Romans 1

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Wesley: not only by frequent and signal interpositions of divine providence, but likewise in the sacred oracles, and by us, his messengers. Of men—he is speaking here of the gentiles, and chiefly the wisest of them. Who detain the truth—for it struggles against their wickedness.

Both camps must say this together first: wrath is revealed, and it is against all ungodliness, not a mood. Arminians detect a suppression. The truth struggles; they hold it down. The ’for’ of this verse explains why the gospel of 1:16–17 is needed. The wisest Gentiles are not excused by their wisdom. Paul is about to indict a world, not to arm a faction.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. Calvin’s later word (v. 24) will treat the handing-over as equitable judgment, not bare permission. The revelation of wrath is already underway, from heaven, against a suppression that is moral, not merely intellectual.

The gospel is power for salvation (1:16) because this wrath is no empty threat. All ungodliness—not one vice isolated for later use. Suppress the truth names what sinners do with what God has shown. Both camps take sin seriously here. The passage is diagnosis of the race, not a speech against a single neighbor.

For what can be known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. Wesley has just said they detain the truth, for it struggles against their wickedness. The truth they suppress is not hidden; God has shown it. Plain is God’s doing.

Wesleyan Arminians find a sincere showing. What can be known is actually given; the suppression is the sinner’s, not a defect in the revelation. Both camps refuse an excuse that God never spoke. The showing of v. 19 will be located in creation in v. 20. Knowledge is granted; worship is refused.

For what can be known of God is revealed in them, for God revealed it to them. Calvin will presently insist that the cause of sin remains in the sinner. The showing is God’s; the plainness is no illusion; the fault will not be located in a stingy revelation.

God has shown it. Plain to them is not a riddle for philosophers only. General revelation is sufficient to leave them without excuse (v. 20); it is not sufficient to save. Both camps must say this together: the knowledge they abuse is a gift they were given. Wrath answers a shown God, not an absent one.

His invisible attributes have been clearly seen since the creation of the world, being perceived through the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Wesley: he is speaking of the gentiles, and chiefly the wisest of them. Wisdom did not excuse them; creation made the power and deity perceptible.

Arminians take without excuse as honest. The things that are made do display the Maker. No one may plead that God hid himself. The excuse dies before the gospel of 1:16 is finished being explained. Perception was clear; honoring did not follow (v. 21).

His invisible attributes have been clearly perceived in the things that are made, even his everlasting power and divinity, that they may be without excuse. Calvin’s later exception still holds in advance: the cause of sin is not from God; the roots abide in the sinner. Creation did its work. The bar does not lack evidence.

Clearly perceived is not a boast about natural theology as a ladder into life. It is the ground of inexcusability. Ever since the creation: the showing is as old as the world. Both camps shut the mouth here. Eternal power and divine nature were not ambiguous. The next verse will name what they did with that knowledge.

For although they knew God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks, but became vain in their reasoning, and their senseless heart was darkened. Wesley: knowledge of God and purity are joined, as ungodliness and uncleanness are joined. The first failure is worship: they knew, and would not honor or thank.

The emphasis is on a knowledge refused. Futility and darkness follow ingratitude; they are not the first cause. Both camps take this as the hinge of the indictment: not ignorance, but a known God dishonored. Thanksgiving was owed. The darkened heart grows from that refusal, and it will soon show itself in the exchange of v. 23.

Although they knew God, they didn’t glorify him as God, and didn’t give thanks to him. Thinking became futile; hearts were darkened. Calvin will say the roots of sin abide in the sinner. The knowledge of v. 20 was not honored. Ingratitude is not a small discourtesy; it is the turn from the Creator.

They knew—and did not. Honor and thanks were the reasonable answer to eternal power and divine nature. Futility is judicial already in the mind; darkness is the heart’s. Both camps refuse to treat this as a mere mistake in philosophy. The God they knew was not thanked. The exchange is coming.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. Wesley: chiefly the wisest of them. The claim to wisdom is part of the indictment, not a side note. Folly comes from refusing to honor the God they knew (v. 21).

