Part 1: The Context and Logic of Romans 8:28–30 — Who Is Paul Talking About?
Ferris’s Core Claim
Ferris repeatedly insists that Romans 8:28–30 is not making a definitive theological claim about the nature of salvation. Instead, he claims Paul is simply tracking what God did for one group of people without implying exclusivity or necessity. The sequence, Ferris argues, is observational, not prescriptive:
“Paul never says these are the only people God called… this leaves open the possibility of other ‘called’ people who are not justified.”
—Ferris, “Romans 8” video (Golden Chain Cups Illustration)
Later, in direct critique of James White, Ferris writes:
“Mr. White thinks that the only people who were called were these people whom God foreknew… That’s clearly not what the passage teaches.”
—Ferris, “Romans 8” video
Ferris treats Romans 8:29–30 as a limited description of a particular group—what God did with them—not a declaration of what always happens when God foreknows, calls, or justifies. His entire theological denial hinges on the assumption that Paul is merely describing a process that happened to “some” and leaving open other possibilities for others.
Romans 8:28–30 Is About All Christians, and It Establishes Assurance through God’s Unbreakable Purpose
Ferris’s interpretation collapses under the weight of context, grammar, and theology. Paul is not offering a vague observational musing about a subset of Christians; he is providing deep pastoral assurance to all believers, rooted in the sovereign acts of God from eternity to glory.
1. The Passage Is Explicitly About Christians
Romans 8:28 begins with a precise audience reference:
“And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.”
Paul is not describing an undefined group. He clearly identifies them with two synonymous descriptions:
- “Those who love God” — a standard Jewish and Christian way to describe the faithful (cf. Deut. 6:5; 1 Cor. 2:9; James 1:12).
- “Those who are called according to his purpose” — a reference to God’s effectual call in salvation.
As Fitzmyer notes, “‘Those who love God’ becomes a Pauline definition of a Christian” and “klētoi” (called) refers to “Christians… called by God’s plan to be followers of Christ his Son”【Fitzmyer, Romans, 522–526】. Schreiner affirms, “Those who love God and are called according to his purpose are the same group”【Schreiner, Romans, 450】.
So from the outset, Paul is talking about Christians—believers—and verses 29–30 explain why their salvation is secure.
2. Romans 8:29–30 Is the Ground of Assurance in Verse 28
Paul begins verse 29 with “For” (Greek: hoti), indicating that what follows is the explanation for the assurance in verse 28.
“For those whom he foreknew he also predestined…”
That is, the reason why all things work together for good is because God foreknew, predestined, called, justified, and glorified these individuals. The chain is not incidental—it is theological logic: “because God did this, your future is secure.”
Ferris’s attempt to isolate verse 30 from this flow turns Paul’s comfort into ambiguity. If some “called” people are not justified, then verse 28’s promise becomes hollow. But as Moo puts it:
“The purpose of this text is to ground the certainty of the believer’s hope. The sequence from foreknowledge to glorification is meant to be all-encompassing and unbreakable.”
—Douglas Moo, Romans, 543–544
3. Ferris’s View Dismantles Paul’s Rhetorical Climax
The golden chain leads directly into Romans 8:31–39, one of the most triumphant declarations of Christian assurance in all of Scripture:
“If God is for us, who can be against us?”
“Who shall bring any charge against God’s elect?”
“Who shall separate us from the love of Christ?”
Ferris’s interpretation would render this rhetorical climax moot. If the called can be unjustified, and the justified might not be glorified, then these questions have no force. But Paul insists—based on the logic of verses 29–30—that God’s saving action is not partial or tentative, but complete and irrevocable.
As Schreiner observes:
“The unbroken chain of salvific acts provides believers with assurance that their final salvation is certain.”
—Thomas Schreiner, Romans, 450
Barrett adds:
“Only here can peace and security be found. Our own intentions, like our own virtues, are far too insecure to stand the tests of time and judgment.”
—C. K. Barrett, Romans, 159
4. Ferris’s Linguistic Argument Is a Category Error
Ferris insists that since Paul doesn’t say “only those who are called are justified,” other types of “called” persons might exist.
