Chris Fisher has taken issue with Anthony Rogers’s comments about Open Theism. I will comment briefly on his last response to Rogers.

Here is Rogers’s video:

http://spirited-tech.com/2021/10/13/open-theism-and-exegetical-pipe-dreams/

Here are Fisher’s videos:

Chris Fisher recognizes that Anthony Rogers brought accurate exegetical points to the discussion. Will Duffy tried to argue that Romans 15:13 taught that God doesn’t know the future because God has hope. Rogers shows an alternative understanding is that God is the source and object of Hope. He also shows this same construct (genitive of product) is used in Rom. 15:5, 33, and 15:13. Fisher faults Rogers for maintaining his interpretation is the case (even though admitting he has provided sound points from the language and context). What does he expect from Rogers? An audible voice from heaven? 

Fisher’s only response is that it may be a false dichotomy. God may be the object/source and may also possess hope. That is possible and he may be right about the underdetermination, but that also applies to Duffy’s interpretation as well. Isn’t the point that Rogers has shown that his alternative is not merely a possible interpretation, but fits better with Paul’s point in the previous verses (when quoting John Murray he argues this)? What reason do we have to suppose that Paul meant to state that he is also a possessor of Hope?

What are we to do with instances where God hopes or desires for something to occur that doesn’t? Well, I would recommend Jimmy Stephens on the topic:

http://spirited-tech.com/2021/10/15/the-god-of-hope-an-explanation-from-a-covenantal-ontology/

Fisher asked a strange question regarding the Hypostatic union. Fisher thinks that Calvinists think that Jesus’s human body/soul isn’t God. I would say that he is correct that Jesus’s human body/soul is not the Trinity. Fisher probably will read this and think I am not understanding his question. The point I’m illustrating is Chris Fisher isn’t being clear with his terms. We use ‘God’ in different ways and that will change how we answer his question. If he is asking whether Christ’s human nature is a divine nature (possessing divine properties), then Christ’s human nature isn’t divine. If he is asking if we can identify Christ as God in the flesh because he is human, then it is correct to do so because human nature is possessed by a divine person.