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 are 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 Packer is the Theological Editor.  And there were other Calvinist contributors and committee members for this Bible and its study notes, such as and at least Schreiner, Ortlund, and Poythress.  And I suspect that Collins and Dennis are Calvinists too, based on the Calvinists they run/write with and the people online who identify their books as "reformed."

(I try to find clear indications that someone calls themselves "reformed" or "Calvinist."  But if I can't find that, I look for phrases they use, people they write with, topics they write about, groups they belong to, and the Statements of Faith of the schools or churches they work at to help me determine if they are "most likely Calvinist."  And from what I can tell, most of the main people who worked on the ESV and ESV Study Bible are definitely or most likely Calvinists.)

When you read the ESV Study Bible notes, you are getting information that has been filtered through the theological views of strong Calvinists.  And so you will be getting a large dose of Calvinism. 

Also, regarding the ESV itself (not the Study Bible), several Calvinists worked on the translation oversight committee, at least and from what I can tell, Packer, Grudem, Hughes, Poythress, Ryken (and once again, possibly Collins and Dennis.  And I am quite sure that Arnold is too, based on the Statement of Faith of the school he worked at.).  

Plus, if you look at the reviews for the ESV, there are many Calvinists who give it a glowing review - at least and from what I can tell, Piper, Sproul, Chandler, Mohler, Platt, Anyabwile, DeYoung, Chappell, Schreiner, Lutzer, etc.  

This is telling.  

I'm not saying the ESV itself, apart from the Study Bible, is an altogether bad translation, just that many Calvinists worked on it, many sing its praises, many hold it up over all the other translations, and a bunch of verses have been changed to be more Calvinistic.  (This, to me, makes it unreliable.)  So be discerning.  

So there you have it: Calvinists helped translate the ESV Bible ... and then Calvinists added the study notes for the ESV Study Bible ... and then Calvinists hold it up as the best version and only version they will use.  

You can't get away from the fact that this Bible is steeped in Calvinism.  

No wonder Calvinists love it so much!


These articles about the ESV Bible might interest you:

ESV Bible Translation Revisions "Potentially Dangerous," Biblical Scholar Warns

The ESV is a Perversion of the Word of God

The Damnable English Standard Version 

            [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 take Genesis or the creation story literally, 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 most accurate - especially when there are significant differences between the translations, such as "Should Acts 8:37 be included in the Bible or not?  Should the Trinity be left out of 1 John 5:7 or not?  Does it matter if 'begotten' is left out?  In Philippians 2:6, did Jesus think it was 'not robbery to be equal with God' (KJV) or did He do the opposite and 'not count equality with God something to be grasped' (ESV, and others like it)?" - 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!  Click here for more on some of the significant differences between translations.]

The Foundation of the ESV

The Fruit of the ESV 

"Why The ESV Translation Changes Matter: Two Things To Consider"  [(NOTE: That link doesn't work anymore, for some reason.  But this one does for now.)  This is about the implications of the ESV changing Genesis 3:16 from "your desire shall be for your husband, and he shall rule over you" to "your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you."  Why such a dramatic change, making it sound like a wife's desires are hardwired to be against her husband but that he will ultimately break her, rule her?  Could this be part of what's behind the pervasive "complementarian" set-up in Calvinist churches?  This article also highlights the audacity of the men who translated the ESV when they declared that it will be the last and permanent version of the ESV, basically saying that there can be and will be no changes made to it from here on out, as if no one could improve on what they did or correct it.  (They have since recanted this decision.  But to me, the damage has been done, as it has exposed the hearts and attitudes of the men who worked on this Bible, many of whom - it not most - are Calvinists.  This should be concerning to all of us in the Church and make us very wary about these men!)]


And for more about the "complementarianism" of Calvinist churches, see:

Calvinism and Complementarianism: A Response to Kevin DeYoung

The Actual 4 Dangers of Complementarianism: A Response to the Gospel Coalition

Is there a Calvinist-Complementarian Connection?

Recovering From Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (Apparently, the original article on this topic that I linked to was removed, so I will link to this one instead.  And here's another one: "John Piper's Advice for Women in the Workforce.")

[Now click on this link to my post where I share verses I found in the ESV that I think were deliberately translated to be more Calvinistic.]