Is Open Theism Heresy?

"If their hearts do not change"

so, prophecy in open theism is contingent on man's free choices, not on the Word of God.

pure humanism

Prophecies are contingent on both in Open Theism. God is a relational being in Open Theism.

Not that I care much, but it seems to me that in order to discuss something called "Open Theism"
you would need to quote sources by the founder or leading adherents.
Otherwise, aren't you two just playing the game of he said-she said?
(Is it fun :^)

however in actual Christianity, prophecy is not contingent on or by the will of man, but the sure word of God alone. ((1 Peter 1:19-21, Isaiah 14:24, Numbers 23:19, John 14:29, Job 42:2 e.g.))

mr. Thompson presents himself as an expert and committed evangelist of his sect, devoting himself to bringing news of God's ignorance to us all, as a personal mission of sorts.

Well, please ask him to present his credentials or cite sources along with Scripture so we can double check.
We all know Augustine and Calvin are the sources of "TUlIP", but is Calvinism Closed Theism?

hasn't he had 20 pages of opportunity in this thread alone? he's been preaching the ignorance of God for a year and a half here, friend. this isn't the first time it's come up.

I read and explain the Bible from an open theist perspective. So, what you are getting from me is an open theist perspective. No appeals to authority (which are logical fallacies) other than the Bible and Hebrew and Greek Grammar.

There is no monolithic Open Theistic position, any more than there is a monolithic Calvinist or Protestant position. I enjoy discussing my ideas about what the Bible say and those of others live, and testing them for rigour in the crucible of intense scrutiny. Would you really rather divert discussion here away from discussing what the Bible is saying to us, and move it to debating about what so-called experts A, B and C wrote about various theological schemas? Why would any Christian want to leave what the Bible as authority is actually saying, and discussing what each one here interprets the Bible as actually saying, and instead debate about what mainly dead men and some living men have said about their favourite Bible schemas?

I would say that everything God speaks in scripture was spoken in good faith and was true at the time He spoke it. So when He said that Nineveh would be destroyed in 40 days, that was his Trumpian opening gambit: "If you Ninevites continue on your present course you will certainly be destroyed in three days. I will unleash hell on you." That was their present destiny.

However, God is rational and relational and loving and prefers mercy over judgment, so if the Ninevites change course sufficiently for the better, He is willing to reward that and change their destiny. So, in the earlier present, when God said it, it was true. But later in a different present, it is no longer true, even though it was true. The new truth in this new now, is that He will not destroy Nineveh, if they continue in the new path of repentance.

My source is the Bible. I came to an open theist perspective from reading the Bible, and then I found out that others had come to that perspective too from reading the Bible, and described their different perspective as Open Theism. So, I discovered AFTER reaching my perspective independently, that I was an Open theist. That's how I arrived at most of my theological perspectives. I read the Bible for myself, and discussed it with others and arrived at a personal perspective which I later discovered had a name.
The Bible is my teacher and the source of my present beliefs. My beliefs do develop, and sometime radically change, as I become more familiar with the entire body of scripture.

Ad hominem is another logical fallacy.

Exo 32:7 And the LORD said unto Moses, Go, get thee down; for thy people, which thou broughtest out of the land of Egypt, have corrupted themselves:
Exo 32:8 They have turned aside quickly out of the way which I commanded them: they have made them a molten calf, and have worshipped it, and have sacrificed thereunto, and said, These be thy gods, O Israel, which have brought thee up out of the land of Egypt.
Exo 32:9 And the LORD said unto Moses, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
Exo 32:10 Now therefore let me alone, that my wrath may wax hot against them, and that I may consume them: and I will make of thee a great nation.

Deu 9:12 And the LORD said unto me, Arise, get thee down quickly from hence; for thy people which thou hast brought forth out of Egypt have corrupted themselves; they are quickly turned aside out of the way which I commanded them; they have made them a molten image.
Deu 9:13 Furthermore the LORD spake unto me, saying, I have seen this people, and, behold, it is a stiffnecked people:
Deu 9:14 Let me alone, that I may destroy them, and blot out their name from under heaven: and I will make of thee a nation mightier and greater than they.


Psa 106:21
They forgat God their saviour, which had done great things in Egypt;
Psa 106:22Wondrous works in the land of Ham, and terrible things by the Red sea.
Psa 106:23 Therefore he said that he would destroy them, had not Moses his chosen stood before him in the breach, to turn away his wrath, lest he should destroy them.

These are God's words to Moses. God was intending to destroy Israel and keep Moses. Moses interacted with God and God changed His mind and God chose a different path and spared Israel. These texts show clearly that the future of the earth is a collaboration between God and the men God put in charge of the earth. They show God interacts with men and adapts His plans, based on how men respond to His prophecies. I am unwilling to impose an ideology onto scripture which claims it says the exact opposite of what it states plainly.

Well, better late than never!
(Some of us are new :^)

The Protestant position was founded by Luther and the Calvinist position by Calvin,
so their writings are authoritative sources for those doctrines, monolithic or not.
Is there a comparable source for Open Theism?