In the last couple of decades certain people have introduced and reintroduced the topic of paedocommunion — the practice of infant or child communion. For me, this is largely an unwanted controversy that interrupts the peace to which Christ has consecrated his church. It’s unfortunate that entire households have been misled by obscuring the Bible and plain teaching of Reformed theology, neither of which welcome infants to the Lord’s Supper. Unwanted as the controversy is, at its heart is the question: Who may come to the Lord’s Table?

To be clear, paedocommunion is not about the appropriate age in which someone can, by a profession of faith, participate in the Lord’s Supper. Rather, it’s the teaching that covenant children have the right to be baptized and by their baptism are entitled to partake of the Lord’s Supper. Peter Leithart defined it in this way: “Nothing more than the rite of water baptism is required for a person to have access to the Lord’s table.” For paedocommunionists that’s the criteria, and those who are baptized, infants as they are, are welcomed to the supper.

This matter is not insignificant. In the Ten Commandments, God declared: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain” (Ex. 20:7). We often think of this command in relation to using God’s name as an expletive — and, certainly, it’s blasphemy to do so. But this command doesn’t only moderate our vocabulary it also directs our approach to the sacrament. Why? Because the supper bears the name of the Lord — it’s the Lord’s supper (see 1 Cor. 11:20). Great care needs to be shown that his name is not profaned as we observe the ordinance. The Corinthians learned this lesson in a severe way, as the Apostle said some of them were sick and even died because of an unworthy participation (1 Cor. 11:30). God still does not hold them guiltless who profanes his name and ordinances.

Reformed theology, especially as it’s expressed in its confessional statements, stands against the practice of paedocommunion — insisting that worthy participation requires faith, confession, and examination. The clearest refutation of the practice is found in the Westminster Larger Catechism (Q&A 177): “The sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s supper differ, in that baptism is to be administered but once, with water, to be a sign and seal of our regeneration and ingrafting into Christ, and that even to infants; whereas the Lord’s supper is to be administered often, in the elements of bread and wine, to represent and exhibit Christ as spiritual nourishment to the soul, and to confirm our continuance and growth in him, and that only to such as are of years and ability to examine themselves” (see also Belgic Confession Article 35, Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 81, and Westminster Confession of Faith 29.7). Here, the participation of infants and the youngest children is explicitly denied, it’s not even an open issue.

The greatest representatives of the Reformed tradition have also strongly opposed paedocommunion. They have done so for two reasons. Spiritually, infants are incapable of meeting the requirements necessary for a worthy participation. For example, John Calvin was not ignorant that “permission was indeed commonly given in the ancient church” for the practice, but said: “The custom has deservedly fallen into disuse” and that the supper was “given to older persons who, having passed tender infancy, can now take solid food.” In defense, Calvin wrote: “For with respect to baptism, the Lord there sets no definite age. But he does not similarly hold forth the Supper for all to partake of, but only those who are capable of discerning the body and blood of the Lord, of examining their own conscience and proclaiming the Lord’s death” (Institutes 4.16.30).

Another reason infants are excluded from the sacrament is their physical inabilities.

Read More