Doug Wilson Says ‘Paedocommunion Consistently Expresses Christ’s Purposes In Giving Us the Sacraments’

“The topic of debate before us—resolved: that paedocommunion consistently expresses Christ’s purposes in giving us the sacraments…”¹ — Doug Wilson

“…an infant…participated in the sacrament in utero for nine months, and continues to participate at that same level until he is weaned. So in our congregation, the time between such organic participation and individual participation is very short, and corresponds to a similar transition on the physical level between milk and solids. So I don’t see such a child being excluded from anything.”² —Doug Wilson

“I would like to take this opportunity to write to you about our practice of child communion…Lord willing, I will have written of it in such a way that you understand why it matters so much to us. And perhaps I will even have written in such a way as to make even the strictest advocate of credo-communion turn away from this prospect with some regret, thinking ‘wouldn’t it be wonderful if this were true?’”³ — Doug Wilson

OPINION: Doug’s advocacy for paedocommunion (infant communion) serves as yet another example of eisegesis (read more examples here). He teaches that infants, even in utero, participate vicariously through their mothers until they are weaned—a wholly unbiblical notion.⁴ Then, at around one year old, they should begin to partake of the elements independently.⁵ Doug states that: “…in our churches, the Lord’s Table is not protected with a profession of faith; the Lord’s Table is regarded as a profession of faith.”⁶ Which again, is blatantly contrary to the Word of God.⁷ Rather than approaching Scripture humbly, he appears to start with a predetermined conclusion and then seeks to justify it.⁸ He ties his view that even very young children ought to participate in communion to his errant Federal Vision theology,⁹ which has been condemned as heretical and unbiblical by many (read more here).

Doug attributes the “alarming” decline in retention rates across the evangelical world, at least in part, to the lack of paedocommunion being practiced in the Church.¹⁰ While he doesn’t claim that infant communion solves this issue “in itself, or all by itself,”¹¹ he does connect the practice to children continuing in the faith into adulthood—pointing to his own church and family as proof:

“So when I compare the general loss of faith among young people with the retention of young people in our congregation, the results are also startling…but in the opposite direction. Overwhelmingly, our kids are growing up Christian, marrying Christian, and bringing up more Christians. And yes, we have had flame outs, but they have not been the norm. And, also by the grace of God, I have three kids and their spouses, eighteen grandkids, and three great grands, all of them Christian. Someone might object that I can’t know this about the youngest of these yet, but for various reasons I believe that I can. They are coming with us, and we are going to Heaven.”¹²

In linking the practice of paedocommunion with perseverance among children in the faith, he mirrors the logic of the prosperity gospel,¹³ which similarly asserts that adopting certain outward practices will reliably secure certain blessings from God—in this case, claiming that practicing paedocommunion will keep children from abandoning the faith (Doug has done this elsewhere in regard to children).

One would think that if paedocommunion were key to the preservation of our children in the faith, Scripture would plainly affirm it—but it does not. And Doug instead chooses to ignore and explain away the clear teaching of God’s Word regarding communion. Consequently, his argument for paedocommunion falls flat when viewed in the light of Scripture:

“Let a person examine himself, then, and so eat of the bread and drink of the cup. For anyone who eats and drinks without discerning the body eats and drinks judgment on himself.” (1 Corinthians 11:28–29, ESV)

Doug redefines what it means to “examine” oneself to mean simply a person understanding that they are part of the visible body of Christ:

“The argument is that little children are not capable of examining themselves (2 Cor. 13:5),¹⁴ and therefore are not capable of seeing how they are part of that one loaf. And because they cannot see or understand that they are part of the one loaf, they should be excluded from the Supper. It is thought that it is not enough to be part of the loaf, you have to understand that you are part of the one loaf…But it is actually the elders who are keeping them back from the Table who don’t understand that we are all one loaf. Why are these elders not kept back from the Table? Little children have an inarticulate understanding that they are part of the one loaf, which is why they reach for the tray.”¹⁵

