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.
#15: This is a small one, but maybe not. In Hebrews 11:16, most versions say something like "And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to/approaches/draws near to Him must believe that He exists, and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him."
But the ESV is the only one that adds the word "would" ... "whoever would draw near to God ..."
To my way of thinking, "anyone who comes to God" is saying that anyone can come to God, that everyone - no matter where they are at or where they are headed - is invited to "come to God."
But the ESV's "whoever would draw near to God" is about only those who are capable of being drawn near to God, those predestined for it, which in Calvinism would be "the elect." Only the elect are predestined to draw near to God, so only the elect can draw near to God, and so the elect are the only ones who ever would draw near to God.
This is no longer about anyone and everyone having the chance to "come to God."
But it's only about those who can, those who "would," those who are predestined to draw near to Him, to seek Him. The elect!
#16: Another small (or big) thing is Titus 3:4. Most versions, including the KJV, word is something like this: “the kindness and love of God our Savior to man/mankind appeared.”
But the ESV leaves out the “man/mankind” part, making it sound like God’s love was only for the believers Paul was writing to.
Titus 3:4-7 (King James): “But after that the kindness and love of God our Savior toward man appeared, not by works which we had done in righteousness, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost; which he shed on us abundantly through Christ Jesus our Savior; that being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs to the hope of eternal life.”
The King James Version makes it sound like God’s love is for all mankind, and that because of His love for mankind, God offers salvation to us, through His mercy and Jesus’s death and the work of the Spirit. All of this is shed abundantly (on mankind) so that we might have eternal life. Of course, only those who choose to accept God’s offer of eternal life – by believing in Jesus - will get it. But since God’s love for all mankind is what caused Him to offer salvation in the first place, then the offer of salvation is for all mankind.
But here it is in the ESV: “But when the goodness and loving kindness of God our Savior appeared, he saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us richly through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that being justified by his grace we might become heirs according to the hope of eternal life.”
Notice how by eliminating God’s love for “mankind,” the ESV limits all of this - God’s love, mercy, Jesus’s sacrifice, the offer of the Holy Spirit, the hope of eternal life – only to the believers Paul is writing to. In the ESV, God’s love appeared, but not to all mankind. Instead, it appeared for “us,” to save “us.” Because God loves “us,” He had mercy on us and saved us (and only us) by richly pouring out “on us” the Holy Spirit, through Jesus’s death, so that we (and we alone) could have eternal life.
The KJV starts with God loving “mankind.” And because of His love for mankind, He has mercy on and offers eternal life to mankind, to all men. This fits neatly with the rest of Scripture as a whole, that God loves all, wants all to be saved, that Jesus died for all sins, all men, and that we are responsible for our decision about Jesus.
But the ESV doesn't include “mankind,” limiting it all to “us,” the believers. The “elect.” This fits neatly with their Calvinist TULIP theology, that God only truly loves the elect and that He gives only the elect the Holy Spirit to cause them to be believers, but that the non-elect never had a chance because God didn’t love them, Jesus didn’t die for them, and the Holy Spirit was never available to them because God created them for hell.
The thing is, I looked this up in the Greek, in Strong’s concordance, and the word “mankind” is part of the word lovingkindness. It’s included in the definition, that God’s lovingkindness is for all of mankind. It’s a generalized love, for all men, not a specific love for just a few. So even if the ESV leaves out “mankind” to limit it only to believers, the original word itself includes “mankind,” proving that God’s love is for all. And if His offer of eternal life stems from His love, then the offer of eternal life is for all mankind too.
One other small note to confirm this is Titus 3:8 (KJV): “This is a faithful saying … that they which have believed in God might be careful to maintain good works.”
Paul notes that there are those who believe (and, therefore, there are those who don’t believe). But nowhere do we get the sense, as Calvinists would say, that God causes the believers to believe, that God predestined what we think and do and believe, that we have no control over it.
Instead (contrary to the Calvinist belief that God preplans, causes, and controls all we do), this verse clearly implies that we believers are responsible for how we behave, for the good works we do. We have major influence/control over our behavior, our choices. And if we have major influence/control over our behavior - if we are responsible for what we do – then we also have control over and are responsible for what we think and believe. We cannot have no control over our beliefs while, at the same time, having control over our actions. That wouldn’t make sense.
I point this out to show that if Paul says we have control over our actions, then we have control over our beliefs too, which means that Titus 3:4-7 cannot be interpreted in a Calvinist way. It cannot be that God controls who believes and who doesn’t, that the “elect” have no influence/control over their decision to believe in Jesus, or that the Holy Spirit “forces” them to believe and be saved.
Calvinism doesn’t make sense, doesn’t fit with the whole of Scripture, and can’t truly harmonize verses about our responsibilities to manage our behavior and choose whom we will serve with their view that God preplans, causes, controls all we think and do, and that we can’t do anything about it.
And if the Bible says one thing but Calvinism says another, then Calvinism is wrong! (Little changes add up to BIG differences!)
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.
