Consistent Communion: Baptism as Prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper

By Nathan Finn

One of the perennial debates among Baptist Christians centers upon the relationship between baptism and the Lord’s Supper. Historically, Baptists have argued that “New Testament” baptism—the full immersion of a professing disciple after his or her conversion—is prerequisite to participating in the Lord’s Supper. In more recent years, a growing number of Baptists have embraced a modified form of open communion wherein all Christians, regardless of one’s baptism, are invited to celebrate the ordinance. In the Southern Baptist tradition, we’ve historically argued that baptism precedes communion with relatively little dissent until the past generation or two, though in practice many (perhaps most) contemporary Southern Baptist churches invite all professing Christians to gather around the table, provided of course they aren’t living in scandalous, unrepentant sin.

For my part, I advocate the view that has variously been called close, closed, strict, or restricted communion—that baptism is prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper. This is, in fact, the position affirmed by virtually every Christian tradition because it follows the New Testament order. The pedobaptist’s quarrel with the closed communion Baptist isn’t really over who gets to celebrate communion, but rather is over what constitutes valid Christian baptism. I coined the phrase consistent communion to describe this view because it recognizes a consistency in the celebration of the ordinances that I believe is lacking among my open communion Baptist brethren who argue that we should follow the New Testament pattern for baptism, but not the Lord’s Supper, thus severing the ordinance of initiation into the faith from the ordinance of continuation in that faith.

I have written on this topic several times over the years. For a descriptive essay outlining the scope of opinions among Southern Baptists, see “Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and Southern Baptists.” For a prescriptive white paper arguing for consistent communion, see “Baptism as a Prerequisite to the Lord’s Supper.” (Please note that I wrote the latter while a doctoral student, and I made a historical error or two when writing about British Baptists. I hope to revise the paper one day. Nevertheless, I stand by the larger argument I made about the relationship between baptism and communion.) For a blog post that supplements the white paper, see “Baptism, the Lord’s Supper, and the Need for Gospel Consistency.”

As with most any topic, my friend Russ Moore defends the consistent communion view far more eloquently than I do. I’d commend to you his recent article “Table Manners: The Welcoming Catholicity of Closed Communion,” which was published in the 25th anniversary issue of Touchstone Magazine. For an older, yet very able defense of this view, see John L. Dagg’s Manual of Church Order (1859), wherein Dagg rebuts ten common arguments for open communion. You can read’s Dagg’s thoughts on the matter online (see Section IV on Open Communion).

Nathan Finn (Ph.D., Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary) is Associate Professor of Historical Theology and Baptist Studies at Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary and an ordained Southern Baptist minister. Nathan is married to Leah and they are the parents of three children. The Finns are members of the First Baptist Church of Durham, where Nathan teaches theology classes and serves as a deacon. Nathan loves teaching at Southeastern because he enjoys showing students how church history applies to gospel ministry in the 21st century and why our historic Baptist identity is a heritage worth preserving. Nathan has contributed chapters to Calvinism: A Southern Baptist Dialogue (B&H) and Southern Baptist Identity: An Evangelical Denomination Faces the Future (Crossway). He also blogs at Christian Thought and Tradition.