The Calvinist ESV: "Refuse to Believe/Obey"

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.



 #45-53:  I pointed out earlier several times when the ESV changed "believe" (verb) to "believers" (noun), making it less about what someone chooses to do and more about who they are (or as Calvinists would say, "who God predestined them to be").

Well, the ESV also makes the same kind of change in Romans 15:31, where it changes it from "them that do not believe" (KJV) to "unbelievers."  This also changes it from people doing some thing, having the responsibility/choice over whether they believe or not, to them being some thing, a non-believer (one of the non-elect, in Calvinism).  Since "them that do not believe" is more about people doing the action of not believing - and since Calvinists think we don't really have a choice about if we believe or not - it makes sense that the ESV would prefer instead to say "unbelievers," because the noun "unbelievers" is more about who they were created to be (the non-elect) instead of what they do.  It's a teeny, tiny, microscopic step from "unbeliever" to "non-elect."

The interesting part of this is that when I looked up the Greek for this verse, it says that the phrase "do not believe" is actually "refusing to be persuaded."  And when I looked it up in the concordance, the definition did indeed show not just that someone doesn't believe or doesn't obey (as if they have no ability to), but that they refuse to believe or obey.  This, to me, is a much greater indication of "free-will" than "Calvinist predestination," because we can't refuse something unless it's legitimately offered to us, available to us, possible for us.  You can only "refuse" a gift if it was offered to you and possible for you to accept it.  You can only refuse to do something if it was possible for you to do it, if you had the chance to do it.  If it wasn't truly available to you or possible for you, then it wouldn't be "refusing" it.  

In Calvinism, the non-elect are non-believers not because they choose to reject the gospel and the offer of salvation (despite Calvinists who try to make it sound like they believe in free-will), but because salvation was never truly available to them because they were created by Calvi-god for hell.  They never truly had the option of believing because they were predestined to (forced to) be unbelievers.  Therefore, they are not really "refusing" to believe or refusing the gift of salvation, because it was never really offered to them to begin with.  And so it's no wonder we see no reference to "refuse" in this verse in the ESV.  

The funny thing is, this word for "refusing to be persuaded" is also in the following verses (among others I'm not listing), but the ESV (and many other translations) leaves out any indication of "refuse."  And leaving out the "refused to" downplays personal responsibility and the control we have over our choices, allowing Calvinists to read the verses in a more Calvinist way. 

John 3:36 (ESV): "Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life ..."  (But it's not just that they do not obey, as if they were one of the non-elect, forced/created to "not obey"; it's that they "refused to obey/believe," meaning that they rejected a legitimate offer/chance to obey/believe.)

1 Peter 2:7-8 (ESV): "So this honor is for you who believe, but for those who do not believe, 'The stone that the builders rejected has now become the cornerstone,' and 'A stone of stumbling, and a rock of offense.'  They stumble because they disobey the word, as they were destined to do."  [It would be so much less Calvinistic to say "but for those who refuse to believe" and "because they refuse to obey the word."  And yet that's what it should be!  Note: While Calvinists might say that this verse means the people were destined to disobey because they were non-elect, I think there are two other, better, more biblical ways to read this.  First option: It's not that they were destined to disobey as if they were non-elect; it's that there were destined to stumble because they disobeyed, because they rejected Jesus, the cornerstone.  Here's how the KJV ends verse 8: "... even to them which stumble at the word, being disobedient: whereunto also they were appointed."  Maybe others won't agree but, to me, the KJV shows that they are destined to stumble because they are disobedient, whereas the ESV makes it sound like they were destined to disobey and stumble.  I think it makes more sense to say that all those who choose to live in disobedience, to reject Jesus, are going to (appointed/destined to) stumble, not that God destines certain people to be disobedient, which would turn Him into an unjust, untrustworthy God.  Second option: This verse is a reference specifically to the Jews who rejected Jesus.  God foreknew they would reject Jesus, and He allowed them to be destined for that end, working their self-chosen unbelief into His redemptive plans.  Both of these still support free-will and personal responsibility.]

Acts 14:2 (ESV): "But the unbelieving Jews stirred up the Gentiles and poisoned their minds against the brothers."  (More accurately: "But the Jews who refused to believe ...") 

1 Peter 3:20 (ESV): "because they formerly did not obey God ..."  (No, they "refused to obey God.")

1 Peter 4:17 (ESV): "For it is time for judgment to begin at the household of God; and if it begins with us, what will be the outcome for those who do not obey the gospel of God?"  ("... for those who refuse to obey the gospel of God?")

Hebrews 3:18 (ESV): "And to whom did he swear that they would not enter his rest, but to those who were disobedient?"  ("... to those who refused to obey?")

Romans 10:21 (ESV): "But of Israel he says, 'All day long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.'"  (Not just "disobedient," but "those who refused to obey.")  