But this is an elementary linguistic fallacy.
Greek doesn’t require the word “only” to express exhaustiveness. The repeated structure—“those whom… these also…” (hous… kai toutous)—establishes closed, definitive identity.
“Those whom he called, he also justified.”
“Those whom he justified, he also glorified.”
This isn’t a vague statistical trend. It’s a causal declaration. There is no room for a category of people who are called but not justified—not in the grammar, the flow, or the theology.
Kruse puts it plainly:
“Paul points out that God predestined believers to be conformed to the image of his Son… each and every individual believer.”
—Kruse, Romans, 355
Ferris confuses the absence of universal terms (like “only”) with the absence of universal categories, failing to grasp how language, especially Greek, can express necessity without exclusivist particles.
Conclusion
Ferris’s entire argument collapses when we take the passage in context:
- Paul is clearly addressing Christians—those who love God and are called.
- He is not describing random divine behavior; he is explaining why believers can be confident of future glory.
- The sequence is comprehensive, intentional, and grounded in God’s eternal purpose.
- The grammar reflects a tight chain, not an open-ended sampling.
As Fitzmyer (a Catholic commentator) rightly concludes, Paul’s aorist tenses “stress the divine prevenience of the process of salvation… the glorification ‘has come to be’… spoken of in a proleptic sense”【Fitzmyer, Romans, 526】.
The golden chain is golden precisely because it is unbreakable. That’s the very point Ferris misses—and the very truth Paul proclaims.
Ferris repeatedly insists that Paul is describing a specific group to whom God did certain things—not necessarily all believers or all who are called. But this is not a claim supported by the grammar, theology, or the flow of the chapter—and even non-Calvinist interpreters reject it.
Colin G. Kruse, who leans Arminian in his soteriology, still affirms that Paul is talking about the entire Christian community:
“What Paul has in mind regarding the good towards which God makes all things work is then made clear: For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son… each and every individual believer.”
(Kruse, Pillar Commentary, p. 355)
“While what Paul says in 8:28–30 has implications for an understanding of the doctrine of predestination, it was not the apostle’s intention to formulate such a doctrine in these verses. His primary purpose was to provide comfort and encouragement for vulnerable believers caught in the overlap of the ages and exposed to suffering and persecution.”
(Kruse, p. 357–358)
So even someone who does not affirm Reformed soteriology recognizes:
This chain refers to all Christians, not just a symbolic subset.
The goal is pastoral assurance, not a theological illustration.
This undercuts Ferris’s entire “cups” framework, which only works if Paul is speaking about some called people—not all believers.
Kruse’s Arminian leanings make his agreement here even more powerful: even he won’t say that some justified people might fail to be glorified. That would destroy the comfort of the passage.
If even Arminian scholars like Colin Kruse acknowledge that Romans 8:28–30 refers to every Christian, and that Paul’s intent is pastoral assurance, then Ferris’s argument—that the passage is ambiguous and leaves the chain “open”—doesn’t just lack support. It’s refuted from all sides.
Part 2: Ferris’s Cups Analogy and Category Confusion
Ferris’s maFerris’s main rhetorical device for interpreting Romans 8:29–30 is his now-notorious “Cups Illustration.”
“This cup here with the word ‘foreknew’ on it will represent that particular group of people that God foreknew.” “So again, those whom he predestined—not just any group of predestined people, but these people—he also called.” “But Paul never says that these are the only people God called.”
Using labeled cups to represent different groups (“foreknown,” “predestined,” “called,” etc.), Ferris tries to argue that Paul is simply tracing the path of some group, not ruling out that other, distinct groups could exist. His point hinges on the idea that one can be “called” without necessarily being justified or glorified. The visual of multiple cups labeled “called” serves to imply these are discrete groups that share a label but not a destiny.
My Response: Cups Are Physical, Discrete; Divine Actions Are Not
This entire framework suffers from a fatal categorical error: Ferris treats divine actions like tangible, manipulable objects. But calling, justification, glorification, etc., are not things like cups. They are acts of God, not material entities. One cannot have multiple “justifications” sitting side-by-side like props on a table.