Doug claims that young children, even a one-year-old, can discern that they are part of the visible body of Christ because they “have an inarticulate understanding that they are part of the one loaf”¹⁶ (as demonstrated in the act of simply reaching for the physical bread during the sacrament of communion). But his argument avoids what it actually means to “examine” oneself in 1 Corinthians 11:28—to introspectively assess one’s own thoughts and feelings¹⁷—something a one-year-old cannot do, and it conflates self-examination with “discerning the body.” Even then, he misunderstands what it means to discern the body. Discerning the body involves more than simply recognizing that you are part of the body of Christ;¹⁸ it is inseparable from the self-examination commanded in Scripture. As Gordon Fee writes: “Before they participate in the meal, they should examine themselves in terms of their attitudes toward the body, how they are treating others, since the meal itself is a place of proclaiming the gospel…[they must] distinguish as distinct and different. The Lord’s Supper is not just any meal; it is the meal…they must ‘discern/recognize as distinct’ the one body of Christ, of which they all are parts and in which they all are gifts to one another.”¹⁹

Doug elevates his own reasoning above the clear instruction of Scripture when he argues his position based on personal logic and understanding: “So it seems self-evident to me that all who are bread should get bread.”²⁰ And “I don’t understand the logic of withholding food from little ones…And then, when they languish and perish through malnutrition, we console ourselves by saying that ‘at least we didn’t waste any food on them, as they were clearly not elect and going to die anyway.’”²¹

Paul’s point in 1 Corinthians 11 is that the Lord’s Supper is not a normal meal—it must not be treated as such.²² Preventing our young children from partaking is not the same as withholding food from them. It is rather akin to preventing them from eating poison! The protections around the table are to prevent God’s judgment, to prevent death, and we ought to take them seriously.

As John Calvin wrote: “Examination, therefore, must precede, and this it were vain to expect from infants…If they cannot partake worthily without being able duly to discern the sanctity of the Lord’s body, why should we stretch out poison to our young children instead of vivifying food?…How, pray, can we require infants to commemorate any event of which they have no understanding; how require them ‘to show forth the Lord’s death,’ of the nature and benefit of which they have no idea?”²³

When interacting with one of the Westminster Confession’s prohibitions against paedocommunion²⁴ Doug argues that the ignorance referenced in coming unworthily to the table refers only to willful ignorance, not the ignorance of a child: “It seems clear that the ignorance addressed (at least here) is culpable, stiff-necked ignorance and not the ignorance which every worthy partaker confesses daily.”²⁵ But Doug again ignores the obvious meaning of what is being said. No one would believe it to be right for an adult who is ignorant of the gospel to be invited to participate in communion (even if they had been baptized as an infant). And even if we grant it to be understood as “stiff-necked ignorance,” how can a child actively confess ignorance as Doug states worthy partakers do daily? One-year-old children don’t confess ignorance, they are ignorant.

Outside of the command to “examine” oneself and rightly “discerning” the body, an infant is also unable to follow the clear command of Christ when he said “…do this in remembrance of Me” (1 Corinthians 11:24, NASB95). An infant is unable to do anything in remembrance of Christ because they have no ability to understanding what Jesus did. There is a reason all Reformed confessions of the 16th and 17th centuries rejected paedocommunion—it is simply because God’s Word is clear on the matter.²⁶ As Guy Waters writes: “On Paul’s terms, paedocommunion is impossible. An infant is unable to comply with the apostolic qualifications set forth in 1 Corinthians 11:27–29.”²⁷

Doug has once again demonstrated that he is not “accurately handling the word of truth” (2 Timothy 2:15, NASB95). Moreover, he again fails to meet the scriptural requirement for an elder, who must be “able to teach” (1 Timothy 3:2, NASB) and must hold “fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, so that he will be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict” (Titus 1:9, NASB95).

My prayer is that Doug would return to the Scriptures in humility, repent of his teaching that is rooted more in human reason than God’s Word, and stop putting children at risk by allowing them to partake of the Lord’s Supper before they can properly examine themselves and rightly discern the body.

Want More Context?

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/418231841196662

https://www.sermonaudio.com/sermons/423232032501245

https://theaquilareport.com/arguments-against-paedocommunion/

https://heidelblog.net/2021/07/if-we-baptize-infants-why-do-we-not-also-commune-them/

https://heidelblog.net/tag/paedocommunion/

https://purelypresbyterian.com/2022/03/31/paedo-baptism-yes-paedo-communion-no/

https://www.thegospelcoalition.org/article/think-about-paedocommunion/

https://www.apuritansmind.com/book-reviews/the-black-list-reformed-is-not-enough/

https://heidelblog.net/2013/11/for-those-just-tuning-in-what-is-the-federal-vision/

Footnotes