For cryin' out loud, I'm not advocating for BOD. God determines both the ends and the means, and applies them to His elect. If baptism is a divinely established  means, why wouldn't God bring the elect to the font?

This entire presmise of BoD is that somehow God is bound by impossibility (heretical).  It is no more difficult for God to bring the Sacrament to someone as to inspire a votum for the Sacrament.  St. Augustine explicitly rejected this opinion for those "who wish to be Catholic" in his famous "vortex of confusion" quote.

https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Combined-Feeney-articles-red.pdf

[7] In these words a description of the justification of a sinner is given as
being a translation from that state in which man is born a child of the
first Adam to the state of grace and of the “adoption of sons”
[Romans VIII:15] of God through the second Adam, Jesus Christ, our
Savior; and this translation after the promulgation of the Gospel
cannot be effected except through the laver of regeneration, or a
desire for it, as it is written: “Unless a man be born again of water and
the Holy Ghost, he cannot enter into the kingdom of God” [John III:5]. [emphasis added]

https://mostholytrinityseminary.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Combined-Feeney-articles-red.pdf

Porro fide divina et catholica ea omnia credenda sunt, quae in verbo Dei scripto vel tradito continentur, et ab Ecclesia sive solemni iudicio sive ordinario et universali magisterio tamquam divinitus revelata credenda proponuntur.

Wherefore, by divine and catholic faith all those things are to be believed which are contained in the word of God as found in scripture or tradition, and proposed by the church, whether by solemn judgment or the ordinary and universal magisterium as matters to be believed as divinely revealed.

II. You must believe those teachings of the universal ordinary
magisterium held by theologians to belong to the faith
(Pius IX).
• “For even if it were a matter concerning that subjection which
is to be manifested by an act of divine faith, nevertheless, it would
not have to be limited to those matters which have been defined by
express decrees of the ecuмenical Councils, or of the Roman Pon-
tiffs and of this See, but would have to be extended also to those
matters which are handed down as divinely revealed by the ordi-
nary teaching power of the whole Church spread throughout the
world, and therefore, by universal and common consent are held
by Catholic theologians to belong to faith.” Tuas Libenter (1863),
DZ 1683.

Why the Church Requires You
to Believe or Adhere to Doctrines
Commonly Taught by her Theologians.

[...]

I. Introductory Concepts.

A. Definition of Theologian = “learned man who after the time of the Church Fathers scientifically taught sacred doctrine in the Church.”

IV. Thesis: The unanimous teaching of theologians in matters
of faith and morals establishes certitude for the proof of a dogma.

St. Augustine explained why the necessity of Baptism was causing issues for some people.  He mentioned that people regularly saw scoundrels who delayed their Baptism until death (often so they could continue with their immoral lives) be snatched from Hell at the last moment and then occasionally some devout Catechumens who had reformed their lives dying before receiving the Sacrament.

But having given it more thought, in the "vortex of confusion" passage, he rejected that consideration for all who "wished to be Catholic".

It's clear that the subsequent proponents of BoD were almost entirely deferring to St. Augustine's admittedly tentative and speculative opinion.  When he came out with his theory, he admitted that he went back and forth on the question but at the time he "finds that" (i.e. personal opinion rather than communicating teaching from Apostolic authority).

5-6 Church Fathers rejected the speculation.

Consequently, I see zero evidence that speculation regarding BoD was revealed and taught by the Apostles.  If anything the Church Fathers are consistent regarding the necessity of the Sacrament for salvation.  There's that famous passage from the Patristic scholar Father Jurgens, with which I wholeheartedly agree.  As a graduate student I read hundreds of pages from the Fathers in the original languages, and I concur with Father Jurgens' assessment:
I had come to this conclusion long before I had heard of either Father Feeney or the Dimond Brothers.

Chapter 13 [X]—His Seventh Error. (See Above in Book II. 13 [IX.].)