Paul is not labeling various containers. He is describing divine actions directed toward a unified people. That is why he uses the repeated structure:
“Whom He foreknew, He also predestined; whom He predestined, He also called; whom He called, He also justified; and whom He justified, He also glorified.”
The grammar (especially the repeated καῖ … καῖ, “also … also”) forms a tight logical chain, not a collection of options. This isn’t a warehouse of spiritual cups to mix and match. It’s a progression of God’s salvific intent.
As Moo notes:
“The stress in each link is on the fact that the entire group that is the object of one activity is also the object of the next.” (Moo, Romans, p. 544)
Ferris’s cups analogy fails because it treats God’s sovereign actions as if they were detachable labels or roles. But calling is not a role to be worn. It is, as Schreiner writes:
“The calling must be effectual—it creates the faith that justifies.” (Schreiner, Romans, p. 451)
This leads to Ferris’s second major error.
Confusing the Meaning of the Word with the Category It Describes
Ferris argues that because Paul doesn’t use the word “only” or say explicitly that “all the called are justified,” therefore Paul is not limiting the called to the justified:
“Paul never says these are the only people called.”
This is a confusion of wording with category. Just because Paul doesn’t use a universal qualifier doesn’t mean he isn’t describing a universal reality. The phrase “those whom he called, he also justified” necessarily implies that all who are called in this passage are justified. There’s no indication that any are excluded.
As I’ve previously noted:
“There may not be universal qualifiers, but there may still be universal categories.”
That is exactly the logic Paul follows. The absence of the word “only” is irrelevant. The phrase “those whom he called, he also justified” does all the logical work.
The Bigger Problem: Ferris Undermines Paul’s Entire Point
Paul’s aim in Romans 8 is to provide assurance to believers that their salvation is secure. The golden chain is not speculative. It is deeply pastoral. It tells believers:
If God began this work in you, He will finish it.
Ferris’s attempt to inject uncertainty—to say there may be called people who aren’t justified, or justified people who aren’t glorified—makes Paul’s entire argument collapse. It turns his crescendo in Romans 8:31–39 into an empty motivational speech.
As Fitzmyer (a Catholic scholar, not a Calvinist) writes:
“In these last two verses, what is expressed is the absolute sovereignty of God… It is not a response, it is an élan.” (Fitzmyer, Anchor Bible, p. 526)
Even Arminian scholar Kruse agrees:
“Paul’s primary purpose was to provide comfort and encouragement for vulnerable believers…” (Kruse, Pillar, p. 357)
Yet Ferris turns Romans 8:29–30 into an observation about what God might do with some people, rather than what God has done for all who love Him.
Conclusion of Part 2
Ferris’s cups analogy fails because it imports a physical metaphor that distorts Paul’s theology of divine action. Calling, justification, and glorification are not physical labels to be juggled on a table. They are God’s sovereign acts, performed on behalf of the people who “love Him” and are “called according to His purpose.”
Ferris’s interpretation confuses the absence of universal wording with the absence of universal scope, but the grammar and context both indicate that Paul is speaking of all Christians. As the commentaries agree, Paul is not hedging. He is assuring.
“Those whom He called, He also justified.” There is no room for ambiguity in that.
This passage was written not to confuse or to speculate—but to comfort the saints with the assurance that they will be redeemed. And that comfort is destroyed if, as Ferris claims, no one can know whether they are in the “right” cup. If there are multiple types of calling and justification, but we cannot know which kind we have experienced, then Paul’s message becomes toothless. Instead of confident assurance, we are left with epistemic paralysis. This obliterates the pastoral and theological intent of the entire chapter.
Even Fitzmyer connects Romans 8 to Jewish and Qumran notions of God’s fixed purposes, writing that God’s glorification is spoken of as already completed because it is guaranteed by “divine decision” and shaped by the same sovereign predestinarian framework found in the Qumran scrolls:
“Before they exist, he has established their entire plan, and when they come to be as is determined for them, it is according to his glorious design…” (1QS 3:15–16, cited in Fitzmyer, p. 525)
Ferris ignores the context, misconstrues the language, and dismantles the point of the text—all for the sake of preserving uncertainty. But Paul’s intent is the opposite: to anchor the believer in what God has done and will surely complete.
