Throughout Scripture, we see repeatedly that a person’s character is revealed not just in what they say—but even more in what they do. Character is especially revealed in what someone does in moments of crisis.

Last week, a pastor in Florida was arrested on charges of possessing child pornography. His (former) church belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) and was listed on several church search lists, including those found on the websites of the SBC, 9Marks, and Founders Ministries. Up until this horrific sin came to light, there was no way that the SBC, 9Marks, Founders, or others could have known about this pastor’s secret sin. No amount of abuse reform can grant powers of omniscience.

Once we at Founders heard of the arrest, we immediately removed the church from our search list, wrote to the church to inform them of our actions, and offered to help them in any way that we could. Leadership in the church has expressed appreciation for our actions. They, like all of us, are repulsed by the accusations. They were also caught completely off guard and are fully cooperating with proper authorities in seeking justice.

Addressing a Serious Accusation

The actions that Founders Ministries took upon learning about the arrest of this pastor demonstrate our priorities. Likewise, the actions taken by others upon learning of this horrific crime reveal where their priorities lie.

We can see another example of one’s actions revealing their priorities in how Jared Wellman responded to this awful situation. For those unfamiliar with Wellman, he is the pastor of Tate Springs Baptist Church in Arlington, Texas. He has also been very involved in SBC politics and attempted to become the single most powerful leader in the convention.

Here is a brief rundown of Wellman’s involvement in SBC leadership:

Member of the 2020 ERLC Leadership Council under Russell Moore

Member of the SBC Resolutions Committee in 2019 (of “Resolution 9” fame), 2021, and 2020

Executive Board Member of Southern Baptists of Texas Convention, 2009-2013 and 2013-2017

Trustee at Criswell College, 2020-2021

Land Center Fellow at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS)

Adjunct Professor at SWBTS

Member of the Executive Committee (EC) of the SBC, 2015

Chairman of the SBC EC, 2022-2023

Chairman of the Cooperation Group appointed by SBC President Bart Barber, 2023-2024

Numerous people alerted me last Saturday night that Jared tried to implicate Founders Ministries in the sordid accusations against the Florida pastor because his (former) church was listed on our church search list. After linking to a story about the pastor’s arrest, Wellman posted this on X:

Why does Founders have zero accountability for churches they officially recommend as “healthy, biblically-grounded” churches while being so adamant about what kinds of churches can cooperate through the SBC?

I’m genuinely confused.

Founders’s own house is out of order.

Almost immediately, multiple pastors raised legitimate concerns about Jared’s post. Here are just a few excerpts of the many concerns raised:

“Knowing secret sins is not the job of a church search. They evaluate what confessions you claim to hold & look over a church’s teachings then list them. If your pastor engages in sexual sin privately & the church doesn’t even know, how is a church search supposed to know?” (Source)

“…this is how most church searches work (Founders, 9 Marks, TGC, etc). People submit their churches, and there is a disclaimer that this is the church identifying themselves and not an endorsement. Even a quick “verification of facts” can not identify evil men harboring secret sin.” (Source)

“What kind of accountability should be applied to a church who was unaware of the creep’s crimes and acted when it was revealed?” (Source)

“This is disingenuous but more importantly, simply being used as an opportunity to strike out at an ‘opponent.’” (Source)

“If you go after Founders for recommending the church but removing their recommendation when they became aware of the pastor’s sin, how do you not take responsibility for the SBC recommending the church while you were chairman of the Executive Committee?” (Source)

Jared’s response was not to engage with these concerns in good faith. Instead, he hid several critical replies before turning off the ability to respond to his post entirely.

As the President of Founders Ministries, I offered to talk to him privately about his public castigation of Founders. Sadly, he has not has responded. But his antics are instructive.

Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste

Some will think Jared’s question is innocent and legitimate. Those more familiar with the radical progressive activist Saul Alinsky’s book Rules for Radicals will recognize that Wellman is simply following a script. Jared’s accusation doesn’t come from a confused mind. Rather, it comes from one that has an agenda.

Following the maneuver popularized by President Obama’s Chief of Staff Rham Emanuel (but first articulated by Machiavelli), Wellman simply could not let a serious crisis go to waste. That’s what his post on X was about. He took this tragic, horrific story and turned it into an opportunity to signal his virtue to a watching world while casting aspersion on Founders Ministries. Why? I will leave motives to God, but it is obvious to anyone who has kept up that I have been among those who have repeatedly protested the way that recent SBC leaders have been steering the SBC into bad paths.

Sadly, this is not the first time that Southern Baptists have seen such behavior from Wellman. He saw his political profile rise during a crisis, and he has continued to go back to that well. Every serious crisis is an opportunity for Wellman and those like him to gain more political power and attack those perceived enemies.

After Ronnie Floyd resigned as president of the EC over controversy related to an abuse investigation, Wellman used his position as Chairman of the EC and member of the search committee to attempt to take the vacant presidency for himself. He secretly resigned from the Executive Committee days before the search committee announced that he was their pick for one of the most powerful positions in the Southern Baptist Convention.

Once these back-alley dealings were brought to light, an unforeseen groundswell of opposition arose from rank-and-file SBC churches. Even liberals who liked Wellman recognized that he did not act ethically when he attempted to use a search committee on which he served to secretly appoint himself to the most powerful role in the Southern Baptist Convention. The opposition that arose led to several EC members breaking ranks, and Jared failed to be elected to the post.

