“The rest” (Rom. 11:7) can be saved, so they’re not reprobate

Juncker’s Argument:
Calvinism teaches that “the rest” in Romans 11:7 refers to the reprobate—those eternally and irreversibly destined for hell. But Paul indicates in verses 11–14 and 23 that some of “the rest” can yet be saved. This, Juncker argues, refutes the Calvinist doctrine of unconditional reprobation.

Response:
This is a fundamental misrepresentation of Calvinism. Reformed theology distinguishes between temporal hardening (God’s sovereign act of judicially blinding individuals for a time) and eternal reprobation (God’s decree to pass over some and not grant saving grace). Not all who are currently hardened are eternally reprobate.

As Schreiner rightly notes:

“Hardening is not necessarily permanent. It can be lifted. But its lifting depends entirely on divine mercy, not human initiative.”
— Thomas Schreiner, Romans (BECNT), p. 610

Paul affirms this distinction in Romans 11:23, where he states that those currently “cut off” may be grafted in again—if they do not continue in unbelief. This conditionality does not undermine Calvinism but exemplifies it: God may ordain a season of hardening to fulfill redemptive purposes (11:11–12) and later bring about repentance in accordance with His eternal decree (cf. 9:18, “He has mercy on whom He wills, and He hardens whom He wills”).

The possibility of later salvation for the hardened confirms, rather than contradicts, the Reformed doctrine of compatibilism—that God’s sovereign decree and human responsibility are not in conflict.

The remnant is drawn from “the rest,” which proves election is conditional

Juncker’s Argument (expanded from the article):
Juncker insists that the elect remnant in Romans 11:5–7 must be drawn out from among “the rest,” who are hardened. Therefore, he argues, election is not fixed or eternal, but conditioned on individual response. He writes:

“Since the chosen ‘remnant’ actually comes from the ranks of ‘the rest’… it is specifically ‘the rest’… that God has not rejected.”

This implies that individuals can shift from being part of the hardened non-elect to becoming elect, and thus that Calvinist election is refuted.

---

Response:

Juncker’s reading completely reverses Paul’s argument in Romans 11. Far from teaching that the elect emerge from “the rest,” Paul makes a categorical distinction between the two:

“What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.” (Rom. 11:7)

This is not a sequence where some of “the rest” later become elect. It is a contrast between two already-differentiated groups. The “elect” are those who obtained what Israel sought (righteousness, cf. Rom. 9:30), and they did so because they were elect—not because they met some foreseen condition.

The phrase in 11:5—“a remnant chosen by grace”—is equally decisive. The Greek word for “chosen” (ἐκλογή) is in the perfect passive form, indicating a completed divine action with ongoing results. The remnant exists as a present reality precisely because of God’s prior and unconditioned choice, not as a result of some later faith response or cooperation with grace.

Juncker’s idea that the remnant comes “from the ranks of the rest” collapses grammatically and theologically. If Paul had meant to say that the elect were drawn from the hardened, he would have reversed the order: “The rest were hardened, but some of them became elect.” But Paul doesn’t say this—he says that those who were elect obtained salvation, and the rest were hardened. The sequence is not open-ended or conditional; it reflects a division grounded in God’s sovereign purpose.

This fits perfectly with Paul’s broader theology in Romans 9:

“Though they were not yet born and had done nothing either good or bad—in order that God’s purpose of election might continue, not because of works but because of Him who calls…” (Rom. 9:11)

The elect are not drawn from the reprobate on the basis of faith or repentance; rather, they are granted faith and repentance as a result of God’s eternal decree of grace (Phil. 1:29; Acts 13:48).

