The Relation of Baptism to the Lord's Supper

Is there a relationship between baptism and the Lord's Supper? I so, what should it be?

For the past 32 years, I have been an active participant or member of local churches that practice open communion. In other words, any person who made a conscious decision to believe the gospel of Christ was allowed to join in remembering the Lord through the bread and cup. Baptism is not required as potentially barring free participation. The reasoning is understandable: someone may have believed but the baptism has not yet been scheduled. In the past few years, I have come to question this practice.

Early Church Practice
The early church had some very definite expectations concerning this.

And this food is called among us Εὐχαριστία [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. —Justin Martyr, Chapter LXVI

You must not let anyone eat or drink of your Eucharist except those baptized in the Lord's name. For in reference to this the Lord said, "Do not give what is sacred to dogs." —Didache 9

These two quotations exemplify the attitude of the early church toward the ordinances. The Lord's Supper was "a community meal and celebration for members of Christ's body, the church, a community that, from the perspective of the church fathers, one enters through the waters of baptism" (Hall, 74). While the symbolism and rites surrounding the ordinances became more ornate and infused with mysticism as time wore on, the seriousness of the representations were intact and carefully guarded.

New Testament Practice
Though the church fathers were greatly concerned with the apostolic tradition, they eventually went too far. What is the example as demonstrated in the book of Acts?

There is no waiting period between belief and baptism. If a person believes, the biblical example is to baptize immediately. The book of Acts gives several conversion accounts: eunuch (8:36-38), Cornelius and household (10:44-48), Lydia (16:14-15), jailer and family (16:32-33). This is in conflict with the contemporary practice of scheduling a time when several can be done at once. I recognize the economics and the problem of venue, but how has the church come to the place of allowing pragmatism to rule over divinely-inspired instruction of practice?

There are no instances in Scripture of a believer not being baptized. In every case mentioned above, all that followed Christ were baptized. This was the practice of the infant church. The outward confession of faith evidenced by the waters did not have to be witnessed by a large group but was definitely used as an act and declaration of repentance and faith practiced in the Jewish community (r.e. John the baptizer) and understood by the Gentiles within cultural proximity. (See my previous post for thoughts concerning this.) This symbolism of washing your past away is understood today. The picture is rather clear.

Now What?
How is it, then, that I have met adult believers today who have never been baptized? One man in particular said he believed on Christ and just decided to put it off for awhile. If one analyzed his life, the reason became clear. There was no good work as an outgrowth of faith. I must conclude the confession was bogus. I am not so heartless as to dismiss someone who is physically unable to go through a baptism by immersion. Other measures can be taken.

The modern church needs to be teaching the full import of the ordinances to their members and practicing them to the degree that they were given in God's Word.


Hall, Christopher A. Worshiping with the Church Fathers. Downers Grove: InterVarsity, 2009.