Simpleton Luke
Puritan Board Freshman
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.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
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?