Christ gave two ordinances to the church. The first is the ordinance of baptism. According to Baptist belief, baptism should only occur once a person has accepted Jesus Christ as Savior and submitted to His lordship. The act of baptism is not salvific but symbolizes the salvation the recipient has already experienced. It identifies the believer with Christ in depicting Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection. It is also the believer’s entrance into the membership of a local church. For instance, when I was six years old, I accepted Christ and was baptized into Mary Niblack Road Baptist Church of Ardmore, Oklahoma. If you have accepted Christ and been baptized, you were baptized by a local church into their membership. Baptists hold that there is only one baptism; therefore, transferring from one church to another does not require another baptism. Typically, churches have a system of accepting letters from churches of like beliefs. Baptism is a one-time action. 

The ordinance of the Lord’s Supper, also called Communion, is closely tied with the doctrine of baptism. The Lord’s Supper is the continual reminder of Christ’s atonement on the cross. After instructing the church at Corinth on the manner of conducting the Lord’s Supper, the apostle Paul wrote to them about the importance of the ordinance.

“Therefore, whoever eats the bread or drinks the cup of the Lord in an unworthy way will be guilty of sin against the body and blood of the Lord. So a man should examine himself; in this way he should eat the bread and drink from the cup. For whoever eats and drinks without recognizing the body, eats and drinks judgment on himself. This is why many are sick and ill among you, and many have fallen asleep. If we were properly evaluating ourselves, we would not be judged, but when we are judged, we are disciplined by the Lord, so that we may not be condemned with the world” (1 Corinthians 11:27-32).[1]

According to Paul, the proper observance of The Lord’s Supper was a life-or-death situation. People were taking it improperly and dying because of it. Since Scripture indicates that it is of such importance, the contemporary church must ensure proper understanding of the ordinance and the proper observation of the Lord’s Supper.

The Establishment of The Lord’s Supper

Christ instituted the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper in the Last Supper. The three Synoptic Gospels record the Last Supper, which Jesus shared with His disciples the night before His crucifixion. Using the elements of the Passover meal, Jesus explained His atoning death.

“When the hour came, He [Jesus] reclined at the table, and the apostles with Him. Then He said to them, “I have fervently desired to eat this Passover with you before I suffer. For I tell you, I will not eat it again until it is fulfilled in the kingdom of God. Then He took a cup, and after giving thanks, He said, “Take this and share it among yourselves. For I tell you, from now on I will not drink of the fruit of the vine until the kingdom of God comes. And He took bread, gave thanks, broke it, gave it to them, and said, “This is My body, which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of Me.” In the same way He also took the cup after supper and said, “This cup is the new covenant established by My blood; it is shed for you” (Luke 22:14-20).

In this act, the Lord established the ordinance of the Lord’s Supper as a commemoration of the completion of His work on the cross. The purpose of the Lord’s Supper is to remember what Christ accomplished for the believer and celebrate the atonement He performed for the believer.

The Elements of the Lord’s Supper

There have been various views regarding what takes place regarding the elements of the Lord’s Supper. Christ offered the bread as His body and the cup as His blood, but what exactly did He mean? Is this intended to be literal, or is it figurative? There are four primary views on the nature of the elements.

The Roman Catholic church adopted a position known as transubstantiation. This doctrine rests upon Aristotelian philosophy. Aristotle taught that the substance of something is its essential nature, but its accidents are its outward appearances.[2] In the Lord’s Supper, a miracle takes place. The accidents remain unchanged. When the elements are consecrated, the substance is transformed into the blood and body of Christ. Therefore, Christ is physically present in the Lord’s Supper. This was the understanding of the church throughout the Middle Ages. Martin Luther challenged this belief, but the Council of Trent affirmed transubstantiation in the Counter-Reformation in 1551.

The great Reformer Martin Luther also believed in Christ’s physical presence in the Lord’s Supper, but he rejected transubstantiation. He did not think that the elements were transformed; instead, they retained their nature. In the act of consecration, the physical body of Christ is added to the nature of the bread so that it has both natures. This theory is called consubstantiation.

A later Swiss reformer named Ulrich Zwingli adopted a view that rejected the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper altogether. In his opinion, Christ’s identification with the elements is non-literal. The Lord’s Supper is a mere commemoration designed to bring the death of Christ and its efficacy to the believer’s mind.[3]Zwingli argued that Scripture employed many figures of speech, and the Last Supper was one of these instances.[4]When Jesus said that the bread was His body and the wine His blood, it was meant to be taken in a metaphorical sense.