It’s worth considering whether the objection under review imports more theological baggage into the term “elect” in Romans 11:7 than the context requires. Paul’s usage of “elect” here may be narrower than the comprehensive Reformed doctrine of individual predestination to eternal life. As Douglas Moo notes, the term “elect” in Romans 11:7 refers specifically to the believing Jewish remnant—those who have responded to God’s call in contrast to the hardened majority—and not to the full-orbed theological category of the elect across all ages: “the term here must be limited to believing Jews” (Moo, Romans, 2018, p. 687). Similarly, Schreiner writes that “the remnant is the elect group,” while emphasizing that the reference is historically situated: “Paul focuses on the present, pointing to a remnant in his own day that exists due to God’s gracious election” (Schreiner, Romans, 2018, p. 587). Thus, while this usage is not inconsistent with the broader Reformed framework, it may not be coextensive with it in scope or emphasis. In this instance, “elect” functions more descriptively than dogmatically—identifying those within Israel who have already responded to the gospel—without necessarily invoking the entire system of unconditional election, reprobation, and eternal decree. It is exegetically prudent, therefore, to let the term serve Paul’s rhetorical and situational aim in the passage, rather than reading into it every doctrinal implication of election in systematic theology.

A key assumption behind the objection is that Paul’s use of “elect” must map directly onto the full theological category of election in Reformed soteriology—namely, the totality of all individuals eternally chosen for salvation. But this risks collapsing Paul’s specific application into a more abstract dogmatic construct. In Romans 11, “the elect” is contrasted with “the rest” of Israel who were hardened, yet this does not imply that “the elect” in verse 7 exhausts the entire number of the saved. Rather, Paul is identifying those who currently make up the believing remnant within Israel—those effectually called and justified in the present moment by God’s grace (Rom. 11:5). Others, whether Jews or Gentiles, may yet be brought into that same fold by God’s sovereign mercy (Rom. 11:23–25). In this sense, the term “elect” refers to a particular subset of the broader elect: those already visibly and effectually gathered. It is a different usage of the term, but not a different category—it functions within the overarching framework of election. As Moo and Schreiner both observe, Paul’s focus is not on election in the abstract but on its outworking in the historical context of Israel’s response to the gospel. Theologically, then, Paul is not redefining election, but deploying it in a localized and pastoral way.

Furthermore, Juncker misreads Paul’s use of “rejection” in 11:1–2. Paul’s point is not that every individual Israelite remains un-rejected, but that Israel as a whole has not been rejected in total—precisely because there is a remnant, just as in Elijah’s day (11:4).

Juncker’s conclusion that “the elect remnant comes from the ranks of the rest” assumes that divine hardening is somehow reversible by human effort. But Paul’s whole point is that only those chosen by grace obtain salvation, and those who are not so chosen are judicially blinded. This is not because God simply foresees their unbelief and reacts to it, but because their unbelief itself is part of His sovereign judgment (cf. 11:8–10, citing Deut. 29:4 and Ps. 69:22–23).

In sum, Juncker’s conditional election view not only misrepresents the structure of Romans 11:7 but also erases Paul’s consistent argument from chapters 9–11: that salvation depends not on man’s will or exertion, but on God who has mercy (Rom. 9:16).

Juncker continues his critique by accusing Calvinists of importing foreign theological categories into Paul’s use of terms like “election” and “chosen.” He writes:

“What Calvin meant by terms like ‘elect’ and ‘chosen’ and ‘hardened’ has nothing to do with what Paul meant by these terms.”

Juncker claims that in Romans 11—and by implication Romans 9–11 more broadly—Paul uses these terms to speak about Israel’s historical role or national vocation, not about individual salvation or eternal destiny. In other words, election in this context is allegedly about service, not salvation.

But this interpretation is deeply flawed. Paul does not use “election” language in Romans 11 to speak about national privilege or calling in the abstract. He connects election explicitly to salvific outcomes. Consider Romans 11:7:

“What then? Israel failed to obtain what it was seeking. The elect obtained it, but the rest were hardened.”

Here, “the elect” are clearly contrasted with those who are judicially hardened. The “it” that Israel sought (but failed to obtain) is righteousness—the very thing Paul has been discussing since Romans 9:30. Only the elect attain it because only they are granted saving grace. As Schreiner notes:

“Romans 11:7 confirms that election results in salvation. The elect obtained it—that is, the righteousness Israel sought (cf. Rom. 9:30)—the rest were hardened.”
— Thomas Schreiner, BECNT: Romans, p. 607

Likewise, in Romans 11:5, the “remnant” is said to exist “according to God’s gracious choice.” This is not a vocational selection for service but an election unto salvation. Paul draws a direct parallel with Elijah’s day, when God preserved a faithful few (7,000) from idolatry. Those 7,000 were not merely servants in some national function—they were preserved from apostasy. Their status as a remnant was a result of divine, sovereign grace that distinguished them from the rest of unfaithful Israel.

