Book Review: It Takes A Church To Baptize by Scot McKnight

Baptism is a hot topic. If you have been on Twitter for a while, depending on who you follow, you know it to be true. Baptists have always given the defense for Believer's Baptism while other denominations have argued that infants of believing parents should be baptized.

There have been a number of books and articles written on both sides giving their reasons for why their mode of baptism is more Biblically accurate than the other. One such person is Scot McKnight, who believes that infant baptism is Biblical than what Baptists believe. He gives a general defense of infant baptism hoping to clear the minds of those doubting it in his latest book, It Takes a Church to Baptize: What the Bible Says about Infant Baptism.

McKnight states what led him to embrace infant baptism was the Bible, which is why he says the Bible gives a stellar defense for infant baptism. One thing he also stresses is that baptizing apart from the family, meaning the family of God, violates what baptism is all about. McKnight, an Anglican minister, goes through various passages to show support for infant baptism which are the same verses you hear from Presbyterians. He goes on to say baptism is not the gospel but the gospel is presented in baptism, which sounds more credo (Believer's Baptism) than paedo (Infant Baptism). McKnight writes that baptism is a public act pronouncing that God has done something for us, to which I say Amen as a credo Baptist. Keep in mind, this is a book about infant baptism.

McKnight digs into church history to show that infant baptism has been around for a long time. While that is true, I recall a statement from John Calvin that said the church in the beginning baptized by immersion and Calvin was a paedo Baptist. Church history can also show us that the earliest forms of paedo baptism took was in the 4th century while the earliest documents of church history shows us that credo baptism was the primary mode in the 3rd century. Of course, McKnight tries to point out that circumcision and baptism are the same which they are clearly not. Circumcision for Israel was to set them apart as a nation from the other nations. Baptism is our declaration of what Christ has done for us and we have been adopted into the family of God, which is based the finished work of Christ. Yes, the church is called a holy nation, but we are nation of different people groups, not one particular nation.

McKnight does say that baptism should be a family affair. Not just the child's family but the whole church. According to him, Anglicans made a big deal of baptism. I do agree that baptism needs to be a family affair where the church celebrates those who profess Christ as they pronounce the work of Christ in their lives.

McKnight points out that baptism reflects our union of Christ, which again sounds more like Believer's Baptism than Infant Baptism. If a baby has union with Christ before he/she professes faith, does that mean the baby is saved upon baptism? This is something Anglicans and Presbyterians would say no, but still does not make a lot of sense.

McKnight does make a compelling argument for Infant Baptism, but not a convincing one. Too many inconsistencies in the book regarding what Anglicans believe about Baptism. There were times that made you wonder if he was defending credo or paedo baptism. There were also times when I felt he was making infant baptism a primary issue more than a secondary issue. Meaning that infant baptism must be practice in the church or it is an affront to the gospel. Granted, baptism is an important doctrine and practice, but the mode, to most paedo and credo Baptists, is more of a secondary issue.

Thanks Baker Publishing for letting me review this book.