Not only have we seen Jared Wellman brazenly attempt to use crises to gain power, we have also seen him use the lofty perch of SBC leadership to attack those he considers his enemies. While Wellman was on the Executive Committee, there was a misunderstanding between the outgoing chairman, Mike Stone, and the incoming chairman, Rolland Slade. Slade was mistaken about when his duties as chairman actually began and expressed frustration when he thought that Stone had overstepped. Wellman, again seeing an opportunity not to let a good crisis go to waste, used what was a simple misunderstanding to write an article filled with misrepresentations about Mike Stone and the Conservative Baptist Network. Later, when Slade recognized that he was mistaken, he apologized before the entire Executive Committee. Wellman continues to stand by his lies.

A Teaching Opportunity

Many of the current problems in the Southern Baptist Convention have been self-inflicted due primarily to failed leadership. Lack of integrity and lack of courage are two chief ingredients of such failure. Jared Wellman put both on display on Saturday night.

Lack of integrity and courage is why many SBC leaders like Wellman are quick to capitulate to worldly ideologies when doing so can curry favor with a watching world. Did I mention that Wellman was on the Resolutions Committee that railroaded the SBC into affirming critical race theory and intersectionality at the 2019 annual meeting? Or that he led the charge for the EC to waive executive privilege?

Sadly, we have seen that agenda play out in the way the SBC has been steered to address such issues as racial prejudice, women pastors, and even the atrocity of sexual abuse in ways that are more concerned with signaling virtue to hostile critics than with pursuing true virtue in the fear of the Lord. Every crisis has become an opportunity for SBC leaders like Wellman to use emotional manipulation and political maneuvering to advance their own ambitions and gain the approval of those who hate Christ and His church.

That’s why Jared Wellman’s social media post is a teachable moment. If Southern Baptist pastors and church members are willing to see it for what it is, they will find a specimen of the type of leadership that has guided the SBC over the last several years—the kind of leadership that has paid millions of dollars to LGBTQIA+ affirming organizations in the name of helping the SBC address the supposed apocalypse of sex abuse in our churches. To date, according to the estimates I have heard, the SBC has spent over $14,000,000 on “sex abuse reforms” and helped 0 abuse victims in the process.

If we had the kind of leaders who would challenge SBC pastors to pursue biblical justice (heeding such teachings as Proverbs 18:13,17; Deuteronomy 19:15-19; Matthew 18:15-20; and 1 Corinthians 5), we would see much healthier churches and provide much greater protection and care for the most vulnerable among us. That type of approach will never win the world’s applause. But it honors our Lord Jesus by taking His Word seriously. Sadly, for too many in the current SBC leadership class, fear of the former outweighs the desire for the latter.

The EC was right in 2023 when they listened to concerns raised by SBC churches and rejected the recommendation of Jared Wellman as the next President of the EC. The convention narrowly dodged a bullet as a result.

If we hope to see a much-needed course correction in the SBC, we must stop entrusting leadership to men whose ambition surpasses their godliness and start following those who fear God more than they fear people and who pursue biblical virtue even if the watching world does not approve.

Pray that God will give us such men to lead us.

“Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:22–23, ESV). These words, written by the apostle John to Christians who were suffering the departure of some from among them into great error, strike us with a weightiness not easily missed. The confession of the Father and the Son is one unitary confession such that to deny one Person is to deny the other.

When we take a little time to contemplate these words, we are reminded of some other statements that are made in Scripture. For example, the Lord Jesus challenged his disciples to consider his identity. “Who do people say that the Son of Man is? . . . Who do you say that I am?” (Matt 16:13, 15). The answers of the multitudes are varied as some identify him with John the Baptist, Elijah, and Jeremiah. Earlier, some even identified him—at least in terms of the power at work within him—with Beelzebul (i.e., Satan), the prince of demons (Matt 12:24). This is not Peter’s answer, however. His answer was one that corresponds with what is required in 1 John 2: “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God” (Matt 16:26). Jesus tells Peter that the Father revealed this reality (Matt 16:17). Not only does the Father reveal who the Son is, but the Son reveals the Father as well.

Jesus had earlier told his disciples, “no one knows the Son except the Father, and no one knows the Father except the Son and anyone to whom the Son chooses to reveal him” (Matt 11:27). What John says many years later, that confession of the Father and the Son are inseparable, fits with what he had learned at Jesus’ feet in those opening days of the gospel. In fact, John would go further, as would Paul (1 Cor 2), to say that this Confession is because the Holy Spirit bears witness to the identity of the Son (1 John 4; cf. Jn 15:26). The Spirit of God is indeed God, one with the Father and the Son, into whose singular Name we are baptized. The one God is confessed throughout the Scriptures, and this God is the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, distinct in Persons, the Son from the Father and the Spirit from the Father and the Son.

The confession of the Father and the Son is one unitary confession such that to deny one Person is to deny the other.

From even this brief tracing of the Christian’s knowledge of God in Christ, we can see that, in reality, to be a Christian is to be Trinitarian. Though precise terminology was developed through testing, we can say with the Athanasian Creed that whoever would (“Quicumque vult”) be saved must hold to the true faith, which is faith in the Trinity, and that the Trinity is that “which except a man believe truly and firmly, he cannot be saved.” There are many things that go into a right understanding of the Trinity, and of course, our understanding will never be comprehensive (2LBCF 2.1), but here we are considering the fundamentals of the “Person-Nature distinction.” In working through this distinction, we are, in many ways, laying the groundwork for the articles that follow, so we will first look at some key Trinitarian grammar. Because Christians have been working at this for a long time, the precision can sometimes be difficult to understand immediately, so feel free to reread as you find yourself needing to.

Basics by Number

The reason for “paint by number” sheets is to help the aspiring artist create something in which the necessary colors all end up in the right place, preventing distortion of the image you are aiming to present. Perhaps something like that can be helpful to us here in Trinitarian theology. In Trinitarian theology, counting to five helps us to prevent distortion in our presentation of the Trinity.