Juncker’s appeal to “service election” ignores this historical-redemptive parallel. God’s action in preserving the faithful remnant in Elijah’s day was not about outward service—it was about spiritual preservation and fidelity, grounded in God’s sovereign initiative (“I have kept for Myself,” Rom. 11:4, quoting 1 Kgs. 19:18).

Moreover, the idea that “hardened” simply means “disqualified from service” cannot withstand Paul’s heavy language in 11:8–10. Paul cites Deuteronomy and the Psalms to describe divine hardening as spiritual blindness, stupor, and a kind of judicial curse:

“God gave them a spirit of stupor, eyes that would not see and ears that would not hear… Let their table become a snare and a trap… bend their backs forever.” (Rom. 11:8–10)

This isn’t a temporary pause in priestly duty. It’s active divine judgment. The “rest” are not merely overlooked for some national mission—they are under judicial wrath. That’s why the contrast in 11:7 is not between two forms of election (salvific vs. service), but between two destinies: those who obtain righteousness, and those who are hardened and blinded.

Juncker wants to restrict “election” to corporate, national, or vocational categories, but Paul doesn’t allow that reduction. Just a few chapters earlier, Paul makes crystal clear that God’s election is unto mercy and salvation:

“Though they were not yet born… in order that God’s purpose of election might stand… Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.” (Rom. 9:11–13)

“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God who has mercy.” (Rom. 9:16)

This is personal, eternal election—not merely corporate function. And it’s the same logic Paul carries into Romans 11.

Juncker’s real problem is not that Calvinists have imported foreign definitions, but that Paul himself refuses to flatten election into national categories. He consistently teaches that God’s grace makes distinctions—between persons, between outcomes, and ultimately between those who receive mercy and those who are hardened.

At first glance, Juncker’s argument seems plausible. Paul clearly says some branches (unbelieving Jews) were broken off “because of their unbelief,” and others (believing Gentiles) were grafted in “by faith” (Rom. 11:20). He also warns the Gentiles:

“If God did not spare the natural branches, neither will He spare you… You too will be cut off” (Rom. 11:21–22).

But this overlooks the crucial theological structure of the passage. The olive tree metaphor is not about individual election unto salvation, but visible inclusion in the covenant community—a theme Paul has already established in Romans 9:6:

“Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel.”

There is a vital distinction throughout Romans 9–11 between external connection to the covenant and internal possession of saving grace. The olive tree represents the corporate people of God as seen outwardly—the visible church. The breaking off and grafting in speaks to covenant status, not to God altering His eternal decree of election.

As Moo explains:

“The warning is to those who presume they are part of the tree by mere association—not those whom God has truly chosen. The elect will persevere; the hypocrites will not.”
— Douglas Moo, NICNT: Romans, p. 701

In other words, the branches broken off were never truly united to Christ—only outwardly connected to the covenant people. Their removal reflects not the loss of salvation, but the exposure of their unbelief. Their outward inclusion did not correspond to an inward work of grace.

Calvin draws this out:

“It hence follows, that some men are by special privilege elected out of the chosen people, in whom the common adoption becomes efficacious and valid”

This distinction is foundational to Reformed theology: all the elect are in the church, but not all in the church are elect. Therefore, when Paul says a branch can be “cut off,” he is not contradicting perseverance or unconditional election—he is warning against presumption and affirming the necessity of continuing faith as the evidence of election.

Now here is where Juncker’s entire argument collapses under its own weight. In order to make the olive tree metaphor support conditional election, he must assume that every Jewish person was originally a living, believing branch—that is, all Jews were once “in” the tree in a saving sense and later “cut off” due to unbelief.

But this assumption is not only exegetically unfounded—it creates enormous theological problems.

First, if being in the olive tree means being regenerate, Juncker is forced to conclude that all Jews are born saved, and only later become lost. But Paul already ruled this out in Romans 9:

“Not all who are descended from Israel belong to Israel” (Rom. 9:6).

