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.
#39: Let's mince some more words. In the KJV,
2 Timothy 1:9 says
"Who has saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."
But the ESV says "who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began."
Notice that the ESV leaves out the comma that the KJV puts between "saved us" and "called us with a holy calling." If there's a comma, it separates the two, showing that the "holy calling" is what goes with "not according to our works but according to his own purpose and grace." God has called anyone who believes in Jesus to do holy jobs/tasks, to be faithful workers for His kingdom. And He doesn't call us to do these things based on us (our own plans and wisdom and power and works), but based on His purposes and grace.
However, taking out the comma, like the ESV does, bundles the "saved us" together with the "holy calling," making it so that Calvinists can say that "God saved us because of His purposes and grace."
And even the "because of" stresses Calvinist election, that God saved them because of His purposes and grace, that He had His own mysterious reasons for "electing" them to be saved, from before time began ... instead of what it should be, that "God called them with a holy calling, according to His purposes and grace."
And I think even the "called to a holy calling" is more Calvinist than "called with a holy calling." If I called you with a cry for help, I would be asking you to do something for me, telling you what I want you to do. But if I called you to a cry for help, then I would be summoning you to come to a certain place where someone needs help. One is about instructions, and the other is about destination. In the KJV, the call is holy; God calls them with a holy calling, holy invitation/instructions to do Kingdom work. But in the ESV, the destination is holy; God calls them to come to a certain place, a holy destination. Calvinist could use this ESV verse to say that the elect are called to be saved, to eternal life, because God purposed it that way and gave them (and only them) His grace.
An all-around different message.
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.
