[HarleyD]

I don't wish to minimize communion as mere symbolism but I don't agree with the Belgic Confession. Much of these kinds of statements were written by people who had a "high" view of communion coming out of the Catholic Church. There is nothing in scripture that supports the statement:

"Yet we do not go wrong when we say that what is eaten is Christ's own natural body and what is drunk is his own blood-- but the manner in which we eat it is not by the mouth but by the Spirit, through faith."

unless we go back to the Catholic teaching of where Christ said "I am the bread of life...". Then you open yourself up for all sorts of issues.

Paul stated that the purpose of Lord's supper was to proclaim the Lord's death until He comes (1 Cor 11:26). There is nothing more mystical then that. We don't eat Christ's flesh or drink his blood, either real or otherwise. There is no need to and is not the purpose of communion according to Paul. We proclaim that Christ was here, that He died for our sin, and our testimony to the world is He will return for us. Whereas the Passover pointed to the redemption of Israel from the bondage of Egypt, communion points to our redeption from sin.

Paul also stated that we are not to take communion in an unworthy manner (1 Cor 11:29) so it is far more than a proclamation-it is a sacrament of God instituted for His beloved Son. It mocks God and our testimony fails when we make light of communion. To profane the Son even in a symbolic ritual is an affront to God the Father and will incure His wrath, even as believers.