One: Essence. Of course, believers have always confessed that God is one. He is the self-existent Creator (Gen 1:1), who visits Moses in the burning bush with the name “I AM” (Exod 3:14), and places a confession on the lips of his people, “Hear, O Israel, the LORD our God, the LORD is One” (Deut 6:4). While the pagans may worship the many so-called gods, for us, there is one God (1 Cor 8:6). When we refer to the essence of God, we are referring to the “whatness” (in Latin, quiddity). When we say God is one in essence, of course, we do not believe that his “oneness” is a oneness of specialty (as though we worship one among many options, or that there is a genus into which this God fits). Nor do we think that he is one result of a collection of different things to make him what he is (i.e., he is not composite). In terms of Trinitarian theology, we must also say that these Persons are not a divine community, like a gathering of the gods that form some sort of society.

Two: Processions. In God, there are two processions, or “goings forth from.” As we saw at the opening of this article, the Persons are clearly presented in the Scriptures, so our numbers 2, 4, and 5 are largely helping us to say what we can about the three Persons of the Trinity. Since we are speaking here of the Trinity as such, we should be careful not to include merely the missions in which the Son comes from the Father into the world. The mission includes the procession (i.e., it has the “going forth from” as part of its definition), but there is an eternal going forth. The Son is eternally from the Father (which we call generation), and the Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son (which we only call procession).

Three: Properties, or Persons. Because of the two processions, we can identify three Persons, each with distinct properties that identify the Persons in their real distinction. The Father’s property of “paternity,” the Son’s property is “filiation,” and the Spirit’s property is “procession.”

Four: Relations. While there are three Persons, this actually causes us to say there are four relations. These four include the three properties we have already noted. The Father’s relation to the Son is as Father (paternity), and the Son’s relation to the Father is as Son (filiation). The Spirit’s relation to the Father and the Son, is procession, but what is the Father-and-Son’s relation to the Spirit? It can not be as Father, since the Spirit would then be another Son and/or the Son would become another Father. Since Christians have not wanted to say more than we can about the inner life of the Trinity, we have simply applied the language from “Spirit” to the relation: “spiration.” In fact, often, instead of saying both procession and spiration, theologians have simply called it active and passive spiration.

Five: Notions. Of course, we are counting to five, so there must be one last thing to mention, and this is the idea of “notions.” The Reformed theologian Francis Turretin explains that a “‘notion’ designates the same character [as property and relation] inasmuch as it signifies that one person is distinct from another (so as to be the index and mark of distinction between the persons)” (Institutes of Elenctic Theology 1:257). The Father’s relation to the Son is paternity, and that marks him out regarding the Son’s origin, the Son’s origin from the Father is marked out by his filiation, and the spiration and procession marks out the Spirit’s origin from the Father-and-Son (“filioque”). But, though we know the Son is from the Father, how do we mark out the Father’s origin? The Father has no origin, so we simply say he is “unbegotten” (or, to use some additional technical theological terms, he is agennetos or inascible).

While the five points of Trinitarianism, or perhaps the latter four, seem like they are saying a lot, we should not miss the fact that they are actually saying very little. If we could boil the latter four down to a single statement, it is this: the Father is from no one, the Son is eternally from the Father, and the Spirit is eternally from the Father and the Son. Many problems in Trinitarian theology today occur because of too much eagerness to jump into saying more than we have been given to say. The reality is that once more begins to be said about the eternal relations as such, theological problems begin to arise, as will be shown in other parts of this series. As dense as the things said above may seem, again, it is actually simply a further explanation of the idea that the Father does not proceed, but the Son is from the Father and the Spirit from the Father and the Son. That said, we are left with some further questions to answer.

Person and Nature

While there were five things mentioned above, we can distinguish them into the two main ideas of the Persons and the essence, or nature. The question that we run into at this point is this: how can it be said that the Persons are three while the nature is one? We begin with humility, acknowledging that we are finite humans who will never comprehend the Trinity.

There are two key affirmations that we make at this point: each of the Persons is God, and the Persons are really distinguished from each other by their relations of origin. Again, these are simple affirmations made by all Christians, but we can move further into our explanation of the affirmations a little bit here.

Each of the Persons is not really distinct from the divine nature with a result that there are four things, the three Persons and the nature. When we say that the Father is God, we mean that he is identical with the divine essence. Likewise, the Son is identical with the divine essence, and so is the Holy Spirit.

Each of the Persons of the Trinity is God, and the Persons are really distinguished from each other by their relations of origin.

However, the Son is really distinct from the Father, and the Spirit is really distinct from the Father and the Son. The Son is not the Father, and the Spirit is not the Father or the Son. We would want to say both that the Son is God and that he is from the Father. The way or manner or mode by which he is God is as from the Father. Turretin and others would say that, since the Persons are really distinct from one another, and since this distinction is in their mode of subsisting as God, it is best to refer to the Person-Nature distinction as a real minor distinction or real modal distinction (Institutes 1:279). Or, we might use the words of John Owen, “Every person has distinctly its own substance . . . but each person has not its own distinct substance” (Works [Banner of Truth] 2:409). Each person is truly and distinctly God, but they are not distinct gods. Of course, these are not merely modes of revelation, as the Modalists (Sabellians) would say. They are modes, or ways, of subsisting. This Person is God as the Father, who is from no one, and this Person is God as the one begotten from the Father, and this one is God as the Spirit who proceeds from the Father and the Son.

