Credo-Baptism Answers Why not allow infant-baptized Christians to the Lord's Table?

[Simpleton Luke]

The ironic thing about fencing the table discussions is that Jesus allowed Judas to partake of the Last Supper.

"And he took bread, and when he had given thanks, he broke it and gave it to them, saying, “This is my body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” 20 And likewise the cup after they had eaten, saying, “This cup that is poured out for you is the new covenant in my blood. 21 But behold, the hand of him who betrays me is with me on the table. 22 For the Son of Man goes as it has been determined, but woe to that man by whom he is betrayed!” - Luke 22:19-22 ESV

It's interesting that Judas was admitted to the Table despite Christ knowing his foreordained position as the "son of destruction." I think, because Judas was a member of that 'visible church' of disciples and other followers, he was therefore admitted to the Table.
I'm not sure how the presbyterian tradition exactly explains "fencing the table," but it seems to me that 1 Cor 11:27-32 is a call to the individual to examine himself, rather than a command to churches to bar particular individuals from the Table based on non-salvific issues. If there is a responsibility on the part of the provider to withhold the Supper from those who are unworthy, then would Christ be guilty of something? Obviously, he admitted Judas to that initial supper for a reason, and Judas ate and drank judgment on himself in his unworthy participation in the body of Christ both on the church level and table level.
My question then is this; Do you believe that it is possible for those children of God who are of true faith to eat and drink judgment on themselves? Would you Baptist churches, considering Christ's admittance of Judas, go on to say that it is the responsibility of the local body to bar confessing believers from participation based on some secondary issue?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I'd like to point out that it is far from settled that Judas was actually present for the Lord's Supper.

The account in Luke is not necessarily chronological, and the account in Matthew taken together with the account in John, seem to indicate that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was post-meal, and Judas had already departed before Christ formally instituted the supper.

 

[Simpleton Luke]

I'd like to point out that it is far from settled that Judas was actually present for the Lord's Supper.

The account in Luke is not necessarily chronological, and the account in Matthew taken together with the account in John, seem to indicate that the celebration of the Lord's Supper was post-meal, and Judas had already departed before Christ formally instituted the supper.

I would have figured that Luke's gospel would contain the account we look to for chronology rather than Mark and certainly rather than Matthew, who appears to be the most comfortable with rearranging the chronology of a particular account for the sake of narrative (see Jairus' daughter)
If it turns out that Luke's happens to be the chronological account, and Judas were admitted to the Lord's Table, do you think this would have implications against your church's practice?

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

I would have figured that Luke's gospel would contain the account we look to for chronology rather than Mark and certainly rather than Matthew, who appears to be the most comfortable with rearranging the chronology of a particular account for the sake of narrative (see Jairus' daughter)

I don't know why we would necessarily assume Luke's accounts are chronological here, when they are demonstrably NOT chronological elsewhere.

If it turns out that Luke's happens to be the chronological account, and Judas were admitted to the Lord's Table,

How exactly are you envisioning that this would "turn out"? We're not likely to discover previously hidden information that will make our estimation of the chronological nature of Luke's gospel more clear.

do you think this would have implications against your church's practice?

I don't see why it would. My church's practice already is to generally allow anyone who is a baptized member of a gospel preaching church and not under church discipline to come to the Lord's Table (after speaking to the Elders and getting the "ok").

 

[TheInquirer]

I'd like to point out that it is far from settled that Judas was actually present for the Lord's Supper.

Not sure how someone could possibly read that Luke passage and determine it is out of order (unless they need it to be out of order to support their doctrinal view).

 

[Simpleton Luke]

I don't know why we would necessarily assume Luke's accounts are chronological here, when they are demonstrably NOT chronological elsewhere.



How exactly are you envisioning that this would "turn out"? We're not likely to discover previously hidden information that will make our estimation of the chronological nature of Luke's gospel more clear.



I don't see why it would. My church's practice already is to generally allow anyone who is a baptized member of a gospel preaching church and not under church discipline to come to the Lord's Table (after speaking to the Elders and getting the "ok").

Despite the reality that all things will "turn out" to be factual or not, (that is, in glory) this was intended to be hypothetical, I was curious why you would posit that Luke's account might be out of order.
Sorry for the confusion, my question was half in reference to your post (#11) when you said that baptism was necessary for Communion, and infant baptism did not qualify. This implied to me that you (or your church) would argue the barring of infant-baptized Christians from the Table.
Maybe I can rephrase my question- Would you agree, should Luke's account be true that Judas was admitted to the Lord's Supper, that our attitude towards admittance to the Table should be that of liberality rather than of fencing, church discipline aside?

 

[No Other Name]

I still believe a Biblical argument can be made for baptism after backsliding, but I don’t believe or practice it so I shouldn’t have defended it.

Leaving aside the defense issue here on this forum, this sentence still confuses me. I believe an argument can be made for many things using the Bible, but if the position purports to be using but instead is - in fact - misusing Scripture, then I would not describe such arguments as "Biblical" but rather something else "quasi-Biblical" maybe?

Baptism after backsliding is definitely not a Biblical stance as I understand it.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Not sure how someone could possibly read that Luke passage and determine it is out of order (unless they need it to be out of order to support their doctrinal view).

