I’m quite grateful for Strachan being quite charitable to me personally in this post. Moreover, I appreciate him spotlighting (primarily his first and what I take to be his main critique) where the “dividing line” perhaps is, namely regarding holy Scripture. 

I’ll offer a word on that in a moment. However, before I do, I want to briefly but firmly reject his second and third critiques of me as fundamentally and also obviously false to my position. I have never held Strachan’s (2), that “we cannot ascribe positive attributes to God,” nor (which is nearly the same as) his (3) that “we can only know God in a negative sense.” In point of fact and as ALL my students would readily attest (really!), if there is a single obsessive point in my entire work and focus it is precisely this point: that and how we CAN know God positively (not merely positive relative names, fwiw), particularly over against Maimonides’s agnosticism (a term which Lagrange uses). Actually, I hold this to be one of Thomas’s most important contributions in the entire history of theology–and have said as much very frequently.

Now true enough (and where Strachan is taking his second and third critique from), I do hold that very many so-called positive attributes which the RO (inter alia) advance are false to fact; and that the correspondent sayings from holy Scripture (whence they are taking these errors) are to be interpreted only negatively (fwiw, the traditional interpretation), or else causally. Indeed, I hold this and related problems to be common errors which early moderns struggle with as a precise consequence of (to use a word) biblicism. 

But returning to what I take to be the real crux of the matter (primarily Strachan’s first point), I certainly do hold that the surface sense of the majority of sayings about God in holy Scripture is dis-allied with scholastic theology; and that such a surface sense is to be flatly rejected as false (for it is); but that such a surface sense renders “biblical” portraits of God inherently plausible secundum litteram; and that it makes many important propositions of classical theism not realistically possible to derive from holy Scripture. And these points certainly are important methodological differences which are well worth inquiring into–inquiring with sobriety and honesty, which is why I have tried to state these matters openly and without obfuscation (rather than, as some people read me, in order to be annoying and/or “triggering”).