Part 3: Romans 9 and the Nature of the Call
Ferris’s Position on Romans 9
Ferris attempts to undermine the Calvinist reading of Romans 9 by appealing to the possibility of alternate futures. Drawing from the character Griffin in Men in Black 3, he imagines God as someone who sees all possible futures and selects one in which someone (e.g., “Jackie”) will respond positively to grace. This future, he argues, could then be the one God predestines.
He claims:
“So God would still be giving His grace to Jackie freely, she wouldn’t be earning it, but still God could be basing his decision of actually giving Jackie his grace… based at least in part upon what Jackie will do with her free will once she has his grace.”
Ferris insists that Romans 9 does not teach unconditional election. Instead, he believes God’s mercy and calling might be based on foreseen human responses, as long as God is the one ultimately making the decision.
My Response: Romans 9 Explicitly Grounds Election in God Alone
The core problem with Ferris’s view is that Romans 9 directly contradicts it. Paul says explicitly:
“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).
This one verse shuts the door on Ferris’s entire model. God’s election is not based on foreseen works, decisions, or future loyalty. Paul takes time to emphasize the twins had done nothing—neither good nor bad—and that the basis for election is not “because of works” but “because of him who calls.”
Even if Ferris says that Jackie didn’t “earn” grace, his model still grounds predestination in something God foresees about her rather than something about God’s own will. That is the very thing Romans 9 denies.
The Calling Is What Upholds Election, Not Vice Versa
Ferris reverses Paul’s logic. He says calling follows God’s decision to actualize a certain future. But Paul says election is upheld by calling:
“In order that God’s purpose of election might stand, not by works but by him who calls…” (v. 11)
So the call is the outworking of sovereign election, not something God gives after seeing a positive response. As Schreiner observes:
“The call of God, in Pauline theology, is not merely an invitation; it is a summons that creates the response it commands.” (Romans, p. 499)
Moo agrees:
“Paul is at pains to insist that God’s choice is not based on any human distinctives or decisions, but wholly on his own will.” (Romans, p. 586)
Romans 9:23–24: The Called Are the Vessels of Mercy
Later in Romans 9, Paul connects the “called” with those prepared for glory:
“In order to make known the riches of his glory for vessels of mercy, which he has prepared beforehand for glory—even us whom he has called…” (Rom. 9:23–24)
Paul identifies the called with the vessels of mercy. There is no category of “called” that is distinct from the justified and glorified. These are the elect, prepared beforehand for glory. This directly confirms what Romans 8:30 already asserted: all who are called are justified, and all who are justified are glorified.
Ferris tries to introduce alternative “cups” of calling, but Romans 9 shows there is only one kind of calling under discussion: effectual calling unto glory.
Romans 9:25–26: Calling Creates Identity
Paul quotes Hosea to show that calling is creative:
“Those who were not my people I will call ‘my people,’ and her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved.’” (Rom. 9:25)
As I argued in my Romans 9 response, God’s call is not recognizing something that already exists in people. It is an act of declaration that brings the new identity into being. Just like “Let there be light,” God’s summons creates what it declares. Ferris’s attempt to make calling reactive turns Paul’s logic on its head.
Romans 4:17: God Calls Things Into Existence
Paul says in Romans 4:17 that God “…calls into existence the things that do not exist.”
This theology of divine calling pervades Paul’s writings. When God calls, he does not wait for things to be. He makes them be. That includes making dead sinners into believers, and calling them to justification.
Qumran Parallels and Fitzmyer’s Insight
As Joseph Fitzmyer (a Catholic scholar) points out, this pattern of calling and predestining is mirrored in Jewish destinarian materials. In 1QS 3:15–16, the Qumran community confesses:
“From the God of knowledge comes all that is and will be; before they exist, he has established their entire plan, and when they come to be as is determined for them, it is according to his glorious design that they fulfill their task.”
