The doctrine of adults only communion is a leftover Romanist error that gripped the Church due to the adoption of the doctrine of transubstantiation by the Fourth Lateran Council (in 1215). Communion is for believers and their children. This fact is evidenced by the relationship of the Passover to the Lord's Supper, by the familial nature of Biblical covenants and sacraments, by the nature of a "supper," and by the historical record. This issue is not explicitly addressed in Scripture, but the evidence is substantial that communion should included the children of believers.

The first communion occured on the Passover, when Jesus served the bread and the wine at the Passover meal. Because the Lord's Supper originated at a Passover--indeed, it was the traditional round of bread and wine during the Passover when Jesus spoke His words turning the round into a separate service--it is reasonable to consider the nature of the Passover in order to try to discern the nature of the Supper. This is consistent with the princple of 2 Timothy 3:16-17, that we are look to the Old Testament Scriptures to help us discern doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16-17). Here, if the issue is whether children are to be included, it is logical that 2 Timothy requires us to look at the Passover service to discern the answer.

The Passover was a meal in which Jewish families participated regardless of age (the meal was for the "household" (Exodus 12:3) and it was anticipated that children would ask what was meant by this Passover service (Exodus 12:26). Furthermore, the Passover focused, in part, on children, for it celebrated how the Lord in His mercy delivered the firstborn, even infants (Exodus 12:27-30). Thus, much of the Passover focused upon children and required the participation of children. Children were not off in some other room having "children's church." Therefore, if Jesus had intended that the Supper take on an entirely new focus (away from households, the representative firstborn, and the participation of the children) then He would have said so. It is an argument from silence to say that He made a change, but a textual argument to say that the Lord's Supper began in a service that involved children. Indeed, if children had been present at the first Supper, it would have been Scripturally required that they participate. If Jesus Himself had excluded the children then He would have broken the Law! But, because no children were present that we know about, those against infant communion take the opportunity to suggest that God made a radical alteration to the nature of the Passover meal, to henceforth exclude children, without any Scripture to back up this assertion.

There are two seemingly Scripture-based arguments against infant communion (also known as paedocommunion). First, it is argued that since Jesus said to partake of the Supper in rememberance of Him (1 Corinthians 11:24), only those who know him well enough may partake, which obviously excludes young children. Ironically, this argument is easily disarmed by noting that the Passover was a service done in remeberance, but, rather than excluding children, it included them and even anticipated that the children, not knowing why they were doing these things, would think to ask (Exodus 12;26). If children are supposed to be excluded when things are done "in rememberance", then children would have been excluded from the Passover and other Old Testament ceremonies, but they were not. "In rememberance" does not seem to mean just that a believer will remember the God he knows, but that the people of God (which includes the children of believers) will remember as a whole. Similarly, many Americans celebrate the 4th of July with their children, while taking the opportunity to pass on the story of our nation's birth.

Secondly, it is suggested that since we are to examine ourselves before the Supper, lest we eat and drink in an unworthy manner (1 Corinthian 11:27-29), we must exclude those who are either not proven believers (even though, Scripturally, we should presume that our children are believers for they are sanctified by their parents) or are unable to examine themselves due to a lack of cognitive ability. If this argument was applied to the supper consistently, then imbeciles and very senile people of God would be excluded, since they could not examine themselves! God already recognizes that little children are not fully accountable for their actions. Even if there must be an examination for little children, the parents are the best ones to decide if the little child is in rebellion, not the child himself. Therefore, this limitation on the Supper does not exclude children. But the best counterargument is simply this: the Old Covenant itself required that those who sacrificed were to do so with the right heart, and to do otherwise was to mock God. It was under the Old Covenant that we are first told that to obey is greater than sacrifice. Old Covenant believers were to be obedient first, then to sacrifice. Likewise, they were warned that their sacrifices would be meaningless if they were not obedient. Unworthiness, which one would discover via self-examination, was relevant to the Passover and other sacrifices, yet children were required to participate. Why would a continuation of this principle in the New Covenant suddenly cause children to be excluded? It would not.

Looking further into Scripture to resolve this issue, note that all of God's other covenants or sacraments have been for believers and their offspring. The notion that children must be excluded from a sacrament has no precedent in Scripture. For example, children of the Levites could eat the same flesh of sacrifices that there parents were to eat. The Passover was already addressed, above. All references to children in the context of covenants say that children are included in the covenant. Children are explicity included in the covenants. The other major sacrament after the resurrection of Christ is Baptism, which is clearly for infants (if you don't accept this, get several books defending infant baptism and learn something).

The Bible calls the Lord's Supper just that -- a "supper". It uses the Greek "diepnon." That is an evening meal, not a Sunday morning piece of bread (though I am not saying we cannot take communion on Sunday mornings). What family excludes its children from Supper? Only modern Christian families, it seems. There are other terms that could have been used in the Bible if the Lord's Supper is not really a "supper". But that wasn't done because the Passover, when the first Supper took place, is a supper, not a special meal excluding children.

The historical evidence shows that throughout much, probably most, of Christian history, paedocommunion was the norm. It is still the practice of the Eastern church. The early church practiced it (though not all agree whether it was common in the first two centuries -- though there is no substantial evidence to show it was not). The Western Church, practiced paedocommunion commonly until around the thirteenth century when the false doctrine of transubstantion was fully adopted and used as a tool to prevent most adults, as well as the infants and children, from receiving communion. The Reformers, unfortunately, adopted the modern Roman Catholic notion that infants were to be excluded, using some of the arguments, above. But they went even further in error, making communion highly exclusive, only for an elite within Christianity, those who were sufficiently trained. The same with baptism. This is not a Biblical standard. The Biblical standard is admission to baptism and communion as soon as one becomes a true believer. One is only excluded from communion in extraordinary circumstances. We should not accept a doctrine merely because a church council accepted a false doctrine (transubstantiation)and we have been living with the consequences ever since.

In conclusion, we should reject the Roman notion that children might spit up the blood of Christ so they cannot have any. We should reject modern and unbiblical arguments that children would receive no benefit from this sacrament because they are not sufficiently intellectual. We should not think that if our little children cannot examine themselves then they may not participate. Are we now to exclude those that are senile or imbeciles? Of course not. Age has nothing to do with the covenants or sacraments, just as John the Baptist could leap with joy in the spirit even when he was still in the womb. God would have us have our children partipate fully in the Christian life. Will God help us if we exclude them? Will they benefit by being left in the "church" for children?

Rich Bingham