Religious Pluralism	Values all faiths as culturally mediated encounters
Analytic Philosophy	Grounds theology in clarity, reason, and lived experience
Process Philosophy	Embraces becoming, relationality, plural paths to truth

---

Conclusion

John Hick’s philosophy of religion invites us to see beyond dogma to the shared human quest for meaning, truth, and transformation.

Though grounded in analytic clarity and Kantian humility, his thought reaches toward a process-like vision: one in which the divine is not confined to one creed, but encountered in diverse traditions and the ongoing journey of soul-making.

In contrasting analytic and process philosophy, we see that while Hick worked within the former, his conclusions anticipate the relational openness and pluralistic hope of process theology.

In doing so, he becomes a bridge between two philosophical worlds, each with something vital to say about God, humanity, and the mystery that binds them.