Paul’s burden in Romans 9–11 is to explain why so many Israelites are lost, despite having covenant privileges (9:4–5). If Juncker wants to say that every Jew was originally “in” the tree in a saving sense, he has to treat salvation as automatic at birth—a view Paul explicitly denies. It would render the entire burden of Romans 9 unintelligible.

Second, this logic would undermine the doctrine of regeneration itself. If all Jews were in the tree in a salvific sense, they would have to be born again before conversion, and then become unregenerate by their unbelief. But this reverses the ordo salutis and severs the necessary link between faith and new birth. Paul makes no room for this theological fiction.

Third—and most critically—Juncker’s conflation of the olive tree with individual election erases Paul’s covenantal categories. The olive tree does not represent the invisible church (the truly regenerate), but the visible covenant people of God. Paul is speaking of Jews being broken off from the privileges of covenant inclusion, not from a status of already-being-elect or justified.

That’s why Paul warns Gentile believers not to boast (11:18)—they are grafted into a covenantal structure that they did not originate. And it’s why Paul says:

“You stand fast through faith. So do not become proud, but fear.” (Rom. 11:20)

This is a real warning—but one aimed at the visible church. It is not a denial of perseverance, but rather a means of perseverance. The elect heed such warnings. The self-deceived do not.

In Reformed theology, this is the essential distinction between:

• Visible ecclesial inclusion, which can be lost through unbelief, and
• Inward spiritual union with Christ, which is eternal, irrevocable, and secure (Rom. 8:30).

The first can be broken; the second cannot.

Indeed, Paul makes clear in verse 23 that the ability to be “grafted in again” is not due to any power in man but is rooted in God’s sovereignty:

“And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God is able to graft them in again” (Rom. 11:23).

This is not an argument for conditional election. It’s a reaffirmation of divine initiative—what Paul already declared in Romans 9:16:

“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”

Juncker reads the olive tree as if election hangs on man’s faith. But Paul uses it to show that faith is the result of God’s mercy, and unbelief the result of divine hardening (Rom. 11:7; cf. 9:18). The olive tree metaphor reflects the shape of redemptive history—it does not overthrow the doctrines of sovereign grace established in Romans 9.This is not an argument for conditional election. It’s a reaffirmation of divine initiative—what Paul already declared in Romans 9:16:

“So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”

Juncker reads the olive tree as if election hangs on man’s faith. But Paul uses it to show that faith is the result of God’s mercy, and unbelief the result of divine hardening (Rom. 11:7; cf. 9:18). The olive tree metaphor reflects the shape of redemptive history—it does not overthrow the doctrines of sovereign grace established in Romans 9.

Understanding the corporate nature of Paul’s metaphor and warning also guards us from a common logical error: the fallacy of composition—assuming that what is true of a whole must be true of each part. As Steve Hays warns:

“One problem with [the] appeal [that Christians can lose salvation] is that Rom. 11:22 has a corporate context. Collective judgment. It commits a composition fallacy to infer that whatever is true of the whole is necessarily true of the part.”
— Steve Hays, Triablogue

Paul is certainly warning that Gentiles as a collective entity—those now grafted into the covenant community—will face divine judgment if they fall into unbelief. But this does not mean that every individual within that group, especially the truly regenerate, will be “cut off” in the same way or to the same degree.

This pattern is all over Scripture. When God judged Israel through the Babylonian exile, it was a national judgment—yet a faithful remnant remained within the nation: Daniel, Ezekiel, Jeremiah, and others who endured the exile without falling under God’s wrath. Likewise, in Elijah’s day, Israel as a whole had turned to Baal, yet God had preserved for Himself 7,000 who had not bowed the knee (Rom. 11:4). The corporate judgment did not entail universal individual apostasy.

Romans 11 reflects the same layered reality. Paul’s warning in verse 22 operates on a covenantal and historical level, applying to visible Gentile inclusion in the olive tree. That inclusion can be lost—entire churches or traditions can fall away, as Revelation 2:5 illustrates (“I will remove your lampstand”). But that doesn’t mean each individual believer within that community will be lost. God preserves His remnant.

