From Geneva to Dort.

A brief word on Theodore Beza and the evolution of Calvinist theology.

Pouwels Weyts de Jonge, “Synode van Dordrecht”

One of the most banal assumptions as it pertains to the history of the church is that Genevan reformer John Calvin is responsible for the colloquial acronym TULIP as a means of dispensing key understandings of Protestant doctrine. Despite the ubiquity of this premise, it feigns any honest historical or theological inquiry and proposes an alternative history in its stead. The development of TULIP, and of “Calvinism” in general, was predominantly influenced by the theological evolution of Theodore Beza, Calvin’s vetted successor. While Beza’s theology was unequivocally downstream of his mentor’s prowess, Beza deepened Geneva’s understanding of Calvinist doctrine. In particular, the doctrine of predestination sustained a subtle albeit sizable shift under Beza who repositioned it under the umbrella of theology proper as opposed to his predecessor who kept it tethered to the doctrine of redemption. “This change,” notes Stephen Brett Eccher, “shifted focus away from the benefits of a believer’s union with Christ toward God’s omnipotence manifested through divine determinative decree” (222).

Beza’s Calvinistic evolution was wed to a deterministic understanding of the doctrine of salvation, which proved epochal at the Synod of Dort, at which Calvin’s theological grandchildren sought to quell the discord emanating from the development of Jacob Arminius’s theology. Despite Arminius’s death in 1609, the initiation of the 1618–1619 Dortian conference stemmed from Arminius’s followers maintaining doctrinal positions that ran counter to the orthodox trappings of the Dutch Reformed church. For instance, in contrast to the Calvinistic understanding of election, Arminius endorsed a professedly broader explanation, which held that those who accepted the unconditional gift of salvation as revealed in the person and work of the Son of God were considered the elect of God. This ran counter to Calvinism’s supreme emphasis on God’s soteriological sovereignty, which was further expounded upon by the trustees at Dort who affirmed, “Jesus Christ hath not suffered death, but for those elect only; having neither any intent nor commandment from the Father, to make satisfaction for the sins of the whole world” (Scott, 286).

By the time the delegates assembled at Dort, even though Calvin had been dead for over five decades and Beza for five years, their theological descendants continued to develop the essence of Calvinism, mostly, however, as a reactive measure against its antithesis. Indeed, TULIP itself is less a product of theological maturation as much as it is a corollary of theological retaliation. “The TULIP acronym,” Eccher concludes, “finds its historical expression in relation to the taproot of Arminian theology. Perhaps more paradoxically, the canons of Dort crystalized a Calvinist theology that was distinct from Calvin’s, while branding itself in direct relation to a Reformer who demanded he be buried in an unmarked grave to dissuade theological veneration” (223). Accordingly, while Dortian Calvinism derives its core theological convictions from its namesake, the evolution of Calvinistic theology produced a series of complex and multifaceted doctrinal affirmations that continue to shape and challenge each successive generation of the body of Christ.

Works cited:

Stephen Brett Eccher, “Salvation,” Historical Theology for the Church, edited by Jason G. Duesing and Nathan A. Finn (Nashville, TN: B&H Academic, 2021).

Thomas Scott, translator, The Articles of the Synod of Dort (Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication, 1841).