In a recent article published as a blog post (https://jrichardmiddleton.com/2022/12/08/gods-eternity-and-relationality-in-the-bible-whyi-am-not-a-classical-theist/), J. Richard Middleton explains that he does not regard himself as a "classical theist" due to his inability to reconcile traditional philosophical categories describing God's character with the portrayal of God in Scripture. Middleton explicitly contrasts the biblical portrayal of God's relationality and adaptability with classic categories of divine simplicity and immutability. In this response article, I engage the work of Rowan Williams on Chalcedonian Christology in order to seek clarity on what "classical theism" entails-and does not entail-with respect to divine immutability, simplicity, impassibility, and other divine attributes. Properly understood, the "classical" view safeguards against inadequate theological portraits of both God's transcendence (conceived via abstraction) and God's immanence (conceived via the projection of human experience). "Classical theism" seeks to preserve the deep mystery of God's being, thus applying its insights contextually requires wisdom and precision .