I have 2 categories of question; the first is points of clarification, the second is points which I see as necessarily supporting the credo position. However, I'm only going to post the points of clarification in this post, so that I can understand better and perhaps answer some of my own questions through that. The Book is "Baptism:Answers to Common Questions" by Guy M. Richard. 1: On page 28, he says: "... the fact that water is the requisite element that is to be used in baptism suggests that cleansing or washing should be considered the primary meaning of the right [of baptism]." However, on page 31 he brings up 1 Peter 3:21, "... which states, 'baptism ... now saves you'". Wouldn't that mean that the primary meaning of baptism is not a washing, but union with the Holy Spirit? Which sort of, but not strongly, supports the credo position. 2: On page 45, he says, "The Abrahamic Covenant was never intended to be a purely national covenant ... it was always intended to be a Spiritual Covenant with Abraham and his Spiritual offspring. The Baptists here claim that this is the 2-level promise: the first level is national, the second is Spiritual. Circumcision is only a sign of the national. Please explain? 3: On Page 49 he says that Ishmael and Esau are good examples of being circumcised but excluded from the covenant. The thing is, were they excluded from just salvation, or also from the nation? 4: Page 72 he brings up that Abraham's children are "heirs according to promise", but isn't the New Covenant enacted on "Better promises"? He later says that the New Covenant is different in form, but not in substance (page 85) so then where do these "better promises" come from? He then says that believers are the true sons of Abraham, which again seems to support the baptist position. 5: If the Old Covenant was still part of the Covenant of Grace, then why does Guy Richard say that the "remember your sins no more" portion of Jeremiah 31 means that Christ's sacrifice is sufficient once for all. However, if this sacrifice was applied to Old Covenant believers, why is it seemingly limited to only the New Covenant? 6: If the New Covenant is "expanded to include those from every tribe and language and people and nation" (page 93) then doesn't that support the idea that the Old Covenant was specifically national? 7: Finally, Guy quotes 1 Corinthians 7:14 on page 106, which has been alternatively interpreted as being an argument from lesser to greater as demonstrated here: https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/sanctifying-unbelieving-spouses I really, really want to understand. I've flopped around on Baptism for a long time, and my wife is getting exhausted. We're about to have a baby, and also join a Baptist Church. I need to settle this once and for all. Please, help me. Thank you for your time. May grace and peace be magnified to you all.