Wesleyans hear a pastoral warning that travels well beyond the first-century Gentile schools. Pretended wisdom is distinct from fearing God. Both camps take the reversal seriously: the boast of insight is compatible with becoming a fool. The next verse will show the folly in the exchange of glory for images.

Claiming to be wise, they became fools. Calvin’s equitable judgment (v. 24) will soon give them up; the folly is already on display. The claim is theirs; the becoming is the truth about that claim.

Wisdom-as-boast is unmasked, not mocked for sport. They became fools in the moral sense—they could not keep the knowledge they had. Both camps must say this without sneering at learning as such. The fool here is the one who will not honor God. Images are about to prove it.

And traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, four-footed animals, and creeping things. The exchange is the folly of v. 22 made visible. Wesley: ungodliness and uncleanness are frequently joined. They traded the immortal for the made.

Classical Arminians take the exchange as guilt, not a primitive phase of culture. Glory was known (vv. 19–21) and swapped. Both camps confess idolatry as the turn from Creator to creature. This is the ground of the ’therefore’ in v. 24. Paul is still writing about worship, not staging a later quarrel. The immortal God was owed the glory; images received it.

They traded the glory of the incorruptible God for the likeness of an image of corruptible man, and of birds, four-footed animals, and creeping things. Calvin will presently say God also gave them up in judgment for this turn. The exchange is the sin whose roots abide in them.

Glory belongs to the immortal God. Images of man, birds, animals, creeping things name the descent—not a curiosity of art history. Both camps take idolatry as the parent of the impurities that follow. The Creator was known and traded. ’Therefore’ (v. 24) will answer this swap, not invent a new charge.

Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves. Wesley: one punishment of sin is from the very nature of it, as Rom 1:27; another, as here, is from vindictive justice. Uncleanness—ungodliness and uncleanness are frequently joined, as are the knowledge of God and purity. God gave them up—by withdrawing his restraining grace.

Wesleyan Arminians see a therefore: idolatry first, then the handing-over. God withdraws the grace that had restrained; he does not author the lust. The cause remains in the hearts already turned. This is pastoral judgment on a world that would not honor God, not a slogan. Impurity dishonors the body; the first sin was dishonoring the glory (v. 23). Restraining grace, once withdrawn, leaves sinners to what they wanted.

Therefore God also gave them up in the lusts of their hearts to uncleanness, that their bodies should be dishonored among themselves. Calvin: it is indeed certain that he not only permits men to fall into sin, by allowing them to do so and by conniving at them; but that he also, by his equitable judgment, so arranges things that they are led and carried into such madness by their own lusts, as well as by the devil. He adopts the word give up according to the constant usage of Scripture. Only this exception: the cause of sin is not from God; the roots ever abide in the sinner himself.

More than permission, less than God as author of evil. Equitable judgment hands them over; their own lusts and the devil carry them. Therefore ties the impurity to the exchange of glory. Both camps take the dishonoring of the body as judgment, not as a minor footnote. Perdition is theirs; help is in God alone.

Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. The because looks back to v. 24 and restates v. 23. Wesley: they detained the truth; it struggled against their wickedness. The lie is the swapped glory.

Arminians hear worship as the issue. Creature rather than Creator is the sin under the impurities, not a side theme. Both camps bless the Creator with Paul’s Amen and refuse to treat idolatry as a taste. The truth about God was had, and traded. The handing-over of v. 24 answers this because. The next ’for this reason’ (v. 26) will say it again.

Because they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Calvin’s give up is not a random severity; it answers this because. The roots abide in those who served the creature.

Truth exchanged for a lie is the parent of the lusts. Blessed forever is doxology in the middle of indictment—God is not stained by their swap. Both camps must say the Amen. Service of the creature is guilt. The second handing-over (v. 26) will rest on the same reason, not on a new caprice.