This affirms that God’s predestining knowledge is not speculative but purposive—just as Paul’s golden chain in Romans 8–9 affirms. As Fitzmyer explains, Paul’s language, like that of the Qumran sectarians, highlights the absolute sovereignty of divine initiative in the process of salvation. The entire sequence from foreknowing to glorifying is rooted in God’s eternal plan, not in human foresight or achievement.
Conclusion
Romans 9 confirms the doctrine of effectual calling by rooting it in God’s eternal election, disconnecting it from foreseen human action, and aligning it with God’s creative, sovereign purpose. Ferris’s entire objection to Romans 8 collapses when we follow Paul into chapter 9. The same group whom God “called” in Romans 8:30 are the vessels of mercy in Romans 9:24. There is no evidence for multiple types of calling.
And the reason Paul lays this out is not merely theological—it is pastoral. It is written to assure saints that they will be redeemed, glorified, and forever loved by the God who foreknew and called them. This redemption does not rest on human initiative, foresight, or effort—but on God’s own sovereign will and unchangeable decree. As Romans 9:16 declares, “It depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy.”
If Ferris’s view were right, the comfort would vanish: for who can ever know if they are in the “right cup” of calling?
Paul’s message is one of unshakable assurance grounded in the sovereign mercy of God. The golden chain is not a hypothetical illustration—it is a divine promise. And that promise can only stand if God’s calling is effectual, his justification irrevocable, and his glorification certain.not depend on our performance. It issues from His sovereign grace, and it accomplishes what He intends.
Part 4: Justification and Glorification in the Golden Chain
In the previous parts, I showed that Ferris’s claims about calling in Romans 8 and 9 fall apart under the weight of both the immediate context and Paul’s broader theology of sovereign grace. But what about the latter half of the golden chain: justification and glorification? Ferris attempts to separate these two from the call by suggesting the passage simply tracks what happens to one group of people, without saying these events necessarily belong together.
He writes:
“Paul says Those whom he called, he also justified, but that doesn’t mean that everyone who is called is justified. It’s just what happened to these people.”
Likewise, in the same video he argues:
“Mr. White keeps pointing to this passage and claiming these are the only people God called… but Paul never says that God does not do these same things to other people as well.”
This is where Ferris’s reasoning begins to unravel entirely. He ignores not only the context and purpose of Romans 8:28–30, but also the grammar and structure of Paul’s argument. He treats divine actions as though they were separable events with ambiguous outcomes. But Paul’s point is precisely the opposite: they are unified acts of God’s eternal purpose.
The Unity of the Golden Chain
Romans 8:30 reads:
“Those whom he predestined he also called; those whom he called he also justified; those whom he justified he also glorified.”
The repeated use of the phrase “those whom… he also…” (Greek: houtous kai) links each stage tightly. Paul does not allow for any break between links. There is no hint that some called are not justified, or that some justified are not glorified. As Moo notes:
“The stress in each link is on the fact that the entire group that is the object of one activity is also the object of the next.” (Moo, Romans, p. 543)
Ferris’s mistake is to treat this chain as a narrative about an arbitrary group, as though Paul were merely recounting a story. But in context, Paul is giving theological explanation for the assurance of believers (cf. 8:28). The sequence is not historical observation; it is doctrinal grounding.
Schreiner affirms:
“Justification is always the result of faith in Paul, and not all are justified. It follows that this calling must be effectual—it creates the faith that justifies.” (Schreiner, Romans, p. 450)
This undercuts Ferris’s entire claim that some who are “called” might not be justified. If the calling Paul has in mind creates the faith that results in justification, then it necessarily applies only to the elect.
The Aorist Tenses and Their Theological Force
Ferris attempts to neutralize the force of this verse by emphasizing that it uses past tense verbs. He treats them as mere descriptions of what happened to some people, not necessarily what always happens.
But this is a misunderstanding of the Greek aorist. As Fitzmyer explains:
“Paul speaks of [glorification] now in a proleptic sense… it is the glorification that is going to be revealed in us (8:18), guaranteed by divine decision.” (Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 526)
The aorist here is not about past observation; it is about completed certainty. Barrett agrees:
“With justification Paul has reached the present; but so sure is his confidence… that he can go on to describe a future event in a past tense: ‘those whom he justified he also glorified.’” (Barrett, Romans, p. 160)
This shows that Paul treats glorification as so certain for the justified that he speaks of it as already done.
