"Interpretation" and "Accurate Representation"

Paul Owen of reformedcatholicism.com posted this:

One of the issues which is discussed by Anthony Lane in his book, Justification by Faith in Catholic-Protestant Dialogue, is how close the Protestant and Roman Catholic views on grace and merit can be brought together. Despite the caricatures which are common in Protestant critiques, Roman Catholic views on merit can be interpreted in such a way as to satisfy Protestant concerns. . . . The idea of congruous merit following our justification is not really inconsistent with the Bible, nor with Reformational theology.

Quoting Lane (approvingly), Owen continues:

"There appears to be broad agreement [between Protestants and Roman Catholics]except over the question of whether eternal life is a 'merited' reward. This need be no more than a linguistic difference. . . . This does not mean that the Catholic and Protestant positions are identical but, granted the qualifications of this paragraph [which exclude strict or condign merit], the two positions are no longer so far apart" (p. 210).

Owen sums up the matter this way:

Why are such careful distinctions not allowed more often to have an impact in our "Reformed" polemics against the Roman Catholic Church?

Owen surmises the answer to his own question . . .

Probably, because once you allow such nuances into the picture, everything gets messy and it becomes harder to demonize Roman Catholics with charges of legalism and works righteousness. The masses who consume the stuff that pours forth from the keyboards of antagonistic "Reformed" pop-apologists have little patience for presentations which avoid straw-men and are careful to accurately present opposing views.

Here’s an alternative answer: Perhaps the attempt to find agreement over the gospel where there really is no agreement is not really a “careful distinction” after all, but rather a post-modern attempt to deconstruct the importance of biblical truth in as subtle and acceptable a way as possible. Paul was not concerned with such nuanced distinctions in the case of the Judaizers—and make no mistake about it, the rationale of Owen, Lane, et al, could be applied equally to the theology of the Judaizers of Paul’s own day. Weren’t the Judaizers simply concerned about resolving the “tension” between works and grace? And weren’t they simply being more nuance than the over-simplistic defend-the-gospel-at-all-costs approach of Paul and his cohorts? Why should we suffer the vitriolic pop-polemics of simpletons like Paul in their attempts to demonize the sincere efforts of these Judaizers?

As those in my Jude Bible study can attest, there is tremendous pressure these days to abandon the “earnest struggle” for “the faith” that was “once for all delivered to the saints,” and that pressure continues to grow. I’m all for “presentations which avoid straw-men and are careful to accurately present opposing views.” I strive to do this in my own work, and I don’t think anyone who has read, say, my book on Mary can justly suggest otherwise. But note well, once we’ve “accurately represented” the opposing view, let’s be just as diligent to “contend earnestly” for the truth, and call a spade a spade.

Take for instance the statement, “Despite the caricatures which are common in Protestant critiques, Roman Catholic views on merit can be interpreted in such a way as to satisfy Protestant concerns.” Is it really “accurately representing” the opposing view to be so concerned with finding creative ways to “interpret” that view “in such a way as to satisfy Protestant concerns” that at the end of the day we end up ignoring the real meaning of it? When I say “Jesus is God,” that means something entirely different from what a Jehovah’s Witness means by that phrase. The words are identical, but the meaning is different. When I say “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” I mean something entirely different from what a Mormon means by that same phrase. And when I say “we are saved by grace through faith,” I mean something different from what a Roman Catholic means when he uses that same phrase. Can I “interpret” the phrases of the Mormon, the Jehovah’s Witness and the Roman Catholic in a more favorable light? Of course! But how does it “accurately represent” the Mormon view to superimpose my meaning on his words? How does it “accurately represent” the Jehovah’s Witness’s view to superimpose my meaning on his words? How does it “accurately represent” the Roman Catholic view to superimpose my meaning on his words?

The answer is, it doesn’t. Looking for ways to “interpret” the opposing view in a more favorable light—in essence, superimposing a foreign meaning on those words and concepts—is not to be equated with “accurately representing” that view.