Again, while many words have been used, we are not pressing beyond our simple confession that there is one God; the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is each this one God; that these Persons are really distinct; and that the Father is from none, the Son is from the Father, and the Holy Spirit is from the Father and the Son. This “doctrine of the Trinity is the foundation of all our communion with God, and comfortable dependence on him” (2LBCF 2.3).

This article was originally posted in Issue 116 of the Founders Journal.

Theologians frequently distinguish two species of divine grace in the Scriptures: saving grace and common grace. God directs the former particularly to the elect; God showers the latter indiscriminately on all men in general. Saving grace is, as its designation suggests, efficacious in effecting the redemption of those to whom it is given. Common grace, on the other hand, does not guarantee the salvation of its recipients. Nevertheless, God’s common grace is saving in its design. That is, God sincerely intends the kindness and patience he shows to all sinners (whether elect or non-elect) to lead them unto saving repentance. The apostle Paul underscores this biblical truth in Romans 2:4.

Before we demonstrate our thesis concerning the teaching of Romans 2:4, we believe it would be helpful to read the verse in its larger context:

Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things. Do you suppose, O man–you who judge those who practice such things and yet do them yourself–that you will escape the judgment of God? Or do you presume on the riches of his kindness and forbearance and patience, not knowing that God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance? But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself on the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed (Rom 2:1-5, ESV).

From this passage (especially verse 4), we’ll identify the recipients, the nature, and the design of God’s common grace.

The Recipients of God’s Common Grace

Precisely whom is Paul addressing in Romans 2:1-5?

The “Moralist” whether Jew or Gentile

The majority of commentators believe Paul has transitioned from indicting pagan Gentiles in Romans 1:18-32 to condemning self-righteous Jews in 2:1ff.[i] There are good reasons, however, to interpret the scope of Paul’s indictment as inclusive of any moralist, whether Jew or Gentile.[ii]

The Sinfully Self-Righteous Person

Not only is Paul addressing the self-confessed “moralist.” He seems to have in view the person who not only prides himself in his assumed “superior” ethical mores, but also makes it his business to judge and condemn others less outwardly decent or religious. This is the kind of judgmentalism Jesus warned against in the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 7:1-5). It’s epitomized in the parable of the Pharisee and the Publican where the former, looking condescendingly on the latter, has the audacity to pray,

God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get (Luke 18:11-12, ESV).

The Blind and Stubborn Reprobate

Paul’s characterization darkens as the passage progresses. This is not just a moralist who’s got nothing better to do than to complain about the ills of the decadent society around him. Paul’s diatribe is aimed at the man who shows contempt[iii] for the abundance of God’s “kindness and forbearance and patience” of which he is a recipient. This contempt actually blinds him[iv] to the fact that such undeserved kindness has a benevolent design (2:4). And in this case, the blindness is the willful, sinful, and culpable variety.[v] Worse, it results in a stubborn impenitence that accrues, rather ironically for the moralist, a “treasury”[vi] of divine wrath and judgment (2:5).[vii]

The Nature of God’s Common Grace

The “common grace” in this passage is God’s indiscriminate kindness shown to the undeserving or, better, ill-deserving. Paul describes this kindness using three nouns. The first, χρηστότητος, denotes the quality of beneficence. The second, ἀνοχῆς, signifies the quality of being forbearing or tolerant. It’s used in Romans 3:26 to refer to God’s postponement of judgment. The third, μακροθυμίας, refers to the quality of patience or long-suffering. Paul summarizes these ideas with the cognate adjective of the first noun, χρηστὸς, which is here used substantively–”God’s kindness.”

Some Grace Saves

Sometimes divine “kindness” is employed to signify a discriminate, salvific, and efficacious grace. For example, consider Paul’s words to the church of Ephesus:

But God, being rich in mercy (ἐλέει), because of the great love with which he loved us, even when we were dead in our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ–by grace (χάριτί) you have been saved–and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace (χάριτος) in kindness (χρηστότητι) toward us in Christ Jesus. For by grace (χάριτί) you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God (2:4-8).

Worth noting is that Paul portrays God’s saving “kindness” (χρηστότης) as a species of “grace” (χάρις) and expression of “mercy” (ἔλεος). Moreover, we see a parallel in this text with Romans 2:4 in that both passages describe God’s kindness or grace in lavish terms: here, “God being rich” (πλούσιος); there, “the riches (πλούτου) of his kindness.”

Paul employs the same salvific kindness terminology in his letter to Titus:

But when the goodness (χρηστότης) and loving kindness (φιλανθρωπία) of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy (ἔλεος), through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit. This Spirit he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace (χάριτι), we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life (3:4-7).

In this case χρηστότης (“goodness”) and φιλανθρωπία (“loving-kindness”) function as the more general terms of which God’s saving ἔλεος (“mercy”) and χάριτι (“grace”) are species. And, like our text (Rom 2:4) and Ephesians 2 above, this divine kindness is extravagant: “this Spirit he poured out on us richly (πλουσίως) through Jesus Christ our Savior.”

Some Grace Does Not

Some Christians seem to believe that “grace” vocabulary, like that above, always and necessarily denotes God’s efficacious and saving kindness to the ill-deserving. But this is simply not the case for several reasons.

First, the fact that the phrase “common grace” doesn’t occur in the Bible does not mean the concept behind the phrase is absent. To assume that the absence of a special term or a technical phrase precludes the idea or notion conveyed by such a word or phrase is to commit a linguistic fallacy. As James Barr explains, “It is the sentence (and of course the still larger literary complex such as the complete speech or poem) which is the linguistic bearer of the usual theological statement, and not the word (the lexical unit) or the morphological and syntactical connection.”[viii] For example, one will scour Genesis 3 in vain for such terms as “sin,” “evil,” “rebellion,” “transgression,” or “guilt.” But it’s obvious to most readers that the chapter is all about mankind’s fall into sin. Similarly, the Scriptures teach that God is one nature and three persons. Thus, we may affirm the doctrine of the “Trinity” even though the term doesn’t occur in the Bible. The same holds true for the phrase “common grace.”

