This is process theology, and the next step forward would indeed be Open theism.As Dolezal explains, “In an effort to portray God as more relatable, theistic mutualists insist that God is involved in a genuine give-and-take relationship with His creatures” (pp. 1–2).
But the historical process does change, and as an agent in history, God himself changes. On Monday, he wants something to happen, and on Tuesday, something else. He is grieved one day, pleased the next. In my view, anthropomorphic is too weak a description of these narratives. In these accounts, God is not merely like an agent in time. He really is in time, changing as others change. And we should not say that his atemporal, changeless existence is more real than his changing existence in time, as the term anthropomorphic suggests. Both are real. (Frame: Systematic Theology, 377)
It is terribly disappointing to see this flirtation with open theism.
Neither of those would be biblical.I don’t want to derail this thread but do you consider the gap theory or theistic evolution to be novelties that should not be tolerated?