(Note: Neo-Theists in this context are any theists who deny simplicity, immutability, impassibility as the classical tradition has worked out.)
So, one of the rejoinders to Neo-Theists, who argue that biblical depictions of God undergoing various types of change (changing his mind, becoming angry, etc.), is that they have no way to decide what texts to take literally, and which ones should be taken metaphorically. Edward Feser says this,
It is no good merely to point out that certain biblical passages seem to conflict with the conception of God affirmed by classical theism. For no one, not even theistic personalists, believes that all biblical descriptions of God are to be taken literally in the first place. For example, no one thinks that God literally has eyelids (Psalm 11), or nostrils (Ezekiel 18:18), or that he breathes (Job 4:9). These can’t be literal descriptions given that the organs and activities in question presuppose the having of a material body, which God cannot have since He is the creator of the material world. So, if the theistic personalist wants to insist on a literal reading of some passage that seems incompatible with classical theism, he needs to give us some account of why we should take that passage literally even though we shouldn’t take other ones literally. And he is going to have a hard time doing that. For notice that the reason why we don’t take the passages about eyelids, nostrils, etc. literally is that a literal reading would conflict with other things we know about God from the Bible, such as that He is the creator of the material world. But this same consistency criterion poses problems for some of the things the theistic personalist wants to affirm. For example, some theistic personalists hold that God is (contrary to what classical theism holds) capable of changing, on the basis of biblical passages which when taken literally would imply that God sometimes changes His mind. But other biblical passages (e.g. Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17) insist that God does not change. How do we reconcile them? The classical theist answers that we already know from following out the implications of God’s being the first cause of all things that He must be simple and thus unchanging, so that it is the passages that imply otherwise that must be given a metaphorical reading.
So, Feser is correct that certain things that are attributed to God in the Bible are not literal because other passages of Scripture contradict them. I am a little baffled at Feser's claim that the Christian needs Thomism or Classical Theism to decide what passages are literal and which are not. I once read a book on the Rabbi's, I think it was Everyman's Talmud and the authors in that book noted that the Rabbi's came to many of the same conclusions about God based on their understanding of scripture and its statements about the Divine Nature. I point this out because I think it is simply untrue to say that the bible is not sufficient to make these distinctions. A couple of examples may help.
The first example I would like to point out is the attribution of body parts to God. In 1 Kings 8:27 we are told that God is not bounded by space:
27 “But will God indeed dwell on the earth? Behold, heaven and the highest heaven cannot contain you; how much less this house that I have built?
Also in John 4:24 we are told that God is a spirit:
24 God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth.”
These passages along with the first chapter of Genesis and Hebrews 11:3 and Romans 4:17 show that we cannot place God in the Physical world. The two passages quoted above clearly show that God is a spirit, spirit isn't physical and doesn't have physical parts, hence body parts for God are ruled out. Also, as Feser pointed out, God created the world out of nothing. The whole space time universe that constitutes the physical universe is created by the power of God's word. This is all clear, but what about Feser's accusation that we cannot distinguish whether or not God changes his mind? Is the Christian stuck with incoherence if he doesn't have classical theism to save the day? No, the answer is absolutely not.
As a Calvinist I have always held to God's immutability of decreee (predestination and providence), and the consistency of his nature. Paul tells us in Ephesisans that "God works all things according to the purpose of his will."(Ephesians 1:9). God has a revealed will, and a hidden will. God's revealed will is his commands to us, and his interaction with us in salvation history, God's hidden will is his meticulous sovereignty over the creation. God has so ordained things that in his predestination he has "written himself" into the world so that we can have give and take interactions with him. So, when God tells Hezekiah that he needed to pray to spare his life, God new in his decree that Hezekiah would ask God to spare him, but the Lord didn't tell Hezekiah that, but wanted Hezekiah to respond with his own will, and repentance. Or take the Apostle Paul, Jesus didn't have to ask Paul why he was persecuting the church. Jesus already knew that, and Jesus also knew that Paul would serve him. It was all part of God's providential plan, the meeting on the road that knocked Paul down was part of the plan to get him to submit. God doesn't work with puppets, but his sovereignty is worked out through the events of history and secondary causes. The student of scripture doesn't need Classical theism to do this, but a close study of scripture. Classical theism may very well be correct, but this isn't an argument that helps.