Romans 2:8 (ESV): "but for those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness, there will be wrath and fury."  ("... for those who refuse to obey the truth!"  In Calvinism, the non-elect do not obey the truth because it was never possible for them to obey the truth.  But as the Greek says, it's that they refused to obey the truth, meaning that it was possible for them to obey the truth but that they rejected it.  There are no non-elect people who are predestined to hell with no chance of believing or being saved.  There are only those who had the chance to believe and be saved but rejected it.)

What a difference "refused to" makes!  And no wonder the ESV leaves it out.  All those missing "refused to's," all those "who did not believe" (verb) changed to "unbelievers" (noun), all those "who believed" (verb) changed to "believers" (noun) make the ESV a lot more Calvinistic than a Bible translation has any right to be!  

I'm just sayin'.



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. 

Most Popular Posts Of The Month:

List of Calvinist Preachers, Authors, Theologians, Websites, etc.

I  found a lot more names to add to my list of known Calvinists (found in my various "How to Tell if a Church, Pastor, or Website is Calvinist" posts).  [FYI: I added a note at the bottom of this post on May 5, 2021.]    And so here it is, a "master list" of known Calvinists to help you be careful and discerning about who you listen to and where you get your theology from.  There are plenty more Calvinists out there, but these are just the names that I ran across the most.   These are either definite, self-professed Calvinists or "most likely Calvinists," in my estimation.  (I haven't heard of most of them, but it's good to know their theology before I do.)   After finding these names in various places online, I looked up each person to see if they are Calvinist.  If they did not self-identify as a Calvinist, I tried to figure it out based on the statements of faith of the groups/churches they belong to, the books they write, the things they say o
Read more

Why Is Calvinism So Dangerous? (re-updated)

Image
Because it  appears  to teach biblical truth while actually teaching  the opposite  - while using  manipulation and cult-like tactics to suck you in!  And it's spreading.  Stealthily, fast, aggressively. (We watched it happen firsthand in our church, which is why I wrote this blog.  See  "What's the best way to make people agree with your Calvinist views?"    Sadly, we ended up  leaving that church , a place we attended almost 20 years.) [ I updated this November 2022 to try to shorten it.  I failed.  But I hope it's more readable and streamlined at least.   If you only read one anti-Calvinism post of mine, I think it should be this one.  But I'm warning you, this post is long.  Very long.  So pack a lunch and bring a sleeping bag.  But it has to be long because Calvinism is so deceptively convoluted that it takes time to peel off the layers so that you can see it for what it really is.  My hope is that with this one long post, I can show the deceptiveness of
Read more

Is The ESV (English Standard Version) a Calvinist Bible?

Just in case anyone missed this post (the longer title made it easy to miss the "ESV" part) ... "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And "Is The ESV a Calvinist Bible?") In that post, I write about a bunch of verses that I believe were intentionally translated to be more Calvinistic or based on manuscripts that were too corrupt to be trusted (click on it to see the verses).   And why would I think that the translators of this Bible version would do that? (From that post...) The ESV and ESV Study Bible are majorly preferred by Calvinists.  In fact, it's often considered "The Calvinist Bible."   Why?  And why would translators of a Bible make these kinds of Calvinist tweaks to Scripture? Wayne Grudem and J.I. Packer were editors on the  ESV Study Bible   (this is for the ESV Global Study Bible).  Grudem and Packer are both popular, strong, dogmatic Calvinists.  Very Big Names in the world of Calvinism.  Grudem in the General Editor and Packe
Read more

Leaving Calvinism: Comments from Ex-Calvinists #11

Here is the last of the ex-Calvinist testimonies.  The first one is from this post:  X-Calvinist Corner .   (It's an Arminian website, but I am not Arminian.)  I am going to highlight some of the comments that stood out to me the most.  If you want to read everything that everyone said, click on the link above: Dana Steele writes: I grew up in a Calvinistic Baptist church from age 11.  The 5-points of Calvinism (TULIP) were taught regularly with great enthusiasm ... But it wasn’t until college that I began to understand and embrace the “Doctrines of Grace” and TULIP more fully....  I also learned to love the doctrine of election because it meant that God loved me personally and specifically in a unique way.  Though it made me a little embarrassed to think that God did not love everyone this way, I was content to leave this as a mystery.  Who am I to question God?  I was just glad I was one of the lucky (I mean chosen) ones. ... [As A Calvinist]   I had developed a sense of theologi
Read more

