I believe in infant baptism but I wanted more of a theological understanding. I believe that is what the author does in this book, and does well, but his argument is very focused within his denomination, which is not mine, so I became discouraged with finishing it.

For years, I thought infant baptism was wrong. Then, I heard a good sermon or two, and talked at length with my pastor, and I changed my mind but it was complicated. In this book, McKnight explains it well (I especially liked the way he broke down the words of the baptism service), but it took him over a hundred pages to do it. A great read.

Interesting read. Thought it would be so. Not for everyone but will recommend selectively. And will probably purchase a copy for bookshelf to loan out.

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.

I grew up Methodist and was sprinkled as an infant. At the age of 17 I joined the Churches of Christ and was immersed in water as an act of believer's baptism. I also love Scot McKnight and his books and so this one quickly caught my interest.

McKnight's approach to arguing in favor of infant baptism is unique for sure. As an Anglican he guides the reader through the Common Book of Prayer as if they were attending worship with him on a Sunday that a baptism was happening. The reader is able to take a deeper look into the liturgy and have a better understanding of why it is approached the way that it is.

Near the end McKnight breaks from this in order to write about what the Bible teaches about baptism, and then to work to provide a scriptural case for infant baptism before returning to the liturgical baptism.

Almost thou persuadest me, Scot. Almost. Scot focused primarily on covenants and the history of God bringing in not just one who receives the sign of the covenant (shown through circumcision) but how other males were also circumcised based on the faith of the patriarch whether slave or son, adult or infant. I think he makes a good point, and it's always bothered me how many Christians have raised their children as kids that have faith, participate in worship, confess, repent, and pray for forgiveness, and suddenly we tell them they need to get baptized and give their lives to Christ as if their lives so far have been a sham faith.

Perhaps I'm just not "there" yet, but I wasn't convinced that baptism is equated with circumcision to the extent that it copies the act of bringing people into God's family based on the faith of a family leader. The argument that "households" would most likely have kids and so we should assume they infants were baptized is more of a leap for me than anything, and his use of 1 Corinthians 7:14 to argue infant baptism seems very out of context.

That being said, I still highly recommend it. It prompted me to really consider what we do as a church that practices believers baptism to show that we care deeply about our children and helping them find their place within the family of God as early as possible.

*I received a free copy from Netgalley for my honest review*

This short read is a exposition on infant baptism citing what the author pulls in as the biblical foundation for. While doing so he's also wound this around the sacrament of baptism as held in the anglican community, which I am well familiar with. The book is well put together in most respects and yet I wanted something more, I point to the title It Takes A Church. That is does. When we stand to witness the baptism of not just infants but any one else, the church family and community, two very important factors that we hold to be be also promise that we collectively assume this role as well.
It does indeed take a church family/ community to uphold this covenant of faith. I absolutely understand what the author was trying to put forth, however the last quarter of the book took a curve that could have been placed earlier or not at all. It is by all means a very readable, easy to understand book, it does have somewhat of a scholarly approach but again easy straightforward read. It is a great book for those seeking to understand the broader view of baptism narrowed down.
I recommend it for any reader looking for a broader understanding or searching their own beliefs.

*I received an arc from NetGalley and publisher for an honest review*

I very much appreciate the view of infant baptism from one who previously accepted beginner's baptism. Even though in the end I do not agree with all of Scot's conclusions, I found much that I would agree with him on in contrast to the beliefs of many who practice beginner's baptism. In particular that baptism is an act that engages the Spirit of God to bring us into a relationship with Himself. I would also agree that baptism needs to be seen as a church family related matter, I believe it takes a church to help mature a new follower of Christ.

As with any point of view that is different from that which a reader holds Scot's presentation of the Anglican view of infant baptism caused me to consider my beliefs and why I hold them. It also gave me a new respect for the beliefs of others who do not see this issue as I do.