Second, and related to the point above, it’s not the term “grace” by itself that denotes efficacious grace. Rather, the larger context in which the term occurs is what constrains the special (soteriological) signification. In general, the term “grace” denotes ideas like “favor,” “goodwill,” or “kindness.” Only when the term is employed in contexts where God’s regenerating, justifying, or sanctifying activity is in view does it convey the theological notion of divine saving grace to the ill-deserving. To assume that the English term or its Hebrew or Greek counterparts (see below) must always have a technical meaning in biblical discourse is, once again, linguistically fallacious. D. A. Carson calls this the terminus technicus fallacy in which “an interpreter falsely assumes that a word [e.g., “grace”] always has a certain technical meaning–a meaning derived either from a subset of the evidence or from the interpreter’s personal systematic theology.”[ix]

Third, even the Hebrew and Greek terms commonly translated as “grace” (Hebrew: חן [noun], חנן [verb]/Greek: χάρις [noun]; χαρίζω [verb]) do not always denote God’s efficacious and saving kindness to the ill-deserving. When, for instance, Noah finds “grace (חן) in the eyes of the Lord” (Gen 6:8), he’s not receiving God’s saving grace as an ill-deserving sinner, but God’s approval as a righteous saint (see Gen 6:10). In other words, there is a species of grace that’s actually merited (cf. Gen 33:12-17; Prov 12:2). Such is what the Gospel writer Luke had in view when he tells us, ”Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature and in favor (χάριτι) with God and man” (Luke 2:52). Obviously, divine saving grace to the ill-deserving doesn’t fit this context. There are many other examples of non-soteriological usage.[x]

Fourth, the biblical terms translated “grace” belong to a larger semantic domain that includes words such as “mercy,” “compassion,” “patience,” “long-suffering,” and “kindness.” Such terms may denote God’s discriminate saving grace, or they can signify a more general idea like God’s indiscriminate kindness. Psalm 145 seems to bring both kinds of divine grace into close relation. The psalmist highlights God’s covenantal or special grace in verse 8 with an allusion to Yahweh’s self-revelation in Exodus 34: “The LORD is gracious and merciful, slow to anger and abounding in steadfast love.” Then, in the next verse, he places God’s special grace under the umbrella of God’s common grace: “The LORD is good to all, and his mercy is over all that he has made.”[xi] The Greek term used to translate “all” in the LXX often signifies the entire world (Job 2:2; Isa 11:9; Nah 1:5), which nicely parallels the phrase “all that he has made.” It seems then, there is a species of God’s grace or kindness that is more general in scope.

Fifth, that the noun χρηστότητος (“kindness”) and adjective χρηστὸς (“kind”) can denote a non-salvific favor, that is, a general kindness, is shown by the fact that they are predicated of Christians. That is, believers are commanded to be kind and gracious to others (2 Cor 6:6; Gal 5:22; Col 3:12; Eph 4:32). One should note that the species of “kindness” enjoined of humans in these passages is represented as analogous to the kindness God has showed toward us in salvation, not necessarily in terms of efficacy but in terms of its general nature, i.e., a kind of favor that is benevolent and merciful in character. Note how Jesus enjoins his disciples to imitate God’s common kindness by being gracious even toward their enemies:

But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return, and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High, for he is kind (χρηστός) to the ungrateful and the evil. Be merciful, even as your Father is merciful (Luke 6:35-36, ESV).

Sixth, our text in Romans plainly refers to a species of divine grace or kindness that is not limited to the elect and that falls short of actually effecting the conversion of its recipients (see Rom 2:5). So we agree with William G. T. Shedd when he comments on Romans 2:4 and remarks, “The apostle is not speaking, here, of the effectual operation of special grace upon the human will, but only of common influences.”[xii]

In summary, though the phrase “common grace” doesn’t appear in the Bible, the concept of common grace does. Common grace refers to God’s blessings on the human race that fall short of salvation from sin. Theologians usually classify these common expressions of divine kindness and benevolence as follows: (1) God’s restraint of human sin and its effects, (2) God’s bestowal of temporal blessings on humanity in general, and (3) God’s endowment of unbelievers with knowledge and skills to benefit human society as a whole.[xiii] The goodwill, tolerance, and patience of Romans 2:4 would extend to all three of these dimensions of common grace. Yet these indiscriminate blessings are not an end in themselves. God has an agenda.

The Design of God’s Common Grace

Why is God so amazingly good, tolerant of, and patient toward the self-righteous and self-sufficient reprobate who spends his life condemning others and commending himself? Before we identify the obvious reason, which the apostle Paul highlights, let’s address two incorrect answers to the question.

To Assure the Sinner “All’s Well”

The first incorrect answer to the question is the one assumed by the impenitent moralist Paul is describing. Such a person interprets God’s gracious providence as a sure sign that God is pleased with him. The fact God hasn’t struck him dead with a bolt of lightning must mean God approves of him and that he has no need to fear. This kind of gross and groundless presumption characterized the Jewish nation who foolishly interpreted God’s deferral of judgment as a certain sign that all was well (see Jeremiah 7).

But Paul exposes the folly of this presumptuous attitude and in no uncertain terms declares quite the opposite. The self-righteous moralist is just as much under God’s condemnation as the depraved pagan. After all, all things are open before the eyes of whom we must give an account (Heb 4:13). Accordingly, the aim of God’s common grace has not been to stoke the moralist’s pride, to foster complacency, or to promote presumption. Rather, says Paul, God’s goodness is aimed at the self-righteous moralist’s repentance.