The Cult of Calvinism

Here are links to a few posts that reveal the cult-like side of Calvinism: "Why Calvinism is a Cult" "Calvinism is a Counterfeit Christian Cult" "Calvinism, Cults, and Control" I left a comment at Hoppers Crossing Christian Church about their post "Calvinism, Cults, and Control."  I will also print my comment here for your information: I was reading your post "Calvinism, Cults, and Control" (2/02/20) and so much of what you said fits the Calvinist church we recently left.  Here are some of the cult-like things that happened after a Calvinist pastor took over our non-Calvinist church: 1.   From the beginning, he started laying the groundwork that disagreement with him (about his Calvinist view of predestination and God's sovereignty, in particular) was not allowed and that anyone who did disagree with him was unhumble and disagreeing with God.   Things like (paraphrases): "Humble people have no problem with God's sovereignty
Read more

As evil as it gets: Calvinism on babies and the unreached

Image
[A.k.a: Snippets to Ponder, part 4 (#19-20).  This is such a long "snippet" - too many horrific quotes, couldn't resist adding them - that I decided to just make it a whole post.  (I might break this down into smaller pieces in future posts.)  Topics in this post: Calvinism, babies, and unreached people. Click here for snippets  part 1 , part 2 , and  part 3 .] #19: Calvinist comments about babies   [ buckle up, hang on tight, and have a barf-bag ready] : About the suffering and abuse of babies and children:   [ And remember that these are not my words.  These are Calvinist's own words , and so you can see that we are not misrepresenting them or putting words in their mouths.  This is hard stuff to read.  Really hard.  But you need to read it.  To know that they really do teach this garbage.  (And "garbage" is the nice word.  I was gonna use a stronger one.  Oh, yes, I was!  Note: A ll bold emphasis in all quotes has been added by me. )] a.  Gordan H. Clark
Read more

A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And "Is The ESV a Calvinist Bible?")

(For just the "Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible" part of this post, click here .) In my normal Bible reading today, I came across a verse about "singleness vs. marriage" that destroys Calvinism in a few short words: "But the man who has settled the matter in his own mind, who is under no compulsion but who has control over his own will, and who has made up his mind not to marry the virgin - this man also does the right thing."   ( 1 Corinthians 7:37, NIV ) When you get past all the layers Calvinism wraps itself in to disguise the bad parts, it ultimately teaches - at the heart of it all - that God causes/controls  everything , even controlling our wills and causing our sins.  (But He then punishes  us  for the things He caused us to do, which would make Him unjust, no matter how much Calvinists try to deny it and cover it up.  See  this post  for some links about that.)  Calvinism ultimately teaches that everything we do is because God preplanned it, ordai
Read more

How to Tell if a Church, Pastor, or Website is Calvinist (simplified version)

(For the extended version of this post, which I recommend, click here .  It is loaded with lots more information.  This simplified one is just the highlights.  And feel free to copy this and share it with others, to help them learn to identify Calvinism when they see it.  Just make sure to share the link to this blog so that they can find the original post.  Thank you.  New : For the super-short version, click here .  And FYI: I found a couple times when the Calvinist author of an article I linked to changed their article after I linked to it.  So if their article doesn't seem to match what I said about it, it may be because they altered it. ) We just left our church of almost 20 years because of the dogmatic Calvinist pastor who recently came on board.  ( Read my "Letter to Our Elders Regarding Calvinism Growing in Our Church" here.)   And I was thinking about what precautions I might take to make sure we didn't end up in another Calvinist church (that is, whe
Read more

When Calvinism Infiltrates Your Church

A note I recently added to my posts on "How to tell if a Church, Pastor, or Website is Calvinist" : On a personal note : After having seen firsthand how Calvinism stealthily infiltrates and takes over a church, I want to share with you something that Kevin from Beyond the Fundamentals said in the video   "Stealth Calvinism in Oklahoma"  (my paraphrase): "By the time you realize what's going on and start looking up information about Calvinism online, it's too late."   Calvinist pastors who set out to take over non-Calvinist churches are banking on the fact that most people don't know what Calvinism is, giving the pastors plenty of time to weave in Calvinism in sneaky, subtle, tricksy ways before people catch on to (and research) the red flags.  (*See note at bottom about deceptive pastors.)  By that time, too many people in the church have been suckered into Calvinism (without realizing it's called Calvinism), believing that they're just
Read more

The Bible vs. Calvinism: An Overview by Patrick Myers (a great resource)

A friend of mine recently sent me a link to an article that she says is one of the best overviews of Calvinism and its errors that she's read.  And after reading it, I agree.  I think it's a great one to share with others because it's got all the basics in one place: The Bible vs. Calvinism: An Overview by Patrick Myers There are some great rebuttals to Calvinist proof-texts in here, and some eye-opening quotes from Calvinists.  Something like this might help Calvinists understand what their theology really teaches and what the Bible really  teaches - and that these aren't saying the same thing.   FYI: If you click on the "about/contact" link at the bottom of the article, you can send him an email to request a PDF copy of his article.   And after I contacted him by email to tell him how much I appreciated his article, he graciously put a link to my blog at the bottom.  Thank you, Patrick, that was very kind of you. 😊
Read more