BAPTISM AS A PREREQUISITE FOR ADMISSION TO THE LORD’S TABLE
THE JOURNEY CHURCH
Introduction
Historically, the church has recognized two lasting ordinances that should be regularly observed—baptism and the Lord’s Supper—the signs and seals of the New Covenant. Both are markers that identify Christians as those who belong to Christ. Baptism is the entry point into the Christian life. The Lord’s Supper is the ongoing testimony of our union with Christ.
While disagreement abounds concerning the nature and frequency of which the Lord’s Supper should be observed, the focus of this paper concerns who is permitted at the Lord’s table. Traditionally, there are three views—open, close, and closed. Open communion advocates assert that the table is open for all who desire to come. Closed communion advocates believe the elements should be restricted to the church’s membership. The author of this work will argue that churches should practice close communion.
Proponents of close communion contend that the Lord’s table is open to everyone who has repented of their sins, trusted in Christ alone for salvation, obediently followed Him in baptism and are in good standing with a biblical church. This position is in line with Scripture, Christian tradition, and the doctrinal statement of our denomination, The Southern Baptist Convention:
“Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer’s faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer’s death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord’s Supper.”
To argue this position, the paper will first define the Lord’s Supper biblically and theologically. It will then become apparent from the definition itself why the thesis stands. The thesis will be further defended as it is then unpacked point by point and finally compared and contrasted with the two opposing views (open and closed communion).
To state the thesis again clearly, it is our contention that the Lord’s table is open to everyone who has repented of their sins, trusted in Christ alone for salvation, obediently followed Him in baptism and are in good standing with a biblical church. To unpack this thesis, we must first define the Lord’s Supper.
What is the Lord’s Supper?
On the night before our Lord was crucified, He ate the annual Passover Meal with His disciples (Matthew 26:17-25). The Passover meal celebrated and remembered how the Lord delivered His people from Egypt during the days of Moses and the Exodus. In those days, the Lord commanded His people to sacrifice and consume a lamb. Its blood was to be shed upon the doorpost, and all those who were covered by the blood of the lamb were spared (passed over) when the angel of death entered the land striking down the firstborn (Exodus 12).
Jesus ate the final Passover meal with His disciples and immediately transition to the first communion (Matthew 26:26-29). The reason it was the final Passover is because this great Old Testament act of Redemption has now been superseded and replaced by an even greater act of salvation accomplished by our Lord—the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Consider our Lord’s words as they shared the meal.
“And as they were eating, he took bread, and after blessing it broke it and gave it to them, and said, “Take; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, and they all drank of it. And he said to them, “This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many. Truly, I say to you, I will not drink again of the fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new in the kingdom of God.” (Mark 14:22-25; cf. Matthew 26:26-29, Luke 22:14-23, 1st Corinthians 11:23-26).
The Lord’s Supper consists of bread and wine. Believers are to share this meal, having given thanks, in remembrance of Jesus’ sacrifice. The cup represents His blood. The bread represents His body. Many Christians have seen this as a sign, seal and display of the salvific work and the covenant ratified by Jesus’ blood.
Sign
Jesus took the bread and said, ““Take, eat; this is my body.” And he took a cup, and when he had given thanks he gave it to them, saying, “Drink of it, all of you, for this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.” As Protestants we must say that we don’t believe the bread really becomes the body of Jesus nor can we affirm that the cup becomes His blood. Christians may debate between consubstantiation, real presence, or a strict memorialist view of communion, but such a debate is beyond the scope of this paper. Nevertheless, it must at least be established that the bread and cup represent the cross work of Jesus Christ. Faith in the shed blood of Jesus is how one is redeemed and receives the forgiveness of sins (Eph. 1:7). It is also how one becomes a member of the New Covenant and the body of Christ. We are saved by faith in the blood of Jesus. It stands to reason, therefore, that when Christians observe communion, it is a sign that we belong to this covenant. When we consume the bread and cup, we are renewing our identification with Christ and the share we have in the New Covenant.
Seal
It is also a seal. Keith Mathison is helpful here. “What does it mean to say that the Lord’s Supper “seals” the benefits of Christ’s mediation? Paul, in Romans 4:11, speaks of Abraham’s circumcision as “a seal of the righteousness that he had by faith while he was still uncircumcised.” The context indicates that circumcision was a seal in the sense that it confirmed the reality of the thing signified, namely, the righteousness Abraham had by faith. Circumcision authenticated it. Similarly, the Lord’s Supper is a seal in the sense that it confirms and authenticates the promise of God regarding the reality of the benefits received by those who partake of the supper in faith. It indicates that the supper is no mere empty ceremony.”
