I am breaking the "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And 'Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible'?)" post up into shorter segments so that each verse (or two) gets it own post.
#6: Titus 3:5 (NIV): "He saved us, not because of righteous things we had done ..."
Titus 3:5 (KJV): "Not by works of righteousness which we had done ..."
But the ESV says: "He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness ..."
Why does this little change make a difference?
Because in the first two translations, the "works" are what is "righteous." The first two translations are saying that we aren't saved because we did righteous things. We can't earn or work our way to heaven. This is a warning for all people. No one can be saved by the righteous actions they do. We can never "earn" salvation, but we can only be saved because God chose to have mercy on us, to pour out His grace on us (which is available for "all men," Titus 2:11), by providing us with a way to be saved (through faith in Jesus, which leads us to our "rebirth" and renewal by the Holy Spirit, Titus 3:5-6). That's what this verse means. And if it's a warning for all people that we can't be saved through our "righteous works," then it implies that we can all be saved another way, just not by doing righteous things. And of course, that way is by faith in Jesus.
But the ESV says that we are not saved by "works done by us in righteousness." This switches the "righteousness" from describing the "works" to describing "us." It's not about us doing righteous works; it's about us doing works from a place of righteousness.
In Calvinism, the "elect" are those God predestined to heaven from the beginning of time. And so therefore, they have been credited with a righteousness from God from the beginning. This means that, in God's eyes, they are always seen eternally as being "in righteousness." This makes them different from the non-elect who can never be and will never be "in righteousness" in God's eyes. Therefore, worded the ESV way, this verse is meant only for those whose works are done "in righteousness": the elect!
In the ESV, it's not a warning to all people that they can't earn their way to heaven with good works or a statement that our salvation can only come through faith in Jesus. If this verse applies to everyone then it would mean that everyone could be saved through faith in Jesus. But of course, in Calvinism, the non-elect can never get to heaven. So of course, Calvinists would not want this verse applying to the non-elect.
And so the ESV words it in a way that makes it only apply to those who are "in righteousness," the elect. It's essentially saying that God saved "us" - those who are "in righteousness" only - just not by any works we do as His elect people, but that the salvation of the "elect" comes by the regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit.
Big difference!
A note about the ESV vs King James:
If you really want to get into the nitty-gritty, read these articles about the men who wrote the Greek texts that the ESV is based on: "Westcott and Hort: Translator's Beliefs" and "Westcott and Hort and the Greek Text." The ESV is based on the RSV, which is based on the Greek Texts of these two men (who, it sounds like, rejected the infallibility of Scripture, despised evangelicals, questioned Jesus's divinity and an eternal hell, did not believe Genesis and the creation story was literal, affirmed Darwin and evolution, etc.), which is based on two corrupted manuscripts which differ from the majority of the more reliable manuscripts that the KJV is based on.
So when something says that the ESV has only made 6% changes, it means "from the RSV," meaning that it's 94% the same as the RSV it was based on, a translation which was based on two corrupted manuscripts that disagree with the majority of the manuscripts available. It would be like if a journalist interviewed 100 people about an event ... and 95 of them said the exact same thing, but 5 told a different story ... and the journalist decided to side with the 5 and print their story as fact. Raises some red flags, doesn't it?
In the course of researching this issue, and after not knowing for decades what to think of the whole "which translation is most accurate" debate, I now side with the King James. I mean, I have several other translations, and I think different ones are good for different reasons, such as readability, compare and contrast, to hear God's Word in a fresh way, etc. But when having to decide which one is more reliable and accurate, especially considering the significant differences like those above, I have to side with the KJV (not the New King James, just the King James). And I've never been more sure of it than now, after all this research.