For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Wesley: God gave them up—by withdrawing his restraining grace. One punishment of sin is from the very nature of it; another is from vindictive justice. Paul names an exchange in the passions, as he named an exchange of glory (v. 23). It is the second of three handings-over in a catalog that will include envy, gossip, and heartlessness (vv. 29–31).

Wesleyan Arminians take the passions and the contrary-to-nature as seriously as the idolatry that preceded them. God withdrew restraining grace; the dishonor is theirs. Treat persons as image-bearers under judgment, not as trophies in a quarrel. Both camps must say together: the Creator is owed worship; this exchange is sin; the giving-up is judgment. The fork is how God gives up, not whether Paul spoke of dishonorable passions.

For this reason, God gave them up to vile passions. For their women changed the natural function into that which is against nature. Calvin: he not only permits, by allowing and conniving; by his equitable judgment he so arranges things that they are led into such madness by their own lusts as well as by the devil. The cause of sin is not from God; the roots abide in the sinner. Paul names the exchange; he does not write a rant for later factions.

This is the second give them up, still answering the because of v. 25. God judges by handing over; he does not author the passion. Dishonorable is Paul’s word, and it will not be the whole list—vv. 29–31 will name ordinary social sins beside it. Read the verse as indictment of a race that exchanged the Creator. Equitable judgment, not a campaign.

Likewise also the men, leaving the natural function of the woman, burned in their lust toward one another, men doing what is inappropriate with men, and receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. Wesley: one punishment of sin is from the very nature of it, as Rom 1:27; another, as in v. 24, is from vindictive justice. The due penalty in themselves is that natural punishment; the giving-up was the other.

Arminians take the likewise as the male counterpart of v. 26, not a louder climax. Due penalty is in earnest; it is not a cue to heap contempt. Both camps hear error as Paul’s word and refuse to shrug. The pastoral task is to say what the apostle said—shameless acts, due penalty—inside a chapter that will immediately name gossip, pride, and heartlessness as well. Sin is broader than this verse, and this verse is still sin.

The men likewise left the natural use of the woman and burned in their lust toward one another, receiving in themselves the due penalty of their error. Calvin’s exception still governs: the cause of sin is not from God; the roots abide in the sinner. Due penalty is desert, not excess; the giving-up is the other sentence—equitable judgment.

Likewise keeps this from being a unique horror isolated for later use. Consumed with passion is the madness Calvin named—their own lusts carrying them. Both camps take the due penalty as just. Read it beside vv. 29–31 so the whole catalog weighs, not one line weaponized. God is not the author of the acts; he is the judge who hands over and who still helps whom he will.

Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting. This is the third time God gives them up. Wesley: God gave them up—by withdrawing his restraining grace. They did not see fit: the mind already refused to have God in its knowledge; a debased mind is what remains when restraining grace is gone.

Arminians hear since as moral sequence, not fate. Acknowledgment was owed; they would not. The debased mind is judgment by withdrawal, and it produces what ought not to be done—the list that follows is ordinary and terrible together. Both camps take the third handing-over as seriously as the first two. The fork remains the manner of the giving-up, not the reality of the debased mind.

Even as they refused to have God in their knowledge, God gave them up to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not fitting. Calvin: not only permission and connivance; by equitable judgment he so arranges things that they are led into such madness by their own lusts and the devil. The cause of sin is not from God. A debased mind is that madness in the faculty that would not acknowledge him.

The third give them up reaches the mind itself. What ought not to be done is about to be catalogued without remainder for polite sins. Both camps refuse a God who merely looks away as if uninvolved, and both refuse a God who authors the evil. Equitable judgment answers the refusal to acknowledge. The roots remain in the sinner; the sentence is God’s.

They were filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil habits; they are secret slanderers. The debased mind of v. 28 does not produce one vice. Wesley’s pairing of ungodliness and uncleanness is here widened: envy, strife, gossip sit beside the passions already named.

