James White and Romans 5:1

[Catholic_Dude]

It seems that Protestant apologist James White loves to appeal to Romans 5:1 against Catholics. I’ve seen him do it many times.

The verse says: “Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God.” White argues that we have this permanent peace that can never be lost, and that Catholic theology prevents this peace. But is that really a safe assumption to make, thinking that we can never lose peace with God? Wasn’t Adam originally at peace with God before he fell? It just seems like a bad assumption, based on a few words rather than a consensus among multiple texts.

More importantly, it’s astonishing that White puts so much emphasis on this verse when White also (rightly) admits this verse has a key textual issue with the Greek words “we have peace,” since the manuscript tradition and Church Fathers commentary overwhelmingly state “let us keep peace” with God. In other words, the evidence actually suggests Paul is saying that now that we have been justified, we have a duty to keep the peace with God by living a life of holiness. Paul is not saying we automatically are guaranteed some permanent peace.

Consider St John Chrysostom:

To prevent any one from supposing what [Paul] said was a ground for listlessness, he says, let us have peace, that is, let us sin no more, nor go back to our former estate. For this is making war with God.

And St Leo the Great:

Whence the Apostle incites us to this good end, in saying, “being justified therefore by faith let us have peace towards God.” In which brief sentence are summed up nearly all the commandments; for where true peace is, there can be no lack of virtue. But what is it, dearly beloved, to have peace towards God, except to wish what He bids, and not to wish what He forbids? For if human friendships seek out equality of soul and similarity of desires, and difference of habits can never attain to full harmony, how will he be partaker of divine peace, who is pleased with what displeases God and desires to get delight from what he knows to be offensive to God? That is not the spirit of the sons of God; such wisdom is not acceptable to the noble family of the adopted. That chosen and royal race must live up to the dignity of its regeneration, must love what the Father loves, and in nought disagree with its Maker, lest the Lord should again say: I have begotten and raised up sons, but they have scorned Me.

By White’s logic, he would not only have to condemn Catholics, but even the Church Fathers…unless the Church Fathers were actually orthodox here (which is a pretty safe assumption).

The above quotes were taken from this post:

NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Does "no condemnation for those in Christ" refer to eternal security? (Rom 8:1 & 5:1)

 

[bob4]

The NAB 2011 St. Joseph Edition, in its commentary on this verse, notes that: a number of manuscripts, versions, and church Fathers read “Let us have peace”. The Navarre Bible also makes mention of this. I don’t agree with James White if he asserts that we can never lose peace with God. If serious cannot separate us from God, why would Christ bestow on the Apostles the power to forgive sins, c.f. Jn 20:23?
And being thus separated from God, how could we yet have peace with Him?

 

[Catholic_Dude]

Thanks for looking that up. The reason why White believes peace cannot be lost is because he holds to the Calvinist notion of Eternal Security (aka “Once Saved, Always Saved”).

 

[jlhargus]

It seems that Protestant apologist James White loves to appeal to Romans 5:1 against Catholics. I’ve seen him do it many times. The verse says: “Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God.” White argues that we have this permanent peace that can never be lost, NICK'S CATHOLIC BLOG: Does "no condemnation for those in Christ" refer to eternal security? (Rom 8:1 & 5:1)

Problem for White is Rms5:1 doesn’t say “faith alone”. Scripture also says the following;

[Jms2:20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?
22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?
23 And the scripture was fulfilled which saith, Abraham believed God, and it was imputed unto him for righteousness: and he was called the Friend of God. 24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only. 25 Likewise also was not Rahab the harlot justified by works, when she had received the messengers, and had sent them out another way? 26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

 

[steve-b]

It seems that Protestant apologist James White loves to appeal to Romans 5:1 against Catholics. I’ve seen him do it many times.

The verse says: “Since we have been justified by faith, we have peace with God.” White argues that we have this permanent peace that can never be lost, and that Catholic theology prevents this peace. But is that really a safe assumption to make, thinking that we can never lose peace with God? Wasn’t Adam originally at peace with God before he fell? It just seems like a bad assumption, based on a few words rather than a consensus among multiple texts.

More importantly, it’s astonishing that White puts so much emphasis on this verse when White also (rightly) admits this verse has a key textual issue with the Greek words “we have peace,” since the manuscript tradition and Church Fathers commentary overwhelmingly state “let us keep peace” with God. In other words, the evidence actually suggests Paul is saying that now that we have been justified, we have a duty to keep the peace with God by living a life of holiness. Paul is not saying we automatically are guaranteed some permanent peace.

IOW James White is being James White