Display
Finally, the Lord’s Supper displays. That is, it displays the gospel. The gathered church should read, pray, sing, and preach the word of God and gospel of Jesus Christ, but it should also see the gospel, and it does so in the Lord’s Supper. The Apostle Paul made this clear. “As often as you eat this bread and drink the cup, you proclaim the Lord's death until he comes” (1 Corinthians 11:26). Communion, then, is a visible display of Christ’s saving work.
In summary, the Lord’s Supper is an ordinance given by Jesus to His church to be observed regularly by autonomous local churches. When believers gather for worship, and the leaders speak the word of God over the elements, having explained their meaning, they then administer the Lord’s Supper to God’s people. The Supper, then, is a sign, seal, and display of Christ’s saving benefits and our participation therein.
Who should take the Lord’s Supper?
Now, the thesis can be unpacked and defended. Once again, the Lord’s table is open to everyone who has repented of their sins, trusted in Christ alone for salvation, obediently followed Him in baptism and is in good standing with a biblical church.
Repentance and Faith
Repentance and faith are the first pre-requisites for admission to the Lord’s table. One must be in the covenant to take upon himself the sign, seal, and display of that covenant. Admission into the covenant requires repentance from sin and faith in the Lord Jesus Christ (Mark 1:14-15).
It should be obvious, therefore, that unbelievers—those who have not repented of their sins and trusted Christ—are not welcome to the Lord’s Table. Jesus explicitly said this is the cup of the covenant. Unbelievers aren’t in the covenant. After the apostles received the elements, our Lord told them, “I tell you I will not drink again of this fruit of the vine until that day when I drink it new with you in my Father's kingdom.” The next time He shares this meal with His followers will be in His Father’s Kingdom. Unbelievers will not be in the Kingdom. Furthermore, communion represents Christ’s blood poured out for the forgiveness of sins (Matthew 26:28). Unbelievers, by definition, have not received the forgiveness of sins. Therefore, the Supper is meaningless to them.
The writer assumes these arguments are sufficient to establish the point that given the nature of the Lord’s Supper—that it is to remember the salvific work of Jesus Christ—and by receiving such elements they take upon themselves the sign, seal, and display of His saving benefits—that unbelievers have no right to observe such a sacred meal.
Therefore, only members of the New Covenant—those who have repented of their sins and trusted Christ alone for salvation—should take communion—the sign, seal, and display of the covenant.
Baptized
This brings us to the next point in our thesis. The Lord’s table is open to believers who have obediently followed the Lord in baptism. To be clear, one should not be welcome to the Lord’s table if he or she has not followed through in obedience to be baptized (Matthew 28:18-20).
One consistent objection to this position is that if you bar non-baptized Christians from the table, you are withholding communion from genuine followers of Jesus. Some may even claim that doing so is legalistic and contrary to the desires of Christ. The heart of this refutation is that communion is for Christians and being baptized doesn’t make one a Christian. Faith in Christ does.
While justification is by faith alone, the NT apostles would not have had a category for an unbaptized Christian. If the Apostle Paul or Peter, for example, would have been confronted with an individual who claimed to believe in Jesus, but had yet to be baptized, not only would they have rejected such a claim. They would have been confused by such an assertion.
When Peter was asked how one should respond to the gospel, he “said to them, “Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.” (Acts 2:37-38). Either Peter was teaching baptismal regeneration (which we deny), or he understood baptism to be the response of faith. To state it another way, one’s confession of faith in Jesus is their baptism. To claim you have professed faith in Christ but haven’t been baptized is to misunderstand the purpose of baptism and what it means to believe in Jesus. Faith is personal, but it is not private. Baptism is the official declaration of one’s faith.
Perhaps this is why Peter would later write, “Baptism…now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21). Again, Peter is not teaching baptismal regeneration, but he also did not separate the response of faith from baptism, which in this text is “an appeal to God for a good conscience.” Baptism and our confession of faith are one in the same.
