I understand that Open Theist are on a spectrum and have many different ideas about how to go about crafting a worldview. Of course, Chris Fisher is more on the exegetical side of the debate. He tries to tie in ANE concepts about gods and apply them to God in Walton styled fashion. But sometimes these thinkers drift out of their purview and comment on things they shouldn’t and that occurred when Chris was asked about expounding his philosophical ideas:
Open Theism is not a systematic theology. You have individuals like Richard Swinburne who sees God in terms of metaphysics and you have people like Walter Brueggemann who appears to describe God in terms of the personal. So one Open Theist position is not going to cover the spread. Also, if I categorically reject metaphysics, what are you looking for? Metaphysics tends to rely on Dignum Deo philosophy or Perfect Being philosophy. It is a branch of Greek thinking that is foreign to the Bible. It is 100% speculative, and it is not a thing.
Ironically, Chris’ God is a lot closer to the Greek gods. He is subject to higher forces, he is a humanoid creatures, passions, material, ignorant, and many other things that fit better with a pagan scheme. Furthermore, his views about metaphysics are ridiculous. Jews had a metaphysic. They have a two-tiered cosmology(God and everything God causes) and other thoughts about what reality is(spirits, matter, God). Chris in rejecting metaphysics has a metaphysic. Chris has ultimate beliefs about the nature of reality while denying that he does.