To Fatten the Sinner for Judgment

Some, especially those of the ultra-Calvinist bent, insist on reading the text as if God’s design in demonstrating kindness to the non-elect were nothing more than a means to aggravate their guilt and increase their punishment. Just as the farmer feeds and fattens the turkey for the chopping block, so God showers good things upon and withholds immediate judgment from the self-righteous sinner in order to make him “ripe” for damnation. It’s as if God’s only intention toward the non-elect can be malevolent; any beneficence, on God’s part, is disallowed. For example, in a critical review of John Murray’s The Free Offer of the Gospel, Matthew Winzer asserts,

The reprobate are not considered merely as creatures when God dispenses his temporal benefits to them. They are “vessels of wrath fitted to destruction,” and God is said to endure them “with much longsuffering” (Rom 9:22). And this longsuffering is not presented as being in any sense for their benefit, as if He were patiently waiting for them to turn to Him that He might be favourable to them. No, it is so that “he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory” (verse 23). Thus, God’s wrathful enduring of the reprobate is for the purpose of mercifully manifesting His glory to the elect. Every temporal benefit, therefore, which comes to the reprobate is not without purpose, but is made effectual to them for their inuring [i.e., hardening] and making meet for damnation.[xiv]

In the same paper, Winzer concedes that God has a general love or benevolence for humanity in general, but he strongly insists that such benevolence cannot include any disposition of goodwill toward the non-elect.[xv] God can only be said to desire the damnation of those whose damnation he actually decrees.

Of course, it’s true enough that God’s indiscriminate common grace will aggravate the guilt and increase the punishment of the impenitent. That’s the point of Romans 2:5. Moreover, God’s damnation of the reprobate will also serve to highlight God’s perfect justice and sovereign power while accentuating his mercy to the elect. That’s the point of Romans 9:21-23. Nevertheless, the point of Romans 2:4 is quite another biblical truth.[xvi]

To Lead the Sinner to Repentance

Paul states the design of God’s common grace in no uncertain terms. Addressing the self-righteous moralist who stubbornly persists in his impenitence, the apostle asserts, “God’s kindness is meant to lead you to repentance” (Rom 2:4 ESV). Paul uses the present indicative, which literally reads, “… is leading you to repentance” (cf. KJV, NAS, NIV). Some wrongly interpret this as a simple statement of fact, viz., God’s goodness [efficaciously] leads [a subgroup of sinful humanity, namely, the elect] to saving repentance.”[xvii] But Paul’s use of the present indicative here has a tendential or voluntative force.[xviii] Accordingly, the ESV correctly renders it “is meant to lead” (cf. NRSV, NJB). Other English versions convey the tendential or voluntative as “is intended to lead” (HSCB; cf. NLT) or “would lead” (NAB).

That the force of Paul’s language suggests a beneficent disposition on the part of God is further suggested by the likelihood that Paul is here echoing the language of the Wisdom of Solomon (circa 1st or 2nd century BC), an apocryphal book with which Paul would have been familiar. That book contains an indictment on the human race analogous to Paul’s discourse in Romans 1:18-32. What’s more, the author of Wisdom of Solomon highlights God’s merciful design behind his patience and longsuffering toward sinners:

But you are merciful to all (ἐλεεῖς δὲ πάντας) for you can do all things, and you overlook people’s sins, so that they may repent (παρορᾷς ἁμαρτήματα ἀνθρώπων εἰς μετάνοιαν) (Wisdom 11:23, NRSV).

A little later he writes,

Though you were not unable to give the ungodly into the hands of the righteous in battle, or to destroy them at one blow by dread wild animals or your stern word. But judging them little by little you gave them an opportunity to repent (ἐδίδους τόπον μετανοίας), though you were not unaware that their origin was evil and their wickedness inborn, and that their way of thinking would never change (Wisdom 12:9-10, NRSV).

Paul’s thought here finds some analogy in his discourse to the Greek philosophers at the Areopagus:

And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place, that they should seek God (ζητεῖν τὸν θεόν), in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us (Acts 17:26-27 ESV).

It’s probable the apostle Peter had Paul’s teaching in Romans 2:4 in view when Peter wrote in his Second Epistle:

Therefore, beloved, since you are waiting for these, be diligent to be found by him without spot or blemish, and at peace. And count the patience of our Lord as salvation (καὶ τὴν τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν μακροθυμίαν σωτηρίαν ἡγεῖσθε), just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him (2 Pet 3:14-15 ESV).

Finally, we would suggest that this Pauline and Petrine notion of a saving design underlying God’s benevolence and patience is what a pseudonymous writer in the fourth century plainly commends in the so-called the Apostolic Constitutions (AD 375-380) when he writes,

Great art thou, Lord Almighty, and great is thy power; and to thine understanding there is no limit; our Creator and Saviour, rich in benefits, long-suffering, and the Bestower of mercy, who dost not take away thy salvation from thy creatures; for thou art good by nature, and sparest sinners, and invitest them to repentance (Greek: εις μετανοιαν προσκαλουμενος [summon] / Latin: eos ad penitential provocans); for admonition is the effect of thy bowels of compassion. For how should we abide if we were required to come to judgment immediately, when, after so much long-suffering, we hardly emerge from our miserable condition![xix]

In summary, then, from the evidence above we may conclude a saving design in the indiscriminate common grace God showers on all men whether elect or non-elect.