Consider Romans 6:3-4 and Tom Schreiner’s comments on the text. “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might walk in newness of life” (Romans 6:3-4). Schreiner adds, “To say that those who are baptized have died with Christ is just another way of saying that all Christians have died with Christ. There was not a serious problem, as there is today, with Christians being unbaptized in the NT period. We are asking the wrong question, therefore, if we ask whether Spirit or water baptism is in view in Rom. 6:3-4. Other Pauline texts suggest that water baptism and reception of the Spirit occurred at conversion. In my judgment Paul would have been initially puzzled if we asked him, “Do you mean Spirit or water baptism in these verses?” He would reply, when he understood the question, “both.”
Therefore, that a church requires one to be baptized before receiving the Lord’s Supper is no different than a church requiring that one repent and believe first, because repentance and faith are evidenced in baptism.
Furthermore, baptism is the entry point into the Christian life and communion is the ongoing testimony that we belong to Christ. Baptism occurs once (Eph. 4:5), but communion is repeated. The purpose for this is found in the nature of the two signs. Baptism is the initiation into the New Covenant. Communion is the consistent renewal of those covenant vows. In baptism, we are immersed into Christ. In communion, we proclaim the Lord’s death until He comes.
It is preposterous, therefore, to take the ongoing sign having not received the initial sign. You cannot demonstrate your renewal to the covenant if you have never demonstrated your initiation into said covenant. If you have not been united to Christ in baptism, how can you then remember His sacrifice on your behalf?
In Good Standing with a Biblical Church
This brings us to the final aspect of our thesis. To properly receive communion, one must also be in good standing with a biblical church. Space will not permit a detailed definition of a biblical church, but we can begin to narrow down what qualifies as a true, biblical church.
The Reformers would first want to distinguish between a Protestant church and a Roman Catholic Church. We are Protestant. Moving on, then, we would want to ensure that the church is not only Protestant but thoroughly Evangelical, as opposed Protestant liberalism.
Albert Mohler states that: “An evangelical is recognized by a passion for the Gospel of Jesus Christ, by a deep commitment to biblical truth, by a sense of urgency to see lost persons hear the Gospel, and by a commitment to personal holiness and the local church.
A commitment to biblical authority, a passion for the gospel of Jesus Christ, and a firm belief in the Triune God are all necessary markers of a biblical church. The only marks missing from this list, according to the Reformers, are the right administration of the ordinances and discipline. A biblical church properly administers the ordinances of baptism and Lord’s Supper. It also biblically disciplines its members according to Scripture (Matthew 18:15-18, 1st Corinthians 5).
These are the basic marks of a biblical church—a commitment to the authority of Scripture and the preaching thereof, a belief in the gospel of Jesus Christ, a firm conviction and trust in the Triune God, the right administration of the ordinances and church discipline.
This begs the question: why must one be in good standing with a biblical church to take communion? Is it not sufficient for that person to be a baptized believer? The reason one must be in good standing with a biblical church (preferably the one where he or she receives communion) is because barring one from the Lord’s table is the final form of church discipline.
Historically, Baptist churches, when they proceed and complete the formal steps of church discipline with an unrepentant member, and the church excommunicates that member, according to Scripture, the church must treat that person like an unbeliever. This does not mean that the individual isn’t welcome on Sunday morning worship gatherings anymore. Indeed, we desire for all unbelievers to attend our worship services to hear the gospel that they might believe and be saved. The same is true for the excommunicated members. If a member is excommunicated, to treat them as an unbeliever means, among other things, that they should not take the Lord’s Supper since to take the Lord’s Supper identifies one as belonging to the Lord.
The man in 1 Corinthians chapter five serves as a perfect example. This man was sleeping with his father’s wife, and the church was tolerating his sin (5:1-2). For this, Paul was very upset and demanded that the man be put out of the church (V.5:3-5, 9-13). This doesn’t mean he is not allowed to worship on Sundays. But it does mean he is to be removed from membership. Paul instructed the church “to deliver this man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord” (5:5). Jesus said such a person should be treated “as a Gentile and a tax collector” (Matthew 18:17). Paul and Jesus could not have made it any clearer. Unrepentant professors of faith should be put out of the church. But again, this does not mean they are barred from worship. We want them to hear the gospel. Tax collectors and sinners are welcome to worship. But so long as they remain in unbelief and sin, they aren’t welcomed into membership or to the Lord’s table, because those privileges belong to repentant, believing, baptized Christians.
