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.
#13: (updated) Ephesians 1:13 (NIV): "In him you were also included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit,"
Notice the order in this translation: They were "also" included in Christ after they heard the gospel and believed it, and then they were sealed with the Holy Spirit. They hear, then believe, then are included in Christ/sealed with Holy Spirit. This means they were not "included in Christ" and did not get the Spirit until after they heard and believed. Salvation comes as a result of their belief. I think this is the biblical order of things.
Here it is in the ESV: "In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit,"
The ESV leaves out the "also included in Christ" part. Because in Calvinism, the "elect" people are essentially "in Christ" from before time began, sealed for salvation. So there can be no "also included in Christ" at a later time, after believing. However, this isn't too concerning because the verse itself, even in the ESV without the "also included in Christ" part, still shows that they weren't sealed in Jesus with the Holy Spirit until after they believed. And this contradicts Calvinism's idea that the elect are prechosen/sealed from before time began and that the elect get the Holy Spirit before they believe, to cause them to believe.
In Calvinism, being saved and getting the Holy Spirit comes before believing, leading to belief. But in the Bible, being saved and getting the Holy Spirit comes as a result of believing (John 7:39, Ephesians 1:13).
The NKJV puts it this way: "In him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise,"
And the KJV also says "Holy Spirit of promise." But the ESV (and even the NIV) switches "the Holy Spirit of promise" to "the promised Holy Spirit." I don't necessarily have a problem with this too much just because God does promise to give the Holy Spirit to anyone who believes, but Calvinists could use "the promised Holy Spirit" to say that the Spirit was promised to these particular individuals because they were "predestined for salvation." But since the concordance says that it's the noun "promise" (not an adjective "promised") then "the Holy Spirit of promise" is the correct translation.
[Also of note, the ESV makes the same switch in Galatians 3:14. The KJV says "that we might receive the promise of the Spirit through faith," but the ESV says "so that we might receive the promised Holy Spirit through faith." And in Calvinism, that's only for the elect. But once again, "promise" is a noun, not an adjective, so the KJV is right and the ESV is wrong.]
And what is the promise that the Spirit brings with Him?
To redeem our bodies in the end, as seen in the next verse, Ephesians 1:14: "who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession..." And in Ephesians 4:30: "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, with whom you were sealed for the day of redemption." So it's not that some people are promised to be given the Holy Spirit; it's that God promises to redeem everyone who puts their faith in Jesus, with the Holy Spirit being the seal, the guarantee that it will happen.
For a little more on Ephesians: Calvinists use Ephesians 1:4-5 to say that God predestined who will believe and who won't: "For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love he predestined us to be adopted as his sons through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will..."
But, as we saw, Ephesians 1:13 shows that we aren't included "in Him" until after we believe, that believing is what gets us included "in Him" (whereas Calvinism incorrectly teaches that being prechosen to be "in Him" causes us to believe).
And notice what Ephesians 1:4 says that we are chosen for?
Those "in Him" (believers) are chosen to be holy and blameless. (This is far different than Calvinism's belief that certain people are prechosen to be believers.) And as we already know, we don't get included "in Him" until after we believe, as a result of our belief.
Also Calvinists would say "predestined to be adopted as sons" means "prechosen to be believers." But Romans 8:23 tells us what "adopted as sons" means, "the redemption of our bodies." There's that promise of the Spirit, as confirmed in Ephesians 1:14: "[the Holy Spirit] is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God's possession..."
And so putting it all together: After we choose to believe in Him, we get included in the "in Him" group, a group which is destined to be holy and blameless in God's sight (because we accepted Jesus's sacrifice on our behalf, letting His blood pay for our sins). And after believing, we get the Holy Spirit, a promise that we (those who choose to believe) are destined to be redeemed.
These are not verses about certain people being chosen to be believers; it's about believers (whoever chooses to believe in Jesus) being predestined to have their bodies redeemed and to be holy and blameless in God's sight.
Big difference!
Calvinists think Ephesians supports their idea of predestination when it actually doesn't. Tony Evans, in his study Bible for this verse, points out that Ephesians is a book about the corporate Church, church as a whole, not about individual Christian salvation. The "choosing and electing" in this book doesn't refer to individual people, but to God's plan to establish a body of people "in Jesus" who will be part of His family and reflect Him to the world. God predestined what happens to those "in Him," those who become part of His family, but He didn't predetermine who will be part of that family and who won't. He leaves that choice up to us.
The ultimate path a believer takes after they choose to be "in Him" is what is predetermined, not whether we become believers or not.
You see, a God who offers salvation to all people but who determined that only those who accept His offer to be saved, to be "in Christ," will get the benefits of those "in Christ" can still be considered loving, good, holy, just, and trustworthy. Because He offers the same opportunity to everyone to be saved but lets us make our own choice to accept it or reject it. And so if we end up in hell, it's because we chose to reject His free gifts of grace, forgiveness, salvation, etc.
But a god who predetermined who goes to heaven and who doesn't, a god who only truly loved a few people enough to save them but who created the rest so that he could hate them and get glory for sending them to hell, a god who controls our choices and causes our sins but who punishes us for them, a god who never gave the non-elect the ability to believe in him (because Calvi-Jesus never died for their sins anyway) but who then punishes the non-elect in hell for all of eternity for their unbelief cannot truly be considered loving, good, holy, just, or trustworthy. No matter how much Calvinists insist to the contrary.
If that's the kind of god Calvinists want to serve then I feel deeply sorry for them. And I can't imagine what it will be like for them when they stand before the God of the Bible one day and He asks them, "Why would you teach people that that's the kind of God I am!?! Oh, the damage you've done to My character and My gospel!"
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.
