If the child of at least one believer is, by birthright and by calling, a disciple of Christ, then that child is entitled to receive baptism (see Mark 10:13–16; Acts 2:39; 1 Cor. 7:14). Baptism summons this child to look in faith to Christ as Savior and Lord. Christ has appointed the Supper, on the other hand, to be received by disciples who meet the qualifications of 1 Corinthians 11:17–34. The Supper solemnly sets forth Christ as crucified and involves a believing participation in Christ and in the benefits of his death.
In Reformed (and particularly Presbyterian) churches, you may hear about “paedocommunion,” sometimes called “infant communion” or “child communion.” This view maintains that the child of a believer (a “covenant child”) is entitled not only to receive the covenant sign of baptism but also to partake of the bread and the wine in the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper.
Proponents argue it’s inconsistent to bestow baptism on a covenant child and withhold from that child the Lord’s Supper. Strikingly, the ad absurdum argument made against paedobaptism by some credobaptists (“paedobaptism logically leads to paedocommunion”) is being championed by paedocommunion’s proponents.
Because of growing interest in paedocommunion within some quarters of the Reformed church over the last half century, the practice merits a closer look. Let’s consider the compelling biblical and theological arguments against paedocommunion. These arguments, furthermore, help to explain why the confessional consensus of the Reformed churches has knowingly rejected the practice. Then let’s review Scripture’s teaching about when and under what conditions a child in the church may come to the Lord’s Table.