The Calvinist ESV: Romans 5:17-18

#86 in "The Calvinist ESV" series, from the long post "A Random Verse That Destroys Calvinism (And 'Is the ESV a Calvinist Bible'?)":

#86: I recently asked a Calvinist if he thought the first “all men” in Romans 5:18 was “every individual,” but if the second “all men” was “the elect only.”  And how could he change the definition of “all” mid-verse?  Because I think that when the Bible says Jesus’s death bought eternal life/justification for all men, it means ALL MEN (all people), and that we choose to accept or reject it.

He quoted the ESV, Romans 5:17-18: “For if, because of one man’s trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ.  Therefore, as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men.”

And then he tried to tell me, basically, that verse 17 specifies that “life” is only for those who receive grace/righteousness – the elect.  (By “receive” Calvinists mean God injected it into the person, that the person passively acquired it.)  This would mean then, he says, that the “justification and life” in verse 18 is also meant only for the elect, that it was never available to the non-elect.  Therefore, the second “all men” really does mean “just the elect,’ while the first “all men” means “all men”.

I then quoted the KJV: “For if by one man’s offense death reigned by one; much more they which receive abundance of grace and of the gift of righteousness shall reign in life by one, Jesus Christ.)  Therefore as by the offence of one judgment came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one the free gift came upon all men unto justification of life.”

Notice that the proper term is the KJV’s “unto justification of life,” not the ESV’s “justification and life.”  And furthermore, it's the "free gift" of justification leading to life that came upon all men, a gift which must be accepted to be acquired.

And did you notice something else?  Something in the KJV that's not in the ESV?  

In the KJV, there is a "closed parentheses" before verse 18.  Verse 18 is not a continuation of verse 17, as the ESV makes it seem.  The "therefore" in verse 18 is not referring to verse 17, but to verse 12 in the King James, before the parenthetical verses: "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

And notice that nowhere does it say that justification and life were only made available to “the elect.”

[The presupposition Calvinists start out with is that if Jesus really did die for all men, then all men would be saved.  And so, since all men are clearly not saved, it must mean that eternal life was never offered to them, instead of that it was offered but they rejected it.  And then when we non-Calvinists say that Jesus died for all men, they accuse us of being Universalists, of saying that all men will be saved.  Because to them, if Jesus died for you, you WILL BE saved.  They cannot and do not believe that man has the real ability to decide to accept or reject something.  This is a fundamental error that affects the rest of their theology.  They can't see anything past their presuppositions.]

The way I read it, in the KJV and in light of the rest of Scripture, is that Jesus’s death paid for all men’s sins, which bestows the free gift of eternal life on all men, the ability to receive “justification of life” (verse 18), but that only those who receive this free gift will get that eternal life (verse 17).  The gift of salvation, of eternal life, is available to all, but only those who accept it will get it.  

This is why we read in verses such as Romans 5:19 that "so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous."  Calvinists would say that because only "many" - not "all" - are made righteous, it means that salvation was only for "the many" (the elect).  But I believe it says only "many" will be made righteous because only "many" - not all - will accept the gift of eternal life that God offers to all.  The rest of the people choose to reject it.  And so while salvation is offered to all, only those who accept it will receive it and be made righteous.

[Also note that “receive” in the Greek is active, not passive.  It means that the person reaches out and actively takes ahold of what is offered to them.  It does not mean that God injects it into those He pre-picked and that they did nothing to get it but sit there and let God give them faith and make them saved.  It is up to us to reach out and grab ahold of the gift of eternal life that God offers to all men.]   

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.