So far, Tony Jones and Scott MacKnight have spent just about all their time whining and crying and bellyaching and tossing accusations that their critics (all of them in general, and Kevin DeYoung in particular) don't understand them, misrepresent them, missed this journal article or that writer or the other book... and (so far) DeYoung is on the defensive... and here's what I'm thinking.
With the sole exception of Jehovah's Witnesses, this has been pretty much the pattern of my experience with just about every vein of false teaching, whether it is a Christian goof that won't get anyone sent to Hell, or whether it is full-on apostate or heretical teaching such as Roman Catholicism or Mormonism. That is, every false teacher, faced with an aggressive, pedal-to-the-metal, decisive refutation, says he's misunderstood and misrepresented.
Roman Catholics are absolutely classic on this, as thirty years of experience bears out. Bear down Biblically on their practice of praying to dead people, and you get "Oh no no no, we're not praying, you misrepresent us." Leave the room and listen at the door, and you hear them saying "Pray to Mary for ___... pray to St. Jude for ____..." and so on. I could go all the way down the list, same thing. Ditto Mormons on most counts, ditto Charismatics, and so on.
What I've experienced myself, I see abroad. John Piper bends over backwards to be over-charitable to NT Wright, corresponds with him, goes the extra mile, then critiques his view... and Wright (without first checking his interpretation with Piper) says Piper misunderstood him. As Jones and MacKnight do with deYoung here.
So here is my question:
Can anyone name a time when any proponent of any aberrant doctrinal view has said, "Yes, this dogged and flat-out critic of mine understands my position perfectly well, and represents it with crystalline clarity, and I have no complaints about his attitude or character, but I maintain my position because of A, B, and C"?