The Calvinist ESV: Romans 1:5-6

 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.

#14:  Romans 1:5-6 (KJV):  "By whom we have received grace and apostleship, for obedience to the faith among all nations, for his name; among whom are ye also the called of Jesus Christ."

What is Paul saying he (they) are called for?  

To be obedient, to be apostles (people who share the Gospel with others).  Being "called" is about believers being commanded to be obedient to the Gospel in front of all people and to share the Gospel with others like an apostle.  (Actually, the concordance says "called" is along the lines of "invited.")  Being "called" is not about being chosen for salvation but about believers being called (invited) to do a job, to represent Jesus to the people.  (Also see 1 Corinthians 1:1: "called to be an apostle," not to be saved.  And Romans 1:7 says "called to be saints."  In the concordance, "saints" is about how you conduct yourself, setting yourself apart from sin, being obedient to God, cleansing yourself from sin, living a holy life, etc.  It's about your behavior, your choices, about how God expects believers to live, not about God choosing certain people to be believers.)

Now watch it get off-track here, in the NIV: "Through him we received grace and apostleship to call all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith for his name's sake.  And you are among those Gentiles who are called to belong to Jesus Christ."

First off, in the KJV, Paul is saying that they themselves are called to be obedient apostles (obedient to the faith, spreading the Gospel), and that the Gentile believers he's writing to are part of that group, called to be obedient apostles.  But in the NIV, Paul is telling them that they have to call other Gentiles to obedience.  In the KJV, it's a statement about their own call/responsibilities, but in the NIV it's a statement about what they are to tell others to do.  

Secondly, in the NIV, Paul says the Gentiles he is writing to have been "called to belong to Jesus" (instead of called to be "obedient apostles," as the KJV teaches).  This is starting to get a bit more Calvinistic (as I said earlier, the NIV is also quite Calvinistic in some places), because it sounds like they were "chosen for salvation" and like Paul is saying that they need to call other "chosen ones" to obedience too.  But as we saw in the KJV, it's not that those Gentiles were called to belong to Jesus; it's that they, being believers, are called to be obedient to Jesus and to be apostles, spreading the Gospel.  

And thirdly, it says that obedience comes from faith (which could be used to support Calvinism's idea that God gives the elect the faith to believe, and that the faith makes them be obedient).  But the KJV says that they are to be obedient to the faith, that it's part of our responsibility as Christians.  

But even with these problems, the good thing about the NIV is that it says that we are to call "all Gentiles" to obedience, to Jesus, essentially opening the door of salvation up to all people.  (However, Calvinism would agree that we are to call all people to salvation, but they would say that only the elect can respond to that call.)

But now let's see the ESV: "through whom we have received grace and apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations, including you who are called to belong to Jesus Christ."

Now I believe we have full-on Calvinism.  Not only does this version get rid of the idea of "calling all Gentiles to be obedient," but it also changes the message from believers being called to be obedient apostles, in front of all people, for Jesus's sake ... to them having to "bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of his name among all the nations."   

Let's break this phrase down:

In the ESV here, it's not that believers are called to be obedient apostles, but it's that their job is to "bring about the obedience of faith."  

And who, in Calvinism, are the only ones who can be and will be obedient because of faith?  

That's right ... the elect, those predestined for faith/salvation, the only ones Calvi-god gives faith to.

The KJV attaches "obedience to the faith" to Paul and the Gentile believers he's writing to.  They (and all believers) are commanded to be obedient to the faith.  It's what they are to do, how they are to live, the choices they should make.  

But to "bring about the obedience of faith" is a completely different thing.  "To bring about the ..." implies bringing about something that is already determined, already planned.  And in the Calvinist ESV, it's bringing about an obedience that comes from faith, a faith that leads to obedience.  

In Calvinism, God has predestined the "elect" for salvation, and He gives them  - and only them - the kind of faith (saving faith) that leads to obedience.  And they can only be obedient after the Holy Spirit "wakes them up inside," changes their natures, and causes them to believe when He instills in them the saving faith God predestined them to get.  I believe that's what this ESV's "bringing about the obedience of faith" is about.  It's about Paul simply "activating" the predestined faith of the elect, which will cause them to be "obedient."  

So in the KJV, obedience is what believers are called to do.  But in the ESV, it's just "brought about" by evangelizing to the elect to make them realize their predestined election.  