Glorification Is Not Conditional
Ferris often appeals to Romans 11, arguing that believers can be “cut off” from the tree. But as shown in Part 3, Paul’s discussion in Romans 11 refers to covenantal representation, not individual regeneration. The olive tree is the visible people of God, and its branches represent outward inclusion. Romans 8:30, however, is about inward redemption. It cannot be about temporary membership, because glorification is the end result.
Kruse (an Arminian scholar) admits:
“Clearly [glorification] is not the apostle’s understanding [that it already happened], for it runs counter to everything else he says… Paul wants to depict it as something that is absolutely certain.” (Kruse, Romans, p. 358)
Thus, even from an Arminian perspective, the text presents glorification as guaranteed for the justified.
Divine Action, Not Human Contingency
The structure of Romans 8:29–30 is entirely divine: every verb has God as the subject. Human responses are not the focus. Even faith is not mentioned. Why? Because Paul is trying to explain why believers can rest secure. He does not want us to look to ourselves, but to the divine actions of God, all the way from foreknowledge to glory.
This is why Paul does not mention those who fall away. He is not describing the visible church but the elect. As Fitzmyer notes:
“In these last two verses, what is expressed is the absolute sovereignty of God, the transcendence of his goodness, which cannot be subordinated to any of his creatures, or to any of their deeds.” (Fitzmyer, Romans, p. 526)
Conclusion of Part 4
Ferris’s attempt to separate justification and glorification from effectual calling breaks apart under grammatical, theological, and contextual scrutiny. Paul presents a seamless chain from foreknowledge to glorification, grounded in God’s sovereign will. There is no mention of failure, loss, or conditional outcomes because the very point of the passage is to give assurance.
If, as Ferris claims, this chain merely describes what happened to “some people,” then Paul’s entire point is lost. How can believers be assured if they can’t know they are in the right cup? What comfort does it give to say, “Some whom God called were justified, but you might not be”?
The answer is: none at all. Paul is assuring Christians who are suffering (8:17–27) that they are secure because of God’s invincible grace. That is why he climaxes the chapter by declaring:
“Nothing shall separate us from the love of God in Christ Jesus our Lord.”
Part 5: Romans 11, Conditional Grafting, and the Corporate Tree
Ferris appeals to Romans 11 as the final word against unconditional election. He claims that while Romans 9 tells us God has the sovereign right to choose on any basis He wants, Romans 11 reveals what basis God actually chose: whether or not someone continues in faith.
“God has decided that at least some of the people he plans on having mercy and compassion for are the ones who continue in his kindness.”
This becomes Ferris’s solution to Romans 9. He claims Paul never intended to teach unconditional election or effectual calling. Instead, Paul supposedly leaves open the possibility that God’s mercy is conditional upon future human response, and Romans 11 proves it.
He especially focuses on Romans 11:22:
“Note then the kindness and severity of God: severity toward those who have fallen, but God’s kindness to you, provided you continue in his kindness. Otherwise you too will be cut off.”
And Romans 11:23:
“And even they, if they do not continue in their unbelief, will be grafted in, for God has the power to graft them in again.”
From these verses, Ferris insists that God’s election is conditioned on perseverance in faith. In short, salvation is contingent.
My Response: Romans 11 Is About the Visible Covenant People, Not the Infallible Elect
Ferris’s entire argument assumes that the tree in Romans 11 represents the set of justified people—that being “cut off” or “grafted in” refers to losing or gaining salvation. But this ignores Paul’s consistent distinction between the visible people of God and the invisible church, that is, between covenantal inclusion and effectual union with Christ.
The olive tree in Romans 11 is not the set of eternally justified persons. It is the visible covenant community, traced through Abraham, into which Jews and Gentiles can be grafted or cut off. Some within that tree (like Judas or Simon Magus) are not truly regenerate.
