Calvin & the Calvinists by Paul Helm

by Paul Helm

In this pioneering study Paul Helm shows that the substantial claims that Dr. kendall makes over the alleged theological departured from Calvin, about the realtion between the death and intercession of Christ and the character of saving faith and conversion, cannot be supported from Calvin, but rest on distrotions and misunderstandings. With the onset of the Counter-Reformation and the rise of Arminianism questions had to be faced which Calvin himself did not address. However, the Reformed theologians who tackled these issues did so in ways that were entirely consistent with the thought of Calvin himself.

Genres: Theology, Christianity, Church History, History

Hardcover

First published December 1, 1982

About the author

Paul Helm teached philosophy at the University of Liverpool before becoming Professor of the History and Philosophy of Religion at King s College, London (1993-2000).

Reviews

[Jacob Aitken · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is an early response to the line of argument that said Calvin taught the sweet doctrines of the Reformation until the Puritans came along and ruined it. Paul Helm responds to RT Kendall’s book on Calvinism. While Helm vindicates Calvin, that is secondary in my opinion. The book is a fine, short read and gives helpful ways of thinking about Christ’s work.

Unity of Christ’s work of intercession and death.

The question of the hour: Did Calvin teach Limited Atonement? Kendall takes Calvin’s silence as a “no.” Helm rebuts by showing what the atonement actually means for Calvin. It produces actual remission (Helm 13).

We are going to jump ahead and examine a claim by Kendall: Christ died for all but intercedes for the elect. Helm points out that such a view means Christ’s death wasn’t enough. The efficacy had to be completed by his intercession. But this is not what Calvin said: Christ discharged all satisfaction by his death (Inst. II.xvi.6). If that’s true, then what remains to be accomplished by his intercession (Helm 43)?

The Christian and Conversion

Kendall said that Calvin saw faith as God’s act; it is passive. The Puritans saw faith as man’s act, and Kendall quotes Inst. III.13.5 for proof of the former. Helm, however, shows that Kendall moves too quickly. Calvin said in that passage that faith as regards justification is passive, but not faith simpliciter.

The final problem Kendall has with the Puritans is their emphasis on “preparationism.” He sees them as proto-Arminians, as though man can prepare himself to be saved. But this isn’t what the Puritans meant. They denied man could prepare himself, but they affirmed that man could find himself in a state of being prepared (that is, by using means such as hearing the Word, etc.).

Conclusion

I read this book in about an hour. It is short and clear. Highly recommended.

[James Ritchey · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was my second time through this book. Paul Helm very helpfully demonstrates the unity of Calvin and the Westminster Standards.

[Josiah Richardson · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is the epitome of what theologians did before the internet was around. If someone wrote something you disagreed with, you just wrote a book in response to it. In this case, Paul Helm is responding to R.T. Kendall's work "Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649" in which Kendall posits that there is a distinct and noticable difference between that which Calvin believed and taught that that which the puritans believed and taught, specifically on topics like the meaning of the death of Christ, assurance, the intercession of Christ, and conversion. Helm summarizes his own work, and I will now summarize that summary.

1. Kendall argued that Calvin believed that Christ died for all men but only intercedes for the elect. Helm shows that Calvin and the puritans were in full agreement on limited atonement.

2. Kendall argued that assurance must be present in order for there to be true salvation (lest one fall away). Helm showed that the puritans and Calvin were in unison that assurance is not a guaranteed outcome of salvation, though it certainly is a desirable outcome.

3. Kendall argued that Calvin and the puritans tried to put down rules that all Christians must conform to in their salvation experience. But in truth, as Helm shows, they both taught that conversion typically goes through a preparatory period where one is convicted of sin by the preaching of the law.

4. Helm again shows the unison between Calvin and the puritans, arguing that upon conversion,the will is renewed by divine grace, eliciting faith and repentance.

5. Lastly, contrary to Kendall, the puritans and Calvin taught that saving grace can only be ascribed to God, and that there is no way that one can merit salvation or ensure that God will grant salvation.

This was a helpful read, if not to know some of the modern theology debates that were happening in the 20th century, then at least to know Calvin and his teachings better.

[James · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this short book for my theology course. It is a great response to R.T Kendall’s ‘Calvin and English Calvinism to 1649’. Kendall argues that Puritanism is a departure from Calvin’s own theology, and that Puritanism verged on Arminianism. Kendall argues that Calvin died for all but intercedes only for the elect.

Helm effectively refutes Kendall’s arguments demonstrating that Calvin’s view was of Christ’s death and intercession as efficacious only for the Elect. Before turning to look at the role of the will and preparation in conversion.

This book accomplished it’s aims but I would have preferred a deeper exploration of the implications of Kendall’s views of Calvin and Puritanism as well as the implications of definite atonement and Calvin’s doctrine of conversion.

[Tony Lee Ross Jr. · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helm successfully (in my opinion) puts to rest the claim that Calvin's followers had changed his message and were essentially "more Calvinist" than Calvin himself. Though I acknowledge that certain followers, such as Theodore Beza were more clear on the calvinist distinctives, to think Calvin was a calvinist seems to be a strange assertion that can't be backed up, as Helm shows.

[Alex Jackson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent at what it sets out to accomplish, which is refuting the claims of chiefly R.T. Kendall that the "Calvinists" who came after Calvin misconstrued him on significant doctrinal points, notably personal faith and assurance, and with their relation to the purpose or "extent" of the atonement by Jesus Christ.

[Tim · Rating 4 out of 5]

Helm's book addresses the question, "are Calvinists (especially seventeenth-century Puritans) more Calvinists than John Calvin?" The author does a yeoman's work at dismissing this train of thought.

Do not let this monograph mislead you. Though it is a short book, it is by no means an easy ready. I found the arguments difficult to follow at times but a worthwhile read all the same.

[Michael Abraham · Rating 4 out of 5]

Was Calvin a Calvinist? Yes.

[David Griffin · Rating 4 out of 5]

On the surface this book deals with an apparently dry historical thesis. However this book is about extremely practical Christian issues: Can you be sure you're a real Christian? what did Jesus' cross achieve for his people? Recommended.

[Gary · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good as an introduction to this old debate and quite convincing on Calvin's doctrine of the atonement. Obviously with so much written since there are areas where Helm could now improve his work. But really good stuff.

Liked it a lot.