Last Supper stained glass. For Baptist to Anglican.

From Baptist to Anglican: On Apostolic Succession and the Real Presence of Christ

By
25
Print

I am an alum of a Baptist university, a graduate student at a Southern Baptist seminary, an active volunteer in Young Life, and a youth minister in an Anglican Church. You might be thinking, “One of these things is not like the others, what gives?”

I was a cradle Baptist. I grew up around Reformed theology and could defend the congregational church structure as well as anyone. To put it plainly, I knew what I believed. However, my convictions of Scripture and Church history led me through a four-year discernment period out of Baptist life and into the Anglican Church. So, how did that happen?

Trinity Anglican Seminary MDiv Ad

Sponsored

Of the many reasons that I left the evangelical Baptist world for the Anglican Church, two truly pushed me over the edge: a deep conviction of apostolic succession and the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist.

Apostolic Succession

Apostolic succession refers to the “unbroken line of succession to the first Apostles, namely to Peter and finally, to Jesus Christ”.  There is nuance to this teaching, depending on who you ask. However, the primary idea is that when Christ established his Church with the Apostles, he established a tangible line of succession, in which the succeeding bishops would inherit the visible representation of “the faith once for all delivered” (Jude 1:3).

Apostolic succession is a visible representation of the invisible church. In the first century, figures such as Clement I taught the necessity of the “succession of bishops”(Letter to the Corinthians, 80 AD). Irenaeus, another example, points to the succession of bishops as the “tradition of the apostles” that protects the Church against heretical teachings (Against Heresies, 189 AD).

This was the understood rule of faith as the Church began the early ecumenical councils to clarify the doctrine of the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and other related matters. I would argue that even Paul himself sets this precedent in Acts 15, where he holds the first-ever ecumenical council of Jerusalem in the first century AD. I could go on, as this teaching was pivotal for me, but I will conclude by saying apostolic succession became such an apparent teaching from Scripture and the early Church to me that I could no longer ignore it.

The Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist

The next domino to fall for me was the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist. I never thought I would embrace this belief. Clearly, Jesus was using a metaphor when he said, “This is my body,” right? However, all that changed when I approached John 6 with an open mind. There is a lot packed into that chapter, so I encourage you to read it yourself. But the climactic moment comes as the large crowd accuses Jesus of teaching cannibalism. Instead of clarifying his point as a mere metaphor, he doubles down and says, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you” (John 6:53).

If you read on, you will see that Jesus clarifies this point five times, a point that will become clear to the Apostles at the Last Supper when Jesus institutes the Eucharist. As I read this, along with other supporting passages, I found myself in complete agreement with the historic teaching of the church regarding Christ’s real presence in the Eucharist. This learning remained unchallenged from the time of the apostles until the Reformation and is reflected in the ACNA Catechism.

Both Reformed and Catholic

My intention in writing this article is not to convert everyone to Anglicanism (well, maybe a little) but rather to tell my story. A story that seems to be a variation of one that many Christians in our culture, especially younger seminarians, share. Why did I choose Anglicanism and not Roman Catholicism or Eastern Orthodoxy? The Anglican church has a posture of reformation that is appreciative of our catholic history, a posture that yearns for unity in the midst of schism.

Anglicanism not only provides a tangible connection to the global church throughout its history but also a public accountability to the teachings of the church throughout time. The Anglican Church has a deep and theologically rich tradition that values the tenets of the Reformation but does not plant its theological flag solely in the 16th century.

My Hope for Anglican Compass

So, how does the Anglican Compass fit into this? Well, it’s primarily because of Anglican Compass that I was able to discover all of this! I hardly knew any Anglicans when I was discerning these convictions, and articles like those linked above were incredibly helpful in providing explanations and answers to questions I had about church structure and historic Christian theology. My decision wasn’t made in a vacuum with myself and my computer. However, Anglican Compass did provide me with concise, easy-to-understand explanations of key theological distinctives of Anglicanism and how it is connected to the ancient Church in a way other Protestant groups are not.