As Schreiner puts it:
“The metaphor of the olive tree does not describe individuals being elected to eternal life or damned to hell. Rather, it depicts God’s dealings with corporate entities: Israel and the Gentiles.” — Romans, p. 622
Likewise, Moo:
“To be cut off from the olive tree is to lose one’s place in the people of God, not necessarily to be damned.” — Romans, p. 708
Kruse also affirms this view:
“Paul’s warning is addressed to Gentile believers, not because their salvation is uncertain in itself, but to promote humility and perseverance as part of their covenant identity.” — Romans, PNTC, p. 432
The Condition of Remaining Is a Means, Not a Ground
Paul says, “provided you continue in his kindness.” Does this mean that our continuation is the basis of God’s saving grace? Not at all. It means that continuing in faith is the instrument through which God preserves His elect. The warning is real, but it functions as the means by which the elect persevere.
This distinction is critical: the elect continue because they are elect (cf. Phil. 1:6), not the other way around. They are warned, and the warning is part of what God uses to keep them.
As Calvin wrote:
“Though this cannot happen to the elect, they have yet need of such warning, in order to subdue the pride of the flesh… As far then as Christians are illuminated by faith, they hear, for their assurance, that the calling of God is without repentance; but as far as they carry about them the flesh… they are taught humility by this warning, ‘Take heed lest thou be cut off.'” — Commentary on Romans 11:22
Calvin also clarifies that Paul is not speaking to the elect as elect, but to the visible covenant body:
“Paul speaks not here of the special election of individuals, but sets the Gentiles and Jews in opposition the one to the other… among whom there were many who were faithful, and those who were members of Christ in name only.”
Romans 11 Affirms Election, Not Undermines It
Even within Romans 11, Paul affirms unconditional election:
“At the present time there is a remnant, chosen by grace. But if it is by grace, it is no longer on the basis of works” (Rom. 11:5–6).
This remnant—the true Israel—exists not because they continued in anything but because of sovereign election. God’s call, Paul says, is irrevocable (11:29).
So Romans 11 does not overturn Romans 9. It confirms it: God elects whom He wills, and preserves them through faith.
Ferris’s Misread and the Problem of Assurance
Ferris insists Romans 11 proves conditional salvation. But this interpretation:
- Collapses Paul’s pastoral assurance in Romans 8:28–30.
- Treats the olive tree as the elect rather than the covenant community.
- Ignores that warnings are means for the elect’s perseverance.
- Misunderstands Romans 11:5–6 and 11:29, which affirm unconditional election.
And once again, Ferris leaves his audience with no assurance. If being grafted depends on continuing, and if God’s mercy is uncertain until the end, what comfort remains? If we are told that continuing is required—but not how to know whether we will—what hope is left? What assurance is gained if the question remains: Am I in the right cup?
But Paul’s comfort remains intact:
“Those whom he foreknew, he predestined… he called… he justified… he glorified.”
This chain is not broken by Romans 11. It is illustrated there.
Romans 11 reminds us that some who are part of the visible people may fall—but the elect will be preserved. The distinction between corporate covenant inclusion and individual saving union is crucial. Ferris conflates them and undermines the very assurance Paul intended.
As the I’ve noted:
“Paul’s point in Romans 11 is not to teach the fallibility of God’s plan but to defend it. The remnant proves election stands, and the warning to Gentiles preserves their humility and faith, which are God’s appointed means for preserving the elect.”
And Kruse again underscores the pastoral purpose:
“The emphasis on continuing in kindness is not to raise doubt but to promote confidence in God’s ongoing purpose—a purpose rooted in mercy and inextricable from grace.”
This assurance of perseverance is rooted not in human striving, but in God’s sovereign plan. As Fitzmyer notes from Qumran’s determinist theology, God’s plan is not reactive but proactive:
“Before they were fashioned, he knew their deeds… when they come to be, it is according to his glorious design that they fulfill their task.” (1QS 3:15–16; CD 2:8)
Romans 11, then, does not give ground to Ferris’s contingency model—it devastates it. It reminds us that mercy is not distributed by performance, but by predetermination. Election stands. The tree may shift in branches, but the root remains holy. And the elect are never lost.
The Council 
4 thoughts on “How Not to Read Romans: A Response to Ferris (How to Be Christian)”