The Reformed view, attributed to John Calvin, presents a more intermediary position between Zwingli’s non-literal understanding and the real presence of Christ in the former two positions. This position holds that Christ is present in the Lord’s Supper, but not in a physical, bodily way. Instead, Christ is present in a spiritual manner. The idea that believers actually consume the physical body of Christ is ludicrous. However, the partakers are nourished spiritually by the action of the Holy Spirit, who brings them into closer connection with the person of Christ. While the elements represent the body and blood of Jesus, as in the Zwinglian view, they also allow the believer to participate in the crucified Christ in union with one another.[5]

The Reformed position seems to be the most accurate understanding of the significance of the Lord’s Supper. Although it is a commemoration of what Christ has accomplished for the believer, it is not a simple reenactment or mere memorial. The Lord’s Supper is a special time in the church’s life of gospel proclamation and spiritual edification.

The Effect of the Lord’s Supper

Just as there have been differences in understanding the presence of Christ in the Lord’s Supper, there have also been different positions within church history of what the Lord’s Supper accomplishes. Is the Lord’s Supper salvific in any way? Does it convey grace to the partakers? What is the purpose of the action?

Romans Catholics consider the Eucharist, equivalent to the Lord’s Supper in practice, to be sacramental. In their tradition, the Sacraments are instruments for the church to convey God’s grace. In this understanding, the Eucharist is salvific. Catholics are generally baptized as infants to wash away original sin. They later ratify their faith in Confirmation. These are the initiatory rites. It is only after Confirmation that participation in the Eucharist is allowed. It is a means of continuing grace. In the Middle Ages, participation in the Eucharist was required three times per year. Modern practice has reduced it to once per year, around Easter. In this view, salvation is not assured by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross. Instead, it required consistent practice in the participation of the church’s sacraments.

Baptists understand the Lord’s Supper not as a sacrament but as an ordinance. While a sacrament implies that the act conveys grace, an ordinance means a decree or command.[6]Baptists believe that Jesus gave the two ordinances of baptism and the Lord’s Supper as symbols that affirm His grace. They do not convey grace as in the Roman Catholic position but point toward the spiritual working of God already accomplished by Christ’s work on the cross and the work of the Holy Spirit in the believer’s life.

Administering the Lord’s Supper

Related to the understanding of the effect of the Lord’s Supper is the administration of the Lord’s Supper. Does one have to be a priest to offer the Lord’s Supper? Does one have to be an ordained pastor? Can any believer administer the Lord’s Supper? This understanding is also strongly connected with ecclesiology, one’s understanding of the church.

In the Roman Catholic understanding, the only administrators of the Lord’s Supper are ordained Catholic priests. Only the priest can perform the miracle of transubstantiation. By the act of consecration, the elements are transformed into the body and blood of Christ. This transformation is required for conveying grace. Without a priest consecrating the elements, those who partake simply eat a meal.[7]

Other traditions hold that any Christian may dispense the Lord’s Supper. Some take this to the extreme, allowing any Christian in any location to oversee the Lord’s Supper at any time. This goes too far. The best position is a moderating position. Baptists are Congregationalists, meaning that the local church makes all the decisions about how they function. The local church should determine who is to oversee the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Most churches dictate that the pastor or another ordained church member is to administer the ordinances; however, the church can choose to allow another member to function in this role. According to the apostle Peter, every believer is a priest.

“As you come to him, a living stone—rejected by people but chosen and honored by God—you yourselves, as living stones, a spiritual house, are being built to be a holy priesthood to offer spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 2:4-5).[8]

Therefore, any duly elected representative may govern the observance of the Lord’s Supper. Pragmatically, this rarely happens. Many churches set the clergy as the only ones to fill this role, unconsciously creating a division between ordained men and laity. In a congregational church, this distinction is a false dichotomy. Any believer chosen by the church may oversee the Lord’s Supper.

Participation in the Lord’s Supper

Understanding the purpose of the Lord’s Supper, it should be clear that one must be a follower of Jesus to participate in the ordinance. While Christ came to save the whole world, Scripture clarifies that the salvation of Christ is only available to those who repent of their sin, call upon the name of Jesus, and declare Him as Lord. Those who have not experienced Christ’s salvation cannot understand the significance of the Lord’s Supper.

Throughout history, the church has adopted several approaches to whom can participate in the Lord’s Supper. The most lenient option is the Anyone Communion position. The Anyone Communion position fails to restrict the Lord’s Supper properly. It invites anyone who would like to participate in the Lord’s Supper to join. It does not require the participants to be baptized, nor does it necessitate confession of Christ. The Lord’s Table is entirely unrestricted. Remember that the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians that they were feasting without recognizing the body of Christ. Those who do not acknowledge the sacrifice of Christ on the cross, i.e., unbelievers, were taking part in the Supper. Paul condemned this, and indeed God also, in that people were becoming ill and dying. Therefore, the Anyone Position should be rejected. The table should be restricted to believers who have confessed Christ as Lord and Savior at the barest minimum. 