Conclusion

The larger implication of Romans 2:4 is the fact that we cannot limit God’s desire for human compliance with the terms of the law and the gospel to the elect alone. Yet we fear that a strain of “High-Calvinism” does this very thing. Constrained by a “substance metaphysics” assumption that one cannot predicate non-actualized potency of God, i.e., unfulfilled wishes or desires,[xx] these theologians make every effort to avoid the force of such texts as Romans 2:4. Thus, John Gill admits that “the providential goodness of God has a tendency to lead persons to repentance.” However, Gill is shackled to the unbiblical notion that God can only desire what he decrees. Since God evidently did not decree the salvation of the person(s) envisioned in this text, Gill must find a way to “reinterpret” it to fit his system:

This is to be understood not of a spiritual and evangelical repentance, which is a free grace gift, and which none but the Spirit of God can lead, or bring persons to; but of a natural and legal repentance, which lies in an external sorrow for sin, and in an outward cessation from it, and reformation of life and manners, which the goodness of God to the Jews should have led them to.[xxi]

But if the repentance (μετάνοιάν) of verse four is the “natural and legal” kind, why does Paul insist that those who’ve been lead to such non-saving repentance will be judged as the Last Day because of the lack of repentance (ἀμετανόητον) in verse 5? Same Greek term with alpha privative! Closer to the truth is John Calvin when he concludes, “The design of [God’s] benevolence is … to convert sinners to himself.”[xxii] Indeed, it is Calvin’s moderate and chaste form of “Calvinism” that better reflects the apostle’s thinking. God’s common grace cannot effect repentance in the sinner’s heart apart from his saving grace. Nevertheless, God’s common grace does serve to reveal God’s salfivic posture toward fallen humanity, including those who ultimately resist his overtures of good will.

[i] See, for example, Charles Hodge, A Commentary on Romans (1835; reprint, Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1983), 46-47; C. E. B. Cranfield, Romans 1–8, ICC (London: T & T Clark, 2001), 136-39; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1968), 1:54-56; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, PNTC (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 107-08; Douglas Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, NICNT (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 126-27; Thomas Schreiner, Romans, BECNT (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 105-07, among others.

[ii] The arguments for an inclusive reading include the following: (1) Romans 1:16 speaks of Jews and Greeks; no indication of a narrowing of scope to Gentiles in 1:18; (2) Romans 1:18-32 not just directed to Gentiles–verse 23 alludes to Ps 16:20 and Jer 2:11, which are indictments against Jews; (3) Romans 2:1 begins with a logical connector, “therefore,” and suggests a continuation of the argument. “O Man” and “Everyone who” are general terms that apply to all men. Note also that “passing judgment” is something Gentiles are said to do in 2:15; (4) both Jews and Gentiles are addressed in 2:1-16; (5) the occurrence of anthropos in 1:18 and 2:16 may serve to bracket the whole pericope; (6) Romans 2:17 provides a clear transitional marker for shift from mankind in general to the Jews in particular: “But if you call yourself a Jew and rely on the law and boast in God ….” These arguments are drawn from Samuel Waldron’s lecture notes for “Prolegomena I: Introduction to Systematic Theology and Apologetics” (Unpublished, n.d.), 108-09. Commentators who read the passage as inclusive include John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul to the Romans and to the Thessalonians, in vol. 8 of Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. Ross Mackenzie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991), 40-44; R. C. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Paul’s Epistle to the Romans (Colombus, OH: Wartburg Press, 1945), 128-30; F. F. Bruce, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans, TNTC (Downers Grove: Intervarsity, 1963), 86-89.

[iii] The Greek term καταφρονεῖς frequently refers to disrespect or contempt for authority. See 1 Tim 4:12; 6:2; Titus 2:15; 2 Pet 2:10.

[iv] “Failing to understand” (ἀγνοῶν) stands in apposition to “showing contempt” (καταφρονεῖς).

[v] In some cases, “not knowing” doesn’t imply any fault or moral culpability. See Rom 1:13; 1 Cor 12:1; 1 Thess 4:13. In other cases, however, such blindness is morally culpable. See Rom 10:3; 1 Cor 14:38; 2 Pet 2:12). We agree with W. G. T. Shedd who interprets the ignorance in Romans 2:4 as belonging to the second category: ”The word implies an action of the will along with that of the understanding. It is that culpable ignorance which results: 1. from not reflecting upon the truth; and 2. from an aversion to the repentance which the truth is fitted to produce. It is the ‘willing ignorance’ spoken of in 2 Pet. iii.5.” Commentary on Romans (1879; repr., Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1967), 37.

[vi] Thomas Schreiner doesn’t miss the irony: “The word θησαυρίζεις (thesaurizeis, you are storing up, v. 5) is probably ironical, for it typically denotes the future bliss Jews would have because of their good works (Tob 4:9-10; 2 Esdr [4 Ezra] 6:5; 7:77; 8:33, 36; 2 Bar 14:12).” Romans, 109.

[vii] Herman Hoeksema tries to interpret the 2nd person singular pronoun σε (“you”) as generic for humanity in general, thus allowing that some of whom Paul addresses here (the elect) actually come to repentance (2:4) while others (the reprobate) do not and are condemned (2:5). See his Reformed Dogmatics (Grand Rapids: Reformed Free Publishing Association, 1966), 119. Of course, the “Man” (ἄνθρωπε) whom Paul here addresses (2:1, 3) is generic. But, as argued above, Paul’s focus is more narrow than humanity in general. Moreover, the σε (“you”) in verse 4 is the same “you” in verse 5 as the 2nd person singular pronoun σου (“your”) and reflexive σεαυτῷ (“yourself”) demonstrate. We suspect that Hoeksema’s dogmatics are driving his exegesis, rather than the other way around. See K. W. Stebbins’ critique of Hoeksema’s exegesis in Christ Freely Offered (Strathpine North, Australia: Covenanter Press, 1978), 72-73.

