In the Geneva Catechism of 1545, Calvin indicates that baptism is a figure, but a figure that, for believers, has the “reality. Calvin spoke of a “general election” of the visible church, as well as a “special election” of the invisible. The same Calvin who taught double predestination cited, at the beginning of Book 4 of the Institutes, the patristic axiom that we cannot have God as our Father unless we have the church as our mother.

This is not, as I see it, the original vision of Calvin, who combined a strong emphasis on God’s absolute decree with a high doctrine of the church. What matters is that I’m joined mystically to Christ, not that I feed on bread and wine at His table. What matters is that I’ve been baptized by the Holy Spirit, not whether or not I’ve been baptized in water. For certain tributaries in the stream of Reformed theology, the only thing that matters is that my name is on the list of those elected by God’s absolute decree, not whether I’m on any membership list of a church. A central contention of the “Federal Vision” position is that Reformed theology, with its strong doctrine of God’s sovereignty and absolute election, has sometimes neglected the significance of the visible church, its ministries, and its sacraments. I believe the core dispute has to do with nature and importance of what Reformed theologians call the “visible church,” the universal body of believers organized in empirical local communities. What is the “Federal Vision” or “Auburn Avenue” dispute about? Partly, it’s about theology.

Pete james vienna presbyterian church