This reading is not only consistent with the olive tree imagery and the broader argument of Romans 9–11—it also harmonizes perfectly with Paul’s prior assurance in Romans 8:38–39: nothing can separate God’s elect from the love of Christ. The visible community may shift; the invisible church is forever secure.The visible community may shift; the invisible church is forever secure.

And just as not every Jew cut off from the tree was ever truly regenerate, not every Gentile grafted in is necessarily a true believer either. Paul does not say that all Gentiles are now saved because they’ve been grafted into the tree. The grafting refers to visible inclusion in God’s covenant people—participation in the sphere of gospel blessing—not automatic salvation.

To treat the metaphor as though every grafted-in Gentile is individually elect would commit the same error in reverse: assuming that all covenantal participants are necessarily inwardly regenerated. But Paul already showed in Romans 2:28–29 and 9:6 that this is false. There is always a mixed body within the covenant—some who have true faith, and some who only have the form of religion.

Therefore, being “cut off” from the tree does not mean losing salvation, because inclusion in the tree never guaranteed salvation to begin with. Many Gentiles who are now part of the visible covenant community will one day fall away (cf. 2 Thess. 2:3)—not because they lost something real, but because they never had genuine faith (cf. 1 John 2:19). Their presence in the tree was outward, not inward. Their pruning will not be the fall of elect saints, but the exposure of false professors.

This explains why Paul uses such strong warnings: to wake up the presumptuous, not to frighten the secure. True believers, hearing Romans 11:22, respond with humility and perseverance. False believers respond with pride or indifference—and are cut off. The warning is real and serious, but it is perfectly consistent with God’s invincible preservation of His elect.

Let’s now transition into Juncker’s final and most sweeping argument—his appeal to Romans 11:32 as evidence that God’s mercy is universal in scope and therefore incompatible with Calvinist election.

Juncker writes:

“Romans 11:32 shows that God wants to show mercy to everyone, so election can’t be unconditional.”

He takes Paul’s conclusion—“For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all”—as a final, decisive statement in favor of universal salvific intent, if not outright universalism. In his view, this overturns any notion of a particular, unconditional election and shows that God’s mercy is directed equally toward all people without distinction.

---

Response:

Juncker’s interpretation of Romans 11:32 fails on both contextual and theological grounds. To begin with, Paul is concluding a long reflection (Rom. 9–11) on God’s dealings with Jews and Gentiles—two corporate entities who have both experienced periods of disobedience. The “all” in verse 32 must be interpreted in light of that context:

“Just as you [Gentiles] were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their [the Jews’] disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy” (Rom. 11:30–31).

The flow is unmistakably corporate and redemptive-historical. Paul is not asserting that every individual without exception will receive salvific mercy. He is marveling at how God has used the mutual disobedience of Jews and Gentiles to display His mercy to both groups. The “all” in 11:32 refers to all without distinction (i.e., both Jew and Gentile), not all without exception (i.e., every individual human being).

This usage is consistent with how Paul uses “all” elsewhere in Romans:

• “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Rom. 3:23)—referring to the universal guilt of Jew and Gentile alike.
• “So that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus” (Rom. 3:26)—clearly limiting justification to believers.
• “Many will be made righteous” (Rom. 5:19)—contrasted with “many” who were made sinners. Paul uses parallelism, not numerical universality.

As John Murray rightly notes:

“It is not mere correlation of disobedience and mercy that we have now; it is that the shutting up to disobedience… is directed to the end of showing mercy. The former is for the purpose of promoting the latter… In terms of Paul’s own teaching (cf. 2:4–16; 9:22; 2 Thess. 1:6–10) it is impossible to regard the final clause in verse 32 as contemplating the salvation of all mankind… ‘Mercy upon all’ means all without distinction who are the partakers of this mercy.”
— John Murray, Romans Vol. 2, Kindle Locations 2101–2120

Murray clarifies that the “mercy upon all” in Romans 11:32 must be read within its redemptive-historical context. It refers to all without distinction (Jew and Gentile), not all without exception. Paul is not teaching universalism, but highlighting the corporate scope of God’s mercy across both covenant peoples.

If Juncker’s reading were correct, Paul would be contradicting everything he had just said about God’s sovereign choice, His hardening of some (Rom. 11:7–10), and His purpose to show mercy on whom He wills (Rom. 9:15–18). Romans 11:32 is a capstone of divine orchestration, not a negation of divine election.