Anglican Compass had four different articles addressing every question I had. My hope is that as Anglican Compass continues to grow, it incorporates more young and aspiring leaders in the Anglican Church, especially those who come from other Protestant denominations. It was reassuring to know that I was not alone in my convictions about the tradition of the Early Church, and that many like me are discovering how that tradition is preserved within Anglicanism. That discovery has since led me to a wonderful church, where I serve, making me a real-life “Rookie Anglican” on the field.

My suggestion to anyone who has made it to the end of this article, especially one curious about the Anglican Church’s traditions and practices, is to do the same thing that I did four years ago: Scroll up to the top of this page, start at the New to Anglicanism page, and get to reading!

Image by PaoloGaetano from Getty Images Signature, courtesy of Canva.

Published on

January 18, 2023
, , , , , ,
View 25 Comments
Andrew Bass

Author

Andrew Bass

Andrew Bass is the Director of Student Ministries for St. Francis Anglican Parish in Sanford, North Carolina. He is a postulant for ordination in the Anglican Diocese of Christ Our Hope and a graduate of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary.

View more from Andrew Bass

Comments

Please comment with both clarity and charity!

Subscribe to Comments
Notify of
25 Comments

Nicely written and very succinctly stated. Thank you.

Reply

I would like to ask the author how he came to reconcile infant baptism with his former belief in believers baptism.

Reply

Him Jim! This was actually one of the bigger hurdles for me. I would say my embracing of infant baptism was less theological and more obedience to the historic and unanimous teaching of the church. Don’t get me wrong, when I pushed myself to consider what baptism is, why Jesus gave it to us, and what it means that whole family baptisms occurred in the New Testament, I certainly started moving in that direction. But what really led me to my current position was recognizing that infant baptism seemed to be the largely unchallenged teaching of the church from the first centuries until late in the reformation. I do still have great respect for the Baptist position, as they clearly have put a lot of serious thought and reflection into it.

Reply

Thank you for the response!

Reply

Welcome, and thank you for your well written article.

Reply

This is basically my testimony -of moving from a position of many years as a Reformed Baptist to Confessional Lutheran. Baptists sadly do not know what they are missing. I now go to church to join saints and angels who are already praising God all the time. And to hear God’s word and receive his gifts. God is near; He not a distant God. It is all real. And the joy is real.

Reply

I, too, Judy, find great joy in beautiful liturgical worship.! Thank you for bringing joy into this discussion.

Reply

Latimer and Ridley were burned alive for denying the Real Presence. The refusal to specify the Aristotelian description of the Eucharist belongs to Luther. We believe His presence is there but in a spiritual manner not by its accidents or “Real Presence”. Have I missed something?

Reply

Hi, Doug! Thanks for the question. This is a common misunderstanding of “Real Presence.”

With respect, I just want to point out a flawed presupposition in your comment. You said we believe he is present “in a spiritual manner” but not by a “real presence.” This presupposes that the spiritual is not considered “real,” which, of course, isn’t true. The spiritual realm is very much real.

So to put it in a positive way… When we partake of the Eucharist, the body and blood of Christ are really and truly present, but “only after an heavenly and spiritual manner” (Article 28). So: Real Presence.

With that said, there is a debate in whether that presence is “in, with, and under” the elements themselves (a more Lutheran position) or just in our hearts as we partake (a more Reformed position). But that’s a different discussion.

But to be clear, we absolutely do not believe in transubstantiation, in which the substance of the bread and wine are changed or destroyed. That “overthroweth the nature of a Sacrament” (Article 28). The bread and wine are still really present as well.

I hope this helps!

Reply

Technically the Prayer Book settles this debate for us when it says “We feed on him in our hearts by faith.”

Reply

Which means he is objectively present. The prayer of consecration is that the elements become the
Body and blood of Christ. The presense of
Christ body and blood can not be reduced to the reception. The article of faith says the body is given is which infers and objective presence outside of the reception. “Spiritual manner”
Means perception. We can not physical see, touch, or taste his body yet his body is truly there.