Arminians take the whole filling as the fruit of withdrawn restraint. This list keeps 1:18–32 from being narrowed to a single controversy. Both camps must say that gossip and malice belong in the same indictment as the impurities. All manner of unrighteousness is the point. The wrath of v. 18 was against all ungodliness; the catalog is catching up.

They were filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality, wickedness, covetousness, malice—envy, murder, strife, deceit, maliciousness, gossips. Calvin’s madness by their own lusts is not a private sensuality only. A debased mind fills with this.

The list is the proof that the handing-over is about a whole humanity under wrath, not a single modern quarrel. Gossips belong here. Both camps take filled and full as saturation, not a light stain. Equitable judgment has reached ordinary rooms—envy, strife, deceit—as surely as it reached the passions of vv. 26–27. Read the catalog as one.

Slanderers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents. The list continues into the household and the tongue. Wesley: he is speaking of the gentiles, and chiefly the wisest of them. Wisdom did not keep them from slander or from hating God.

The accent falls on haters of God as the root still showing—v. 21’s refusal to honor, now named as hatred. Disobedient to parents sits in the same breath as inventors of evil. Both camps take the household sins as seriously as the spectacular ones. This is still; it is a mirror. Boasting and insolence are the old claim to be wise (v. 22) in social dress.

Slanderers, backbiters, hateful to God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents. Calvin: the roots of sin abide in the sinner. Hatred of God is the mind that would not acknowledge him (v. 28), now in the open. The home is not exempt—disobedient to parents.

Inventors of evil names a creativity turned against the Creator. Both camps refuse to treat haughtiness as refinement. The handing-over reaches speech, pride, and the fifth commandment as well as the passions. Slanderers belong in the same Romeward letter as the gospel of 1:16. Wrath is against all this unrighteousness, not a curated subset.

Paul’s list ends with foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Four words close the filling. Wesley: claiming to be wise, they became fools (v. 22); foolish is that verdict in summary. Heartless and ruthless are the social face of a debased mind—not a private failing only.

Arminians hear the four as the end of restraint withdrawn. Faithless is covenant-breaking in ordinary life; heartless is love gone. Both camps must let these adjectives search the reader, not only a distant Gentile past. The catalog is about to end with knowledge and approval (v. 32). No one is meant to finish v. 31 unscathed and smug.

The list ends with four marks: foolish, faithless, heartless, and ruthless. Calvin’s exception remains: the cause is not from God. These four are the sinner’s fruit under equitable judgment. Foolish recalls v. 22; heartless and ruthless show that the debased mind is cruel, not merely confused.

The list ends without a hero. Both camps take heartless as guilt. Ruthless is not a pagan specialty; it is what a mind looks like when it will not acknowledge God. The next verse will add that they know the sentence and still approve the practice. Diagnosis first; the gospel of 1:16 still stands as the power that saves from this.

Knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them. Wesley: they detain the truth, for it struggles against their wickedness; they are without excuse (v. 20). Knowledge of the decree remains; practice and approval compound it.

Both camps take this last line with full seriousness. What comes through is a known decree, still in reach of conscience, met by doing and by applause. Approval is not a small add-on; it is solidarity in what God has named worthy of death. Such things means the whole catalog—gossip and heartlessness as well as the passions. Wrath was revealed against all ungodliness (v. 18). The gospel remains the power of God for salvation for everyone who believes (1:16). This chapter is a door into that need, not a speech for scoring neighbors.

Knowing the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also approve of those who practice them. Calvin: the cause of sin is not from God; the roots abide in the sinner. They know—and do, and approve. The debased mind of v. 28 has not lost all awareness of the bar.

Knowledge plus practice plus approval is the full indictment. Deserve to die is the apostle’s word for the desert, not a cue for private vengeance. Such things gathers vv. 24–31 into one. Both camps refuse to thin this verse into manners. Equitable judgment has not cancelled the decree they still know. The letter will not leave them here: the same God whose wrath is revealed has put forth a gospel that is his power for salvation (1:16–17). Chapter 2 will turn the same bar upon the moralist who only condemns.