Further, this verse reinforces, rather than opposes, God’s sovereignty. “God has consigned all to disobedience”—that is, He sovereignly subjected all people groups to the futility of sin and failure, so that salvation might be clearly seen as mercy, not merit. Paul’s point is not to flatten distinctions, but to exalt the unifying mercy of God across redemptive history. God has shown that neither Jews nor Gentiles can claim righteousness, so all are shut up under disobedience—yet God still saves.

If anything, verse 32 mirrors the logic of Romans 9:23:

“In order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory…”

Paul is celebrating the strategic mercy of God—a mercy that magnifies grace by revealing human sinfulness first, then overcoming it by divine initiative. This is the very heart of Calvinist soteriology.

Lastly, we should note that Romans 11:32 culminates not in human-centered universalism, but in God-centered worship:

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways!” (Rom. 11:33)

The awe here is not that God shows mercy to everyone equally—but that He displays mercy in a way we never would have expected: by consigning both groups to disobedience so that He alone may receive the glory of salvation. As Romans 11:36 concludes: “From Him and through Him and to Him are all things.”

Juncker wants 11:32 to be a theological mic drop in favor of universal mercy. But rightly read, it is a doxological climax that only makes sense if God’s mercy is particular, sovereign, and undeserved.
The warning is real and serious, but it is perfectly consistent with God’s invincible preservation of His elect.

Romans 11:22, then, is not teaching the loss of salvation for true believers, but warning Gentile Christians that if their community follows the path of unbelief, they too will be “cut off” in the same sense—that is, they will lose their visible status as God’s covenant people on earth. This is entirely analogous to Jesus’ warning to the churches in Revelation: “If you do not repent, I will come to you and remove your lampstand from its place” (Rev. 2:5). A church can lose its standing as a true representative of Christ without every individual member being damned. In fact, Jesus promises in that very context that those who overcome will still be saved (Rev. 3:5, 3:21).

The key distinction is this: being part of the covenant people visibly is not the same as being united to Christ spiritually. Paul’s warning is directed against pride and complacency in the visible church—not against the possibility of justified, Spirit-indwelt believers being severed from Christ. That’s simply not possible. Paul has already declared that:

“Those whom He justified He also glorified” (Rom. 8:30),
and “nothing… will be able to separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord” (Rom. 8:38–39).

It would be absurd for Paul to turn around in Romans 11 and claim that someone truly justified by faith might be cast off after all. He has just assured us that glorification is a guaranteed outcome for the justified. As one commentator aptly put it, any interpretation of Romans 11:22 that contradicts Romans 8 has misunderstood Paul.

The reconciliation is straightforward: Romans 11 is addressing outward covenant membership, while Romans 8 addresses the inward, eternal bond of salvation for the elect. Paul himself supports this distinction just a few verses later. In Romans 11:28–29, speaking of Israel, he says:

“As regards election they are beloved for the sake of their forefathers. For the gifts and the calling of God are irrevocable.”

God’s corporate election of Israel for a role in His plan remains, despite their unbelief. He will not cast off the nation entirely (as confirmed in 11:26). But individually, only those who come to Christ will be saved. The same logic applies to Gentiles: God’s individual election of believers to salvation is irrevocable—none of His elect will be lost. But a visible church or community can still be “cut off” if it abandons the gospel.

Thus, the “kindness” and “severity” of Romans 11:22 are displayed in God’s historical dealings: severity toward unbelieving Israel, and kindness toward Gentiles now receiving mercy. But the warning stands: if that kindness is despised, and unbelief takes root in the visible community, they too will be cut off—not from salvation already possessed, but from the covenant position they now occupy.

As the Puritan Matthew Henry observed:

““The olive-tree is the visible church (called so Jer. 11:16); the root of this tree was Abraham, not the root of communication, so Christ only is the root, but the root of administration, he being the first with whom the covenant was so solemnly made. Now the believing Gentiles partake of this root… But it is here spoken of a visible church-membership, from which the Jews were as branches broken off.”

