I believe annalex and jo kus beat me to this. It refers to the future. If a person continues to live in faith, receiving sacraments, being spiritually alive, he will have died to his sinful tendencies imparted to him by his fallen nature. Baptism is the initiation into the life of the Church; it is the entry into Christian life.
How can this happen without any free will? I think it's been said that the free will is supplied by proxy through the parents, but that doesn't really make logical sense, does it? "I will exercise your free will FOR YOU"? The poor baby has no idea what is happening to him. The baby doesn't want to be baptized, he wants his binky! :) His will is being totally overrun here
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.
In the process of raising our children, we are often in a position to overrun their wills and impose ours. We do it knowing that it is for their good, and we know that they will do the same to their children, and for the same reason.
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.