INTRODUCTION
I am a Baptist. More specifically, I am a convicted Southern Baptist who affirms credobaptism (believer’s baptism). However, when I was a college student wrestling through various aspects of Christian theology, I tried to become a Presbyterian. Many of my theological commitments are shared by my Presbyterian brothers and sisters, but at the end of the day, I was not convinced of paedobaptism (infant/child baptism). The paedobaptist argument that baptism, a sign of the new covenant, is for the young children of Christian parents in the same way circumcision, the sign of the Abrahamic covenant, was for all infant Israelite males and the argument that household baptisms in the New Testament assume unbelieving children were baptized did not hold weight to the reality that the newness of the new covenant is new hearts and spirits of faith and obedience to the LORD for covenant members worthy of the baptismal covenant sign (see Deut. 30; Jer. 31; Ezek. 11, 36) or to the reality that baptism is reserved for repentant believers in Christ throughout the New Testament (ex. Matt. 28:18-20; Acts 2:37-41, 8:12, 8:26-40, 10:9-11:18) or to the reality that household baptisms could just as well mean all in the house—including children—became believers by the power of the gospel and were baptized. Yet, being convinced of credobaptism, I was still interested in reading Scot McKnight’s latest release on baptism entitled It Takes a Church to Baptize: What the Bible Says about Infant Baptism.

SUMMARY
In It Takes a Church to Baptize, McKnight provides “reasons from the Bible for infant baptism” for those “doubtful or wondering” about its Scriptural validity. McKnight begins by presenting six key words pertaining to baptism that one must understand in order to grasp his framework for baptism: family, Bible, gospel, conversion, debate, and heritage. McKnight, an Anglican, then structures his argument around an Anglican baptismal service. Through anecdotal evidence found in the practice of his Anglican church, McKnight walks the reader through the various components of an Anglican baptismal service and their significance in chapters two, three, and six. In chapters four and five, McKnight makes a defense of paedobaptism from the Bible. McKnight concludes the book by sharing his personal testimony of transitioning from a credobaptist position to a paedobaptist position.

CRITICAL EVALUATION
Suffice it to say that the biblical argument for paedobaptism presented was not substantially different from the summary argument referenced in my introduction. McKnight’s repeated emphasis on the continuity between the Abrahamic covenant and the new covenant, particularly with respect to the parallels between circumcision and the baptism, joined together with the assertion that New Testament household baptism necessarily means non-believing children were baptized simply does not hold weight in light of the overwhelming evidence for credobaptism found in the new covenant promises offered in the Old Testament and in the New Testament’s self-witness, as previously referenced. McKnight even honestly admits that there is “no text in the New Testament that explicitly reveals the practice of infant baptism in the apostolic church.” An implicit argument rooted in debatable texts such as Acts 16:30-31 that can just as easily imply credobaptism simply isn’t convincing to this reader.

That being said, the real reason this book had appeal was because of its title: It Takes a Church to Baptize. In a culture of the hyper-individualization of everything, including baptism, many Christians neglect the fact that baptism is a corporate sign of the kingdom of Christ given to the one church who professes the one gospel under the lordship of the one Christ who unites his one body to himself by faith, the union of which the one baptism visibly reflects as a sign (Rom. 6:1-10; Eph. 4:4-6). In other words, McKnight’s emphasis on the corporate nature of baptism drew intrigue.

For Anglicans, it’s the baptism of an infant into the church that serves as the starting place for the child’s family and the congregation to commit to instruct the child in the gospel until the child matures and, by God’s grace, embraces the gospel by faith. Because baptism involves congregational commitments toward discipleship, baptism is by default a communal event. For credobaptists, baptism occurs as a believer (including a believing child) publicly declares Jesus is Lord in unison with a believing church body as a result of the congregation’s prior commitment to make disciples (Matt. 28:18-20). Yet while baptism takes place post-new birth for credobaptists, one of the ways in which credobaptists can learn to rightly reflect the corporate nature of baptism from paedobaptist Anglicans is by making baptism more congregationally participatory in addition to being accountable witnesses to a profession of faith. Perhaps this might include the entire congregation stretching their hand toward the one being baptized as the person is being plunged into the water in order to symbolize the fact that it is ultimately the church who has the authority to baptize. Perhaps this might include baptismal covenant commitments for the one being baptized and for the congregation. It does take a church to baptize, and credobaptists would do well to clearly reflect this reality in tangible ways when a person is baptized.

CONCLUSION
It Takes a Church to Baptize is a helpful book for those wanting to learn about the Anglican understanding of baptism. The book does contain a few insights for practically displaying the corporate nature of baptism, which is beneficial; however, the book ultimately errs in its theology of baptism. It does take a church to baptize. Oh that credobaptists would be more faithful to reflect the corporate nature of baptism in our baptismal services.