The same principle applies to Gentiles. If they do not stand by faith, it is their unbelief—not any weakness in God’s saving power—that severs them. Paul’s warning is pastoral and covenantal, not metaphysical. It is about presumption, not perseverance.

And now, with the covenantal context established, Paul moves in Romans 11:32 to celebrate the astonishing scope of God’s mercy—not universal salvation, but mercy extended to all types of people—Jews and Gentiles alike—through the redemptive plan God sovereignly ordained.
We should also emphasize that Paul’s language in Romans 11 is not hypothetical rhetoric—it is theological precision. When he says “they were broken off because of unbelief,” he is not describing regenerate people falling from saving grace. He is describing those who were never united to Christ by a true and living faith. Their unbelief wasn’t a loss of salvation, but a revelation that they were never truly in Christ to begin with.

This is precisely why Paul insists on perseverance—but never as a means to earn or maintain salvation. Rather, perseverance is the necessary fruit of true faith, and God Himself ensures it. Paul tells the Philippians that “He who began a good work in you will bring it to completion at the day of Jesus Christ” (Phil. 1:6), and he reassures the Corinthians that Christ “will sustain you to the end, guiltless in the day of our Lord Jesus Christ” (1 Cor. 1:8). These are not conditional hopes—they are sovereign promises.

In fact, the entire warning of Romans 11:22 functions within God’s preserving grace as a means of keeping His elect faithful. As the Westminster Confession puts it:

“They, whom God hath accepted in His Beloved… can neither totally nor finally fall away from the state of grace, but shall certainly persevere therein to the end, and be eternally saved… Nevertheless, through the temptations of Satan and of the world, the prevalency of corruption remaining in them, and the neglect of the means of their preservation, they may fall into grievous sins, and for a time continue therein.”

Paul’s warning is not meant to instill terror or uncertainty in God’s people—it is meant to humble them and keep them vigilant. God’s elect will hear the warning, tremble at it, and respond with faith and repentance. In that sense, the very warning that Arminians claim undermines perseverance is one of the key instruments God uses to uphold it.

We also see this dynamic in Colossians 1:22–23, where Paul says God will present believers holy and blameless, “if indeed you continue in the faith.” This is not a threat to the elect—it is an exhortation that distinguishes between those who merely profess faith and those who possess it.

In Romans 11, as throughout the New Testament, we find that God keeps His people secure not by removing all warnings, but by issuing them. The warnings do not prove that salvation can be lost—they prove that salvation is precious, and that those who possess it are marked by ongoing faith.

So when Paul says, “otherwise you too will be cut off,” he is not envisioning a regenerate believer becoming unregenerate. He is describing what happens to those who fail to persevere because they never belonged to Christ in the first place (cf. 1 John 2:19). The warning has teeth—but it does not contradict Romans 8. It guards the promises of Romans 8 by ensuring that the truly justified will persevere through means of grace, including the very warnings that Paul gives here.

So when Paul says, “otherwise you too will be cut off,” he is not envisioning a regenerate believer becoming unregenerate. He is describing what happens to those who fail to persevere because they were never truly united to Christ (cf. 1 John 2:19). The warning has teeth—but it does not contradict Romans 8. It guards the promises of Romans 8 by ensuring that the truly justified will persevere through God’s appointed means.

To claim otherwise is not just a misunderstanding of Paul—it’s an implicit attack on the sufficiency of Christ’s atonement and the faithfulness of God’s covenantal promises. Christ did not die to give His people a temporary status that must be maintained by their own strength. He died to purchase an eternal redemption (Heb. 9:12), to secure for us the forgiveness of sins and the imputation of His righteousness (Rom. 5:17–19), and to guarantee our future glorification (Rom. 8:30). To say that a justified, Spirit-sealed believer could lose salvation through unbelief is to turn perseverance into a meritorious work—a human contribution that must supplement the cross.

But the gospel proclaims the opposite: Christ is our righteousness, our surety, and our guarantee. If our future depends on our own perseverance severed from Christ’s finished work, then salvation is no longer of grace. As Paul says in Romans 11:6, “If it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works; otherwise grace would no longer be grace.”

The very logic of the cross, rightly understood, refutes the idea that the elect can perish. Christ didn’t merely make salvation possible—He accomplished redemption for His people. And having begun the work, He will bring it to completion (Phil. 1:6). Any reading of Romans 11 that pits warning against this finished work has misunderstood both.