[viii] Semantics of Biblical Language (1961; reprint, Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2004). 263.

[ix] Exegetical Fallacies (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1984), 45-46.

[x] Sometimes humans show “grace” or withhold it (Gen 33:10; 39:4; 50:4; Exod 3:21; Ruth 2:2, 10; 1 Sam 20:3, 29; Eph 4:29; Deut 24:1; Luke 6:32-34; Acts 20:27; 25:29; 2 Cor 8:7, 9). Sometimes “grace” is used for “adornment” (Prov 3:22; 4:9; Prov 17:8) or something like “graceful,” “charming” or “fitting” (Prov 5:19; 7:5; Prov 10:32).

[xi] The parallelism of verse 8 and 9 make God’s “grace” synonymous with his “goodness.”

[xii] Commentary on Romans, 37.

[xiii] I expand on each of these points in my brief theology of human culture, “Pro-Cultural” or “Counter-Cultural”? A Theology of Human Culture (Nov 11, 2011). For fuller treatments, see Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1941), 432-46; John Murray, “Common Grace,” in vol. 2 of Collected Writings of John Murray (Edinburgh: Banner of Truth, 1977), 93-119; Anthony Hoekema, Created in God’s Image (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1986), 187-202; Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1994), 657-668.

[xiv] “Murray on the Free Offer: A Review by Matthew Winzer“ (2000): http://www.fpcr.org/blue_banner_articles/murray-free-offer-review.htm (accessed Sept 18, 2008).

[xv] We rather agree with John Murray when he remarks, “It is a metallic conception of God’s forbearance and longsuffering that isolates them from the kindness of disposition and of benefaction which the goodness of God implies.” The Epistle to the Romans, 59.

[xvi] Robert Haldane is on target in his commentary on Romans 2:4: “From this it evidently follows that God externally calls many to whom He has not purposed to give the grace of conversion. It also follows that it cannot be said that when God thus externally calls persons on whom it is not His purpose to bestow grace, His object is only to render them inexcusable. For if that were the case, the Apostle would not have spoken of the riches of His goodness, and forbearance, and long-suffering,–terms which would not be applicable, if, by such a call, it was intended merely to render men inexcusable.” The Epistle to the Romans (Edinburgh: William Oliphant and Co., 1874), 78-79.

[xvii] For instance, in Hoeksema’s opinion “the text states a fact: the goodness of God leadeth thee to repentance, εἰς μετάνοιάν σε ἄγει.” Then he argues that Paul is addressing humanity in general. Finally, Hoeksema opines, “It makes no difference whether the apostle has in mind the Jew or Jews and Gentiles both. Of this ‘man’ it may, indeed, be said that God’s goodness actually leads him to repentance, as is clearly evident in the case of the elect. Yet, it may also be said of man that he despises the goodness of God, and does not know by actual experience that it leads him to repentance as, again, is evident in the case of the reprobate that rejects the gospel, and thus aggravates his condemnation.” Reformed Dogmatics, 119. Once again, we think Hoeksema’s dogmatics skew his exegesis.

[xviii] More fully, the present indicative as gnomic (affirming a general truth) and voluntative or tendential (expressing intention without reference to the outcome). Douglas Moo refers to it as conative, which coveys a similar modal sense. The Epistle to the Romans, 133, n. 42; cf. Cranfield, Romans I, 145; C. F. D. Moule, An Idiom Book of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1953), 8; Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers (Chicago: Moody Press, n.d.), 856; Barclay M. Newman and Eugene A. Nida, A Translator’s Handbook on Paul’s Letter to the Romans (New York: United Bible Societies, 1973), 33-34. Grammarians who discuss this use of the indicative include Dana and Mantey, A Manual Grammar (New York: MacMillan Company, 1956), 186; and Daniel Wallace, Beyond Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1997), 534-35, 752).

[xix] Clement, Bishop and Citizen Of Rome (Pseudonym) The Work Claiming To Be The Constitutions Of The Holy Apostles, Including The Canons; William Whiston’s Version, Revised From The Greek; Irah Chase, Otto Krabbe; D. Appleton and company, 1848), Book 7, 35.1, [p. 150]. http://ldsfocuschrist2.files.wordpress.com/2012/03/apostolic-constitutions-william-whiston.pdf (accessed Feb 22, 2014).

[xx] The argument seems to go something like this: God’s essence is identical with his will and God’s will is delimited by God’s decree. To predicate unfulfilled desires of God is to affirm parts of God that are non-actualized potencies. In a word, it is to deny that God is “pure act” (actus purus) and to affirm that he is composed of both actualized desires and also non-actualized desires. For a philosophical defense of this notion, see James E. Dolezal, God Without Parts: Divine Simplicity and the Metaphysics of God’s Absoluteness (Eugene, OR: Pickwick, 2011), 34-44, 177-87, 188-91, 194-97. Yet here is a case when the musings of “natural theology” bump up against the clear testimony of Scripture. When that happens, so much the worse for natural theology.

[xxi] Exposition of the Bible, Online edition: Romans 2: http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/gills-exposition-of-the-bible/romans-2-4.html (accessed Feb 24, 2014).

[xxii] Calvin’s Commentaries, trans. John King; Edinburgh: Calvin Translation Society, 1847), Accordance electronic edition. Cf. Shedd, Commentary on Romans, 37; Hodge, A Commentary on Romans, 48-49; Thomas Chalmers, Lectures on the Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Romans (New York: Robert Carter, 1845), 39; Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 59-60; Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, 133; Cranfield, Romans 1–8, 145.