So really, the baby isn't actually dead to the former nature/tendencies at baptism. He really is only dead to what was, AFTER the completion of the race. So what good is actually accomplished at baptism vis-a-vis the fallen nature if it is only good until the first (mortal) sin? If a baby dies before his first sin he is "covered", right? So, what is the difference between two babies who die, with one having been baptized and the other not? In the salvational sense, if the same two do not die, then are they both not in the same spot upon their first sin?
The godparents are the spiritual parents of the child who guide him or her in the life of the Church until that child can do it on his or her own. This is no different than parents being the caretakers of their children and preparing them, sometimes against their will, to become responsible and virtuous human beings.
Yes, but this exactly the argument your side rails against when it comes to accepting Christ. For that, free will must reign supreme, there can be no coercion from our "spiritual godparent" (God). So, it is fine for earthly godparents to overrule the child for his own spiritual good, but you deny that ability to God for his children who are of age. Are humans who have existed for only a handful of years really in such a superior position to be able to make literally eternal decisions for their own good? I don't give man that much credit.
So, it is fine for earthly godparents to overrule the child for his own spiritual good, but you deny that ability to God for his children who are of age
It's done differently, but in both cases the desired result is an opportunity to improve, change, add, etc. In the case of Adults, God send us numerous blessings and opporutnities, whether they be people, events or even punihsments, for imporvement.
I am the last person on this earth who can explain Baptism to someone who sees it as a nominalist act. I can say, however, that your thinking mirrors that of errors that existed in the mid 4th century A.D. when some Christians delayed Baptism until their dying moment for fear of the "post-baptismal sin."
I confess not just my ignorance but my doubts (intentionally or not) every time I post something, because I can actually understand such nominalism, by clinging to rationalism.
Nevertheless, I am not a rebel. I believe that the Church speaks the truth even if I don't understand or even personally see the truth the same way at this moment as the Church did from the beginning.
Here are some of my nominalist reasons for that belief even as I lack spiritual understanding:
(1) There is Scriptural evidence that suggests that whole families were baptized.(1 Cor 1:16, Acts 11:14, or 16:15, 18:8, etc.). I am pretty sure that in those days the term "family" (familia) included the children.
(2) St. Justin Martyr, a first-century Saint, himself having been baptized as an infant/child1 (born in 69 AD), writes in Apologia 1:15 "men and women who have been Christ's disciples since childhood remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy..." It was the same Saint who taught that Baptism is Christian circumcision (and Jews perform circumcision on the 8th day after birth).
1Polycarp said "Eighty and six years have I served the Lord Christ" as he was being martyred in 155 AD.
(3) Irenaeus (2nd century AD) stated that all who are born through Him are born again to God — infants and children..."
(4) Others, such as Origen (who says "Infants are ot be baptized for the remission of sins..." Homily on Luke 4:1) or St. Cyprian (who specifically says that Christians should not wait until the eight day to baptize their children as the Jews do for circumcision, but "as soon as [the child] is born" 1:2) expressed similar understanding.
(5) The bishops at the Council of Carthage (254 AD) specifically state that no one should hinder another person from receiving God's grace" adding "especially infants..."
(6) St. Augustine made it clear that the custom of baptizing infants was a "tradition of the apostles" De Genesi ad Literam X:39. He was adamant that "infants who die before baptism" cannot obtain remission of the original sin."
(7) Early Christian grave sites bear witness of dead infants and children who were "servants of God" or words to that effect. In the Laterna Museum an inscription dated around 200 AD says that a certain Zosimus "a believer from believers lies here having lived 2 years, 1 month 25 days."
(8) Baptism is adoption of man by Christ (St John of Damascus, Book IV, VIII:5). What he is saying basically is: there is no age limit when God may adopt us.
[There are numerous other samples from historical records that show that the Church, the clergy and the people of God, practiced and believed in infant baptism in an unbroken tradition instituted by the Apostles and carried on to this day by Apostolic Churches (Roman Catholic, Orthodox) and some Lutheran and Calvinist denominations.]
(9) There is a preponderance fathers, throughout centuries, with one sole exception (Tertullian, 2nd c. AD), who believed and defended what the Church always believed regarding infant baptism. Infant baptism was not rejected until the 16th century by Anabaptists who were condemned by the Orthodox, Roman Catholic and Lutherans alike.
(10) Let's not forget that John the Baptist was filled with the Holy Spirit while still in his mother's womb (Luke 1:15).
(11) The 4th century Symbol of Faith (aka known as the Nicene Creed), in its finalized version states "I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins" ( because we are all born in iniquity, i.e. fallen from God's grace).
(12) Surely, you must agree that God is not limited by our age of reason or, as Tertullian would say, our "spiritual puberty," for us to have our sins remitted by His Grace. The Church understood that from the beginning, and still does, even I.