And so the ESV, through the lens of Calvinism, is saying that Paul and the believers he's writing to were "called to belong to Jesus" (elected/predestined for faith/salvation/apostleship/to receive grace) and that this is what brings about their "obedience of faith" (when the elect get their predestined faith, it changes their natures and causes them to become obedient), and that it's their job to be apostles to other people to help "bring about the obedience of faith" in other elected people too.

Also of note: "Called" in the Greek, in Romans 1:6, is an adjective, but the ESV changes it to a verb, using it as "God called the people to belong to Jesus," as if that's how they became saved, which in Calvinism describes only the elect.  But since it's an adjective, it should be more like the KJV, which is "you are the called [people/saints] of Jesus."  It's not a statement about how they became saved, but it's describing them, that they are "called people" of Jesus, which according to the definition of the Greek word would basically mean "invited people."  And in this case, in the KJV, we saw it's about being invited to grace and apostleship and obedience to faith.  It's not about being "called to belong to Jesus, being predestined for salvation," as Calvinism would say.  Notice also that in the Greek sentences, there are no words for the ESV's "to belong to" or "to bring about."  These are additions that are not in the original Greek, further proof that the ESV is wrong and the King James is right. 

And notice that the KJV attaches "for [Jesus's] name" to the behavior of Paul and the Gentile believers, to their obedience and apostleship among the people, meaning that Jesus is glorified when believers live as obedient apostles in front of other people.  But the ESV attaches "the sake of his name among all the nations" to the bringing about of the "obedience of faith," meaning that Jesus is glorified in front of all people when the elect become saved as they were predestined to be.  

Do you see the difference?

You'll notice, in the link to this verse, that the translations all word this verse slightly different, giving many different meanings to it.  What were they called for?  Is obedience what we do or is it just "brought about"?  What happens "for the sake of his name"?  Are all Gentiles called or not?  Are we the "called of Jesus" (called to be obedient apostles of Jesus) or "called to belong to Jesus"?

Be careful what translation you use.  Always compare one against another, and use a concordance to help you understand words.  

[When you do this, you see that "receive" in this verse isn't a passive thing, as though they passively received grace and apostleship by sitting there and letting the Spirit instill it in them.  "Receive" basically means to seize, to claim, to take possession of, to reach out and grab ahold of something that is offered to you.  Grace and salvation is offered to all of us, but only those who actively reach out and grab it, who accept it, will get it.  It's available to everyone - "For the grace of God that bringing salvation hath appeared to all men" (Titus 2:11) - but it's up to us to grab ahold of it for ourselves.  Yet Calvinism would have us believe that we can do nothing to get salvation, not even choose to believe in Jesus on our own, that it's God's choice who gets saved and that it's the Spirit's job to "bring it about," to instill saving faith in the elect.  But the Bible, all throughout, says "believe and receive," which according to the concordance means that we are to be persuaded by the Truth and to choose to commit to it, to actively grab ahold of the grace and salvation that is offered to us all.  But Calvinism says we can't decide to do these things, that God has to cause it to happen in the elect.  And so I wonder ... How many people can really be saved the Calvinist way when it teaches that we can't do the one thing God tells us to do to be saved?  I think Calvinists will be surprised when they stand before God and He says, "I said that you have to choose to believe.  And I meant what I said!"]

Personally, I think the New Living Translation more clearly says what the KJV is trying to say, that believers have been given the job of telling everyone everywhere what God has done so that they, too, might choose to believe in Him and obey Him, bringing glory to His name.  This, I believe, is the truth, supported all throughout the Bible when God commands us to choose whom we will serve, to choose obedience instead of disobedience, to set out minds on Him, etc.  We choose whether we will believe in Jesus or not, and we choose whether we will follow God's commands of not.  God has not predestined this for us.

But the ESV gives a very different message and Gospel, a very Calvinist one, that God has already decided who will belong to Him and who won't, and that (since we have no control over our choices) all we can do is help "bring about" the predestined faith of the elect.   

And the little changes in this introduction to Romans makes it a book not for everyone (in Calvinism, not everyone can choose to receive the grace God offers or to become obedient apostles), but only for those who were "called to belong to Jesus," those who were predestined by God to be given the "obedience of faith," the elect!

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.