Here are some of my nominalist reasons for [supporting] that belief [Church's belief on infant baptism]:
(2) St. Justin Martyr, a first-century Saint, ... taught that Baptism is Christian circumcision (and Jews perform circumcision on the 8th day after birth).
Even though I think I've heard of that before, I always think that is an interesting comparison. What do you think of this passage? :
Rom. 2:25-29 : "25 Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised. 26 If those who are not circumcised keep the law's requirements, will they not be regarded as though they were circumcised? 27 The one who is not circumcised physically and yet obeys the law will condemn you who, even though you have the written code and circumcision, are a lawbreaker."
"28 A man is not a Jew if he is only one outwardly, nor is circumcision merely outward and physical. 29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God."
If the comparison that St. Justin Martyr makes is correct, then this would seem to confirm that baptism is only good until the first sin. It also seems to imply that anyone who is not baptized, but yet believes, is still fine in the eyes of God. I would agree with that. Finally, from my POV, this "could" also be seen as favoring a believer's baptism, since how could any man receive praise from God unless he is a believer?
(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."
It's interesting because I have my own little "situation" concerning this kind of thing. I say that God picked His elect for certain from before the foundation of the world. So, I can't say that God throws out "free passes" as time goes by. This leaves open the possibility that some innocent children, or aborted babies, etc. are not on the list. Of course, they could all be on the list. There's no way for me to know. So if I understand the Reformed view on this, and if I am to be consistent, then I have to leave open the possibility.
(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.
Yes, this ties in with above, and I agree that there is no age limit. I would say the elect are the elect whether or not they have been baptized or even said the sinner's prayer.
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).
That is a fair point for those who believe that the Spirit indwells at Baptism. (I just don't happen to be one of those people. :)
(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.
Yes, I agree with you in principle, that no one is barred from heaven based on age, even in the womb. -- And on this whole subject, as I have said to Joe before, and others I'm sure, infant baptism has never been a matter of serious controversy for me. Even while holding my current beliefs, I sanctioned both of my [then] infant children being baptized in other churches for family reasons. It was no problem. They have both since been baptized as believers. So, my main disagreements would be much less over the fact of infant baptism, and much more over the meaning behind it.
BTW, for anyone who doesn't already know, and would be interested in knowing where I'm coming from in a believer's baptism, here are some scriptures I would use in support:
1. Mark 16:15-16 : 15 He said to them, "Go into all the world and preach the good news to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.
"Believe" comes first, just as in Matthew, plus notice the clear implication that not being baptized does not equal condemnation, only unbelief does, even though baptism was just mentioned in the same sentence.
2. Acts 2:41 : Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.
Unbelievers, such as infants, were not baptized.
3. Acts 8:12 : But when they believed Philip as he preached the good news of the kingdom of God and the name of Jesus Christ, they were baptized, both men and women.
Only when they believed were they baptized.
4. Acts 18:8 : Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized.
Nothing is required of men to be saved, except God's sovereign decree. No oath, no pledge, no sprinkling of holy water, no sign of the cross, no payment rendered, no piety, no persuasion, no effort on man's part in the slightest. We are either numbered among the elect, or we're not. If we are, we will receive Trinitarian faith in Jesus Christ and we will recognize that our salvation lies in the accomplished work of Christ upon the cross...all in due time, according to His will.
Infant baptism reaffirms God's covenant family structure between the child and God, between the family and God, and between the family and the congregation of professing Christians. It is a sign and seal of our birthright as God's children.
And it involves our righteous cooperation not in the slightest. It is all of Him who bestows the blessings.
Now, why aren't we asleep? 8~)
Why does it matter? Sola scriptura, friend, makes you the pope and the church all in one!
Even though I think I've heard of that before, I always think that is an interesting comparison
The only comparison between Jewish circumcision and Baptism is that both represent a covenant with God. The people were not sure if the number of days used by the Jews was significant or not. That's why they asked if it had to be on day 8 after the birth. But, as usual, Christianity is but a pale reflection of Judaism, which is evident from St. Justin Martyr's dismissal.
I say that God picked His elect for certain from before the foundation of the world
That would imply the pre-existance of souls, which is a Gnostic belief -- of which St. Paul has been suspect, at least in his earlier beliefs.
I would say the elect are the elect whether or not they have been baptized or even said the sinner's prayer
Baptism is one Sacrament that is recognized by all Christian assemblies as an absolute necessity to be Christian. Those who are not in the Church usually consider it a nominalist symbol, just like the breaking of the bread. Those who are not Christian can indeed be God's elect, but anyone, believer or not, who is not in covenant with Christ is not a Christian.
Even while holding my current beliefs, I sanctioned both of my [then] infant children being baptized in other churches for family reasons...They have both since been baptized as believers
Anabaptism (which is what you did) was considered vehement heresy by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, and especially by the Reformed movements. You need to read up on Anabaptists, who were eventually destroyed -- especially by the Lutherans. It all goes back to the understanding of baptism as a Sacrament and not a mere ritual.
One thing however, that was amazing is that Anabaptists were way ahead of their times in terms in some ways. They were the founders of pacifism, believing in non-violence and opposing war. In fact, in Germany in the 16th century it was said that if a man does not drink excessively, and does not abuse his family and servants, he is probably an Anabaptist!
"Believe" comes first, just as in Matthew, plus notice the clear implication that not being baptized does not equal condemnation
Baptism is for the remission of sins. What St. Mark is saying is that whoever is baptized and believes will be saved. Therefore it is not enough to just believe (sola fide is not enough). Those who do not believe, even if they are baptized, will not be saved. So, baptism and faith go hand in hand; but those who are baptized and cannot believe (infants) are not condemned because it is not their fault.
Acts 18:8 : Crispus, the synagogue ruler, and his entire household believed in the Lord; and many of the Corinthians who heard him believed and were baptized
Entire household includes children/infants. Those who believe but are not baptized will want to be baptized. That does not mean infants cannot be baptized. Christ did not say baptize only those who believe.
I have also noticed your comments that baptism is good only until the next sin. That's why we have confession/repentance and communion -- it's a renewal of our state of being baptized because we certainly do not keep it holy and clean.