The purpose of this disciplinary practice is restoration. By not allowing the unrepentant member to receive communion, not only are the elders maintaining the purity of the congregation (1st Corinthians 5:6-8), they are helping that person understand that they aren’t a believer and that they need to repent. At the very least, they are a Christian in unrepentant sin. Either way, the table needs to be restricted for the Lord’s glory and the sake of their soul.
Competing Positions
In the paper’s final section, we will now compare the above thesis with two competing positions—open and closed communion. In both sections, both positions will be defined and refuted.
Open Communion
Open communion is defined differently depending on who you ask, but for our purposes here, we will define open communion as allowing anyone to take the Lord’s Supper—even unbelievers—should they desire to do so. Proponents of this view may advocate that communion can be used as a converting ordinance—that is, it may assist in bringing about the salvation of an unbeliever. This was the position held by Jonathan Edward’s father-in-law, Solomon Stoddard. Stoddard “urged all to come [to the table] who were not of scandalous life, though they knew themselves to be unconverted.” If the biblical data supports such an evangelistic approach to the table, this position is attractive—both theologically and practically.
Nevertheless, we must reject open communion on biblical grounds. The Lord’s Table is a ceremony for repentant believers, not unrepentant unbelievers. It is an act in which we remember the sacrifice of Christ on our behalf. It is a celebration of an atonement ordained by the Father, accomplished by the Son, and applied by the Spirit. Unbelievers have no share in the redemptive work of the Triune God. Therefore, they have no place at the Lord’s table. If Paul thought the Corinthians were taking the Lord’s Supper in an unworthy manner for the sin of drunkenness and division (1st Corinthians 11:17-22), how much more unworthy would one be to come to the table in unbelief?
Communion is not a salvific ceremony. It does not transmit salvific grace nor is it a call to initial salvation. It is a time of self-reflection, confession, and repentance, but in the context of the church. The evangelistic call of the gospel is done through preaching and personal evangelism, not the Lord’s Supper.
This is not only the logical outworking of the ordinance, but the Lord’s Supper also is what makes the invisible church visible. Israel was marked out by ethnicity and borders. The church is set apart from the world by her confession in baptism and at the Lord’s Supper. We dare not blend those lines for when we do the necessity of missions is compromised and the glory of God is defamed.
Closed Communion
The final aspect that needs to be defined and discussed is closed communion. Typically, closed communion is defined as only allowing members of the church to take communion. If this were the practice of TJC, then only members of TJC would be allowed to receive the Lord’s Supper.
This position has merits and deserves consideration. The purpose behind this practice is healthy. Elders are responsible for the members in their care (Hebrews 13:17). They are also responsible for how they handle the word of God—this includes the administration of the Lord’s Supper. Therefore, to ensure that the elders are administering the elements with biblical integrity, the closed communion position allows members only to the table, because they alone have been vetted by the elders. To their knowledge, the members of the church have repented, believed, been baptized and are not currently under church discipline; thus, making them qualified to receive the Supper. The elders cannot, however, be so sure about professing believers who visit their church. Therefore, they withhold the Supper from such individuals to protect participants and their own conscience.
TJC does not practice closed communion for two reasons. One, we don’t want to bar the Lord’s people from the table who might be visiting from another church. If Christians visit, they have every right to dine with us at the Lord’s Table. Furthermore, elders can fence the table in a different but just as effective way through their words. If instructions are given each Sunday concerning who is allowed to the table and why, the decision to take the Supper should be made by the recipient. Having received biblical instructions, it is the recipient’s responsibility to eat and drink in a worthy manner.
If this practice concerns the closed communion adherent, the same apprehensions could be raised about closed communion. No elder can see the heart, and it is within the realm of possibility that an unrepentant believer (who appears to be in good standing with the Lord and church) approaches the table weekly only to eat and drink condemnation on him or herself. It is sufficient to fence the table with biblical instruction instead of formal restriction.
Conclusion
The Lord’s Supper is an important matter and who receives the elements is a vital question. Given the nature and substance of the Lord’s Supper, as defined in Scripture, it logically follows that the Lord’s table is open to everyone who has repented of their sins, trusted in Christ alone for salvation, obediently followed Him in baptism and is in good standing with a biblical church.