Romans 11:32 – Does “mercy on all” refute unconditional election?

Juncker concludes his article by appealing to Romans 11:32 as the death blow to Calvinist election:

“For God has consigned all to disobedience, that he may have mercy on all.”

He argues this verse proves universal salvific mercy and thereby invalidates the Reformed doctrine of particular, unconditional election. But this interpretation collapses under close examination of both the immediate context and Paul’s sustained argument throughout Romans 9–11.

1. “All” refers to groups (Jews and Gentiles), not every individual

Romans 11:32 is the capstone of a corporate, redemptive-historical argument that began in chapter 9. The “all” refers not to every human being without exception, but to both groups—Jews and Gentiles—each of whom were consigned to disobedience in different stages of redemptive history.

As Thomas Schreiner explains:

“The second ‘all’ refers to Jews and Gentiles as groups… not to all individuals without exception.”
— Schreiner, Romans (BECNT), p. 622

Douglas Moo concurs:

“Gentiles before Christ; Jews since Christ’s coming—so that he could have mercy on all [i.e., both groups].”
— Moo, Romans (NICNT), p. 722

Juncker’s interpretation fails to observe that Paul has been speaking in corporate categories from Romans 11:11 onward. Just before this, Paul writes:

“Just as you [Gentiles] were at one time disobedient to God but now have received mercy because of their [Jews’] disobedience, so they too have now been disobedient in order that by the mercy shown to you they also may now receive mercy” (Rom. 11:30–31).

The mutual “disobedience” is historical and covenantal. The “mercy” is not universal salvation—it is God’s sovereign redemptive design, through which He glorifies His grace by saving a remnant from both groups (cf. Rom. 11:5).

2. Romans 11:32 harmonizes with, rather than contradicts, Romans 9 and 8

Juncker wants 11:32 to override the doctrines of sovereign election taught clearly in Romans 9. But Paul has already declared:

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy… so then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy” (Rom. 9:15–16).

To interpret 11:32 as universal mercy contradicts this. It would turn mercy into obligation rather than a sovereign act of God. Schreiner observes that 11:32 is not a reversal of election, but a celebration of how God’s mercy triumphs over Jewish and Gentile disobedience alike, precisely according to His sovereign plan.

Moreover, if Romans 11:32 meant all individuals receive salvific mercy, it would destroy Paul’s “golden chain” in Romans 8:29–30. There, everyone God justifies is glorified—no exceptions. That is particular mercy, not universal mercy.

3. Mercy, by definition, makes distinctions

To claim that God must show saving mercy to all individuals equally is to erase the very nature of mercy. If God owed the same mercy to everyone, then mercy would cease to be mercy and become entitlement—a contradiction in terms and in Paul’s argument. Mercy is not something God owes; it is something He gives according to His will. The whole argument of Romans 9 is that God is just in showing mercy to some and not to others.

As Moo writes:

“Mercy in this verse [11:32] is part of Paul’s theme: that salvation history has unfolded in such a way that both Jews and Gentiles might become recipients of mercy—not all Jews, not all Gentiles, but some from both.”
— Moo, Romans, p. 721

This reading exalts God’s sovereign wisdom—exactly what Paul praises in the following doxology.

4. The passage ends in praise of inscrutable sovereignty, not universal salvation

Romans 11:32 is followed immediately by Paul’s awe-filled exclamation:

“Oh, the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and how inscrutable His ways!” (Rom. 11:33)

This is not the response of someone who just declared universal mercy. There is nothing mysterious about saving everyone. What leaves Paul speechless is God’s sovereign orchestration of redemptive history, using mutual disobedience to magnify the riches of His mercy—not to everyone without exception, but to those He has chosen (cf. Rom. 9:23).

“From Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be glory forever. Amen.” (Rom. 11:36)

Romans 11:32 is not a repudiation of Calvinist election—it is its exclamation point. Paul doesn’t flatten divine mercy into a universalist scheme. He exalts in how God has displayed His mercy across the sweep of redemptive history, uniting Jew and Gentile in grace, through election, to the glory of His name.