Covenant Communion

By virtue of their sacramental initiation (baptism), their being addressed as among the saints and as part of the church with corresponding obligations (Ephesians 1:1; 6:1-3), their holiness (1 Cor 7:14) and the kingdom of God being theirs (Matt 18:13-15), they are members of the church—the body of Christ, and as “discerning the body” may verily mean honoring the unity and dignity of the Church—including its weakest members, baptized children are expected to be nourished at family sacramental meals.

Jesus became indignant with His disciples when they tried to hinder small children from coming to Him (Mark 10:13-16). He said, “Let the little children come to Me, and do not forbid them; for of such is the kingdom of God.” (Mk 10:14, Matt 19:14, Lk 18:16). Yet, based on pulling a single verse (1 Cor 11:28) out of context with its chapter and its entire book, Reformed churches cling to a tradition of forbidding young covenant children from eating at the Lord’s Table until they are old enough or smart enough to articulate an intelligent and believable profession of faith. Is this not the definition of works-righteousness and earning access to Christ? [source]

The appeal to 1 Cor. 11:27-29 cannot bear the weight which the opponents of paedocommunion place upon it. That the requirement of self-examination as stated here by Paul is, for our authorities, the principle argument against child communion is easy to demonstrate. It is the only argument advanced against the idea by many and is often presented as sufficient in itself to quell all debate. The cumulative effect of this repeated rejection of paedocommunion on the sole basis of a perfunctory appeal to 1 Cor. 11:28 and without attention to possible objections to this argument is to establish two impressions: 1) the consensus against child communion was so complete and so much taken for granted that neither argument nor careful reflection was thought to be required and 2) the reformed consensus on this subject has never rested on a substantial biblical or theological foundation.

As the context makes clear and as the commentators confirm, Paul’s remarks are specifically directed against an impious and irreverent participation (a true manducatio indignorum). Much more would need to have been said before it could be concluded that Paul was speaking to the general question of who may come to the table, or to the question of children’s participation, or that he intended to exclude them from the supper. We do not understand Acts 2:38 to deny baptism to little children, Rom. 10:13-14 to deny them salvation, or 2 Thess. 3:10 to deny them food.

An appeal to 1 Cor. 11:28 is rendered all the more dubious an argument against paedocommunion by the incontestable fact the Old Testament contains similar warnings against faithless and hardhearted participation in the sacraments, similar calls to self-examination before participating, even (as in I Cor. 11:30) threats of death for such offenders (Isa. 1:10-20; Amos 5:18-27; Jer. 7:1-29). Yet these warnings can in no way be said to have invalidated the practice or the divine warrant for family participation in the sacral meals as prescribed in the law. [source]