Reply

I certainly don’t presuppose that spiritual reality is less than physical reality. I use “Real Presence” technically and historically not descriptively. I was just under the impression that it has traditionally referred to belief in a corporeal presence though.

Reply

You are right in that the phrase “Real Presence” can be defined differently depending on who is speaking. A Roman Catholic will define it much differently than an evangelical Anglican, for example. You were completely right to ask for clarification!

I was researching this a bit, and ironically came across this quote from none other than Latimer: “this same presence may be called most fitly a real presence, that is, a presence not feigned, but a true and faithful presence.” (The article in which I found the quote doesn’t give a source for it unfortunately.)

In the case of the author of this article, I’ll let him reply… though I think it would be safe to say that he doesn’t mean a change in the substance of the elements.

I hope that helps!

Reply

Great article! My spiritual journey is very much like yours (from Baptist to Anglican). I just wish mine had been 40 years earlier!

Reply

Thank you for your story! I too left the Baptist denomination many years ago and ended up in an Episcopal church these last two years (after being out of church for over a decade). Anglicanism makes so much sense to me in a deep, abiding way. The Anglican Compass has been an invaluable source of information, helping me discover authors and books, prayer beads, the lives of saints, a better understanding of the liturgy, and much, much more.

Reply

I have an honest question. I was raised baptist, but have been swayed by several Anglican doctrines. However, I have a fairly large issue with the idea of an “unbroken line of succession.” First, if it is unbroken, we should have a list that leads all the way from Peter until today. The RC church claims that there is such a thing, but it has not kept the church from heresy, but rather is lead the church into heresy. Second, if there is an unbroken line, the reformation which challenged this line should be invalid and we are all apostate…right? I fully recognize, that I am likely missing something, please help me to understand what that is…

Reply

Hi Allen!

The question of an unbroken line of succession is one that is debated within the Anglican Church.

There are two main positions regarding the succession of bishops in the church. Esse, and bene esse. The esse position argues that is is necessary that we have an unbroken line of bishops to the apostles to validate our sacraments. The bene esse position argues that it is “for the good of the church” to have bishops, but not necessary to have a valid church.

As to the existence of a list, we actually do have one! If you Google “The Apostolic Lineage of the ACNA” an article from a website titled “The Cloister Blog” will show up with a detailed chart of succession from the Apostles to Foley Beach (the Archbishop of the ACNA until a couple months ago).

As to whether Apostolic Succession will always be successful in leading the church from heresy, I think it is fair to say Anglicans reject that notion – but would still argue it is the way in which the church should be led, as opposed to other models.

Lastly, Anglicans are unique to other Protestant traditions in that they never rejected Apostolic Succession. The legitimacy of English bishops was actually a major justification for their split from Rome during the Reformation.

I hope this was helpful, thank you for your questions!

-Andrew

Reply

Andrew gave a very good answer to you. I would only add that AS for the huge majority of
Anglicans never Meant the conferring of infallibility only authority. Infallibility is found solely in scripture. As an Anglican I believe that AS is two fold. There is succession of office (episcopal
Office)and a succession of of doctrine.
(Apostolic teaching).

The former is important but the later is even more important. The RC, the EO, and the TEC have former but not the later. Some have of the later (Lutherans) but not the former. I would also add a third category to the two categories that Andrew
Listed. There is plene esse view of AS. AS is necessary for the fullness of the church. Not having it is like missing a limb. Something is definitely missing, there is an impairment, but you would never say the person does not have a body because of missing limb. So I would not dechurch by non Anglican brethren.

Reply

Great article! I too went from Baptist to Anglican. The only issue I have is when people I say “I went from evangelical X to Anglican” as if we lose the evangelical label when we become Anglican. Evangelicalism is part of the history and tradition of Anglicanism and we don’t need to stop being Evangelical to become Anglican.