Because Luke, taken together with Matthew and John, show that the institution of the Lord's Supper was after the meal, and Judas left immediately during the meal. Ergo, he was gone by the time the Supper was instituted.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Despite the reality that all things will "turn out" to be factual or not, (that is, in glory) this was intended to be hypothetical, I was curious why you would posit that Luke's account might be out of order.

Because it appears to be at odds with the flow of the account given in Matthew and John.

Sorry for the confusion, my question was half in reference to your post (#11) when you said that baptism was necessary for Communion, and infant baptism did not qualify. This implied to me that you (or your church) would argue the barring of infant-baptized Christians from the Table.

As I said in Post #34, my view is not my church's view.

*I* would not permit infant sprinkled persons to become members of my church, and *I* would not permit non-members to take communion in my church. But I do not set policy for my church, and I am a person who believes in the authority of Elders to make such determinations and I have no desire to disturb the peace of the church in order to have my own way on this matter.

Maybe I can rephrase my question- Would you agree, should Luke's account be true that Judas was admitted to the Lord's Supper, that our attitude towards admittance to the Table should be that of liberality rather than of fencing, church discipline aside?

No.

 

[requested deletion member 13777]

Leaving aside the defense issue here on this forum, this sentence still confuses me. I believe an argument can be made for many things using the Bible, but if the position purports to be using but instead is - in fact - misusing Scripture, then I would not describe such arguments as "Biblical" but rather something else "quasi-Biblical" maybe?

Baptism after backsliding is definitely not a Biblical stance as I understand it.

I've already foolishly fallen into the error of defending a position I don't agree with, so I don't want to do it again. However, I will say that I've heard others in my circles argue this position from Acts 19:4-5. They also argued that the Bible does not explicitly say that it is wrong to water baptize more than once.

My point is not that it is Biblical (I don't believe that it is). My point is that those who advocate for it are (In my experience) doing it while citing Scripture as their authority for such a practice. As I said, "I believe a Biblical argument can be made", that doesn't mean i'm making it.

I know someone is going to say, "So do Arians!" or "so did Pelagius!" (etc. etc.). True of course, but unlike those cases, these are otherwise orthodox Christians disagreeing about a secondary issue. My point is that I don't believe we should dismiss those holding such a view as just preferring tradition over Scripture. We all allow tradition to affect our interpretation of Scripture to greater and lesser degrees whether we know it or not.

As an illustration, I also believe paedo-baptism is completely unbiblical, but I understand the Biblical argument that is made in defense of it. Because of this, I'm not going to argue that those who advocate for it are simply choosing tradition over Scripture. That's the trap we need to avoid unless it really is true (e.g. Rome). Bible-believing Christians disagree on many different things, while still citing Scripture as their authority.

 

[No Other Name]

I've already foolishly fallen into the error of defending a position I don't agree with, so I don't want to do it again. However, I will say that I've heard others in my circles argue this position from Acts 19:4-5. They also argued that the Bible does not explicitly say that it is wrong to water baptize more than once.

My point is not that it is Biblical (I don't believe that it is). My point is that those who advocate for it are (In my experience) doing it while citing Scripture as their authority for such a practice. As I said, "I believe a Biblical argument can be made", that doesn't mean i'm making it.

I know someone is going to say, "So do Arians!" or "so did Pelagius!" (etc. etc.). True of course, but unlike those cases, these are otherwise orthodox Christians disagreeing about a secondary issue. My point is that I don't believe we should dismiss those holding such a view as just preferring tradition over Scripture. We all allow tradition to affect our interpretation of Scripture to greater and lesser degrees whether we know it or not.

As an illustration, I also believe paedo-baptism is completely unbiblical, but I understand the Biblical argument that is made in defense of it. Because of this, I'm not going to argue that those who advocate for it are simply choosing tradition over Scripture. That's the trap we need to avoid unless it really is true (e.g. Rome). Bible-believing Christians disagree on many different things, while still citing Scripture as their authority.

Thank you. That clarified your sentence for me very well. This was well written.

 

[Simpleton Luke]

No.

Could you please explain? If we were to assume that Luke is chronologically consistent here, I'm actually and earnestly interested in why you would lean against liberality of admittance. I'm assuming you are making this decision based on something other than the Judas Passover passages, and I'm curious of what you think on the issue.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

Could you please explain? If we were to assume that Luke is chronologically consistent here, I'm actually and earnestly interested in why you would lean against liberality of admittance. I'm assuming you are making this decision based on something other than the Judas Passover passages, and I'm curious of what you think on the issue.

Judas was a "legally" baptized person (presumably) who (outwardly) professed faith in Christ and was not (at that time) under any kind of "church discipline". That's all I would ask of people who want to take the Lord's Supper.

Christ could see into Judas's heart, but we can't see into anyone's, so we go off what we know.

But this is academic, because I don't personally believe Judas was present at the Supper anyway and I am not sure that anyone is ever going to be able to bring up new facts that aren't already available that would change my opinion.

 

[Simpleton Luke]

Judas was a "legally" baptized person (presumably) who (outwardly) professed faith in Christ and was not (at that time) under any kind of "church discipline". That's all I would ask of people who want to take the Lord's Supper.

Christ could see into Judas's heart, but we can't see into anyone's, so we go off what we know.

Ahh I see. Thanks for taking the time to engage with my question, I'd say your answer is generally consistent with what I heard from the SBC pastors and helps me to see where you're coming from.

 

[SeanPatrickCornell]

You're welcome!