A slightly stricter view is termed Open Communion. Open Communion allows anyone who professes belief in Christ and calls themselves a Christian to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Usually, the administrator of Open Communion will state that if an attendee has been rightly baptized, they are free to participate in the observance of the Lord’s Supper. The issue that arises is the definition of “rightly baptized.” It is open for debate. Does this mean that a church practicing immersion baptism will accept affusion baptism? How will the administrator know if the person has been baptized at all? Some restrictions are placed around the recipients, but there are still not enough. There are too many questions.

Some churches have attempted to modify the Open Communion position by limiting it to churches of “like faith and practice.” This is called the Close Communion position. Once again, there is a question of definition. What does it mean to be of like faith and practice? Does a Southern Baptist Church accept a Pentecostal member in this? What about a Free-Will Baptist since they both have Baptist in the name? There remains ambiguity in the terms. What about the confirmation of the person’s status? If another church practices church discipline on one of its members, will the observing church restrict the other member from receiving the ordinance. There are still too many questions to be answered.

As an ordinance of the church, the responsibility rests upon the church to ensure that those who partake of the Lord’s Supper are believers. Therefore, the best position is termed Closed Communion. Closed Communion restricts the observance of the Lord’s Supper to the members of that local body of believers. In this method, there are far fewer questions to be answered. The membership of the church is clear. Either a person was baptized by the church, initiating them into the local church, or they were baptized in another church, and the church has voted to accept their transfer of membership. There is a clear church roll.

Benefits of Closed Communion

Closed Communion opens the possibility of church discipline. If a member is living in grave sin, the church can elect to withhold the ordinance from that member until they have repented of their sin. This can provide a much-needed boon to the importance of church membership. It shows that membership is something taken seriously.

Closed Communion is a time for the local church to focus on Christ’s accomplishments in redeeming the believers from sin and death and bringing the church together in unity. It is a time of communion with one another. Dr. Madison Grace told of his church observing the Lord’s Supper during their family meetings, or what is commonly called business meetings. Just as the church’s business requires all voting to be members, the Lord’s Supper also requires all participants to be members. This seems to provide a more winsome meeting. Gambrell Street Baptist Church holds the prayer meeting or worship service before the business meeting. The meeting is already much sweeter with prayer prior. How much more would it be if members observed the ordinance together afterward? Church discipline enacted in the business meeting could also be carried out swiftly.

Closed Communion provides ministerial accountability. Hebrews 13:17 says, “Obey your leaders and submit to them, since they keep watch over your souls as those who will give an account so that they can do this with joy and not with grief, for that would be unprofitable for you.”[9]The administrator of the Lord’s Supper carries the burden of watch-care for those he oversees. He is responsible for every recipient of the ordinance and should ensure that none are misled in their observance. The administrator should not compromise his responsibility by providing the Lord’s Supper to those outside the church.

Opposition to Closed Communion

There are some common oppositions to Closed Communion. The most common is that it places church leadership or ushers in a position of determining who is worthy to partake.[10]Opponents consider this to be problematic, but this can be beneficial. As stated above, the church should engage in church discipline and restrict those blatantly living sinful lifestyles. The church should influence the lives of its members. This leads to the next challenge.

Some oppose the church determining the spiritual worthiness of its members, stating that this understanding is not what is prescribed in 1 Corinthians 11. They contend that this passage speaks to the manner of participation, not the spiritual condition.[11]This is true, but those who make this point do not consider the greater context of the passage. The letter is written to a local church. It addresses local church issues. The manner of the Lord’s Supper was an issue, but it was still taking place within the boundaries of a local church. The New Testament letters are primarily addressed to local churches. The Old Testament is addressed mainly to the nation of Israel. As individualistic Americans, the context of the Bible is often overlooked. It is about the community of believers. In the same book, Paul instructed the church members to cast judgment on the sexually adulterous. They were to practice church discipline by removing the evil person from among them (1 Corinthians 15:13).

While the Lord’s Supper is open to all believers,[12]it should only be available within their local churches. Believers should not partake of the Lord’s Supper in other churches, nor should the local church allow non-members to participate in their observance.

Conclusion

The Lord’s Supper is a local church ordinance. Christ Jesus instituted it in the Last Supper. It not only carries significant meaning in depicting the suffering of Christ on the cross, but it anticipates His return. While it is not salvific, the Lord’s Supper is not simply a memorialist rite. There is a unique ministry of the Holy Spirit that takes place when it is observed. Intimacy with Christ and union with the church is best experienced in Closed Communion. Closed Communion helps ensure that only baptized believers are participating in the observance of the ordinance, but it has several other benefits. Closed Communion best demonstrates the nature of the church as described in Scripture – a group of believers covenanted together in membership, showing the love of Christ to one another and pressing each other toward holiness.