Reply

I heard someone use the term “received into the _______Church”. That doesn’t infer leaving or being “converted” (as we often hear in the RC and EO traditions). Perhaps a more gracious way of expressing a change in tradition as you have pointed out.

Reply

As a Southern Baptist, I have long found the Anglican tradition very appealing. I visit ACNA, and APA churches whenever I get a chance, and I always feel so connected to the historical Church whenever I attend. I find this article a very informative read on the Anglican view of Communion, as opposed to our memorial view in the SBC. God bless you, brother!

Reply

I was raised in the Independent Fundamental Baptist Church and am in agreement with a lot of the practices of the Anglican Church in tradition (outside of scripture) based on church history. I’ve found myself desiring to “get back to my roots” religiously; however, I can’t reconcile with the appointment of females into the clergy (based on the teachings of 1 Timothy) and the performance/acceptance of same-sex marriage (I understand homosexuality itself is not a sin, but acting on it clearly is in the Bible). The fruits of a church matter. So, my question is: how do you reconcile those two biblical issues with being a member of the Episcopalian/Anglican Church?

Reply

Hi, Kyle. Great question. The performance/acceptance of same-sex marriage is why we see the current Episcopal Church and some other provinces like it departing from traditional, orthodox Anglican belief. The ACNA, to which most of our writers (including Andrew, who wrote this piece) and leadership belong, does not accept that practice, and it was a catalyst in our eventual formation. We are not in communion with the Anglican provinces who have adopted this practice. Regarding women’s ordination, it’s a topic that is still of much debate within the ACNA because there are different understandings of how much women led in the ancient church and how much scripture limits their role; all of our leaders are committed foremost to the full authority of scripture. Around half of our dioceses currently ordain women as priests. However, because these disagreements do exist, to prevent any argument against our apostolic succession, and to preserve relationships with other Anglican provinces around the world, the ACNA does not appoint female bishops.

Reply

I see. Thank you for that clarification. It was very informative. I have been looking into the ACNA for those very reasons prior to this conversation actually. My only concern, correct me if I’m wrong, is departing from and not having communion with the Anglican Church of England. What makes the ACNA different from denominations like the Baptist and Methodist churches who have left the Anglican Church due to ideological differences? I know you mentioned preserving apostolic succession.
Also, has the Anglican Church of England responded to this separation?

Reply

Hi Kyle,

I know you asked this question a few months ago, but better late than never!

Schism in the church is always a tragedy, even when it is necessary (as it was during the English Reformation).

Unlike Roman Catholics, Anglicans do not believe that communion with a particular national church or archbishop is necessary to maintain validity. The Anglican Communion was formed in the late 19th century to unite Anglican provinces across the world into a global fellowship. This eventually led to a communion of some 42 Anglican provinces around the world, each representing their own national church. And each equally autonomous, including the Church of England.

As some provinces, including the Church of England, began to accept and tolerate heresy that both went against the teaching of Scripture and previously agreed-upon doctrinal statements by the communion, a number of Anglican provinces stopped recognizing communion with those churches, and even created ecclesial homes for Anglicans in countries whose churches had apostatized.
Just as these national Anglican Churches were legitimate before the formation of the Anglican Communion in the late 1800s, so we believe they still are today.

As for what makes Anglican churches who do not recognize communion with England different from Baptists and Methodists, I would say it lies in our ecclesiology.

All Anglican Churches maintain apostolic succession via bishops consecrated within the historic episcopate. This has been a historic mark of the church in Anglican thought, not communion with a particular church or bishop. Not all Anglicans believe this is necessary, but all Anglican churches still retain it. Anglicans who have refused to recognize the Church of England have not left the Anglican Church because communion with the Church of England has never been a requirement for Anglicanism.

While communion with other Anglican churches is not essential for a church to be legitimate, it is still preferable. Which is why the provinces who rejected the role of England as a mark of communion have consecrated the Global Anglican Communion to create a fellowship of Anglican churches committed to global doctrinal unity.

I hope you found this helpful!

Reply