If you wish to be a catholic, do not venture to believe, to say, or to teach that “they whom the Lord has predestinated for baptism can be snatched away from his predestination, or die before that has been accomplished in them which the Almighty has predestined.” There is in such a dogma more power than I can tell assigned to chances in opposition to the power of God, by the occurrence of which casualties that which He has predestinated is not permitted to come to pass. It is hardly necessary to spend time or earnest words in cautioning the man who takes up with this error against the absolute vortex of confusion into which it will absorb him, when I shall sufficiently meet the case if I briefly warn the prudent man who is ready to receive correction against the threatening mischief. Now these are your words: “We say that some such method as this must be had recourse to in the case of infants who, being predestinated for baptism, are yet, by the failing of this life, hurried away before they are born again in Christ.” Is it then really true that any who have been predestinated to baptism are forestalled before they come to it by the failing of this life? And could God predestinate anything which He either in His foreknowledge saw would not come to pass, or in ignorance knew not that it could not come to pass, either to the frustration of His purpose or the discredit of His foreknowledge? You see how many weighty remarks might be made on this subject; but I am restrained by the fact of having treated on it a little while ago, so that I content myself with this brief and passing admonition.

Philip Schaff: NPNF1-05. St. Augustine: Anti-Pelagian Writings - Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org)

Yet why He chooses some for glory, and reprobates others, has no reason, except the divine will. Whence Augustine says (Tract. xxvi. in Joan.): "Why He draws one, and another He draws not, seek not to judge, if thou dost not wish to err." Thus too, in the things of nature, a reason can be assigned, since primary matter is altogether uniform, why one part of it was fashioned by God from the beginning under the form of fire, another under the form of earth, that there might be a diversity of species in things of nature. Yet why this particular part of matter is under this particular form, and that under another, depends upon the simple will of God; as from the simple will of the artificer it depends that this stone is in part of the wall, and that in another; although the plan requires that some stones should be in this place, and some in that place. Neither on this account can there be said to be injustice in God, if He prepares unequal lots for not unequal things. This would be altogether contrary to the notion of justice, if the effect of predestination were granted as a debt, and not gratuitously. In things which are given gratuitously, a person can give more or less, just as he pleases (provided he deprives nobody of his due), without any infringement of justice. This is what the master of the house said: "Take what is thine, and go thy way. Is it not lawful for me to do what I will?" (Matthew 20:14-15).



SUMMA THEOLOGIAE: Predestination (Prima Pars, Q. 23) (newadvent.org)

This here from your citation has been my attitude regarding predestination:

I believe that this kindof speculation is a mystery far above our understanding, and so I don't spend a great deal of time on the question.  But I'll go have a look at your predestination thread.  Regardless, I absolutely rejection this notion that God can be impeded by impossibility, accidents, and surprises.  He has no more difficulty bringing the Sacraments to His elect than He has drawing them by internal inspiration.

1 Corinthians 4:7

[7] For who distinguisheth thee? Or what hast thou that thou hast not received? And if thou hast received, why dost thou glory, as if thou hadst not received it?

Quis enim te discernit? quid autem habes quod non accepisti? si autem accepisti, quid gloriaris quasi non acceperis?

http://www.drbo.org/drl/chapter/53004.htm 

Chapter 21 - Instances of the Unsearchable Judgments of God.


Therefore, of two infants, equally bound by original sin, why the one is taken and the other left; and of two wicked men of already mature years, why this one should be so called as to follow Him that calleth, while that one is either not called at all, or is not called in such a manner,—the judgments of God are unsearchable. But of two pious men, why to the one should be given perseverance unto the end, and to the other it should not be given, God’s judgments are even more unsearchable. Yet to believers it ought to be a most certain fact that the former is of the predestinated, the latter is not. “For if they had been of us,” says one of the predestinated, who had drunk this secret from the breast of the Lord, “certainly they would have continued with us.”( 1 John ii. 19 . ) What, I ask, is the meaning of, “They were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would certainly have continued with us”? Were not both created by God—both born of Adam—both made from the earth, and given from Him who said, “I have created all breath,”( Isa. lvii. 16 [see LXX.] ) souls of one and the same nature? Lastly, had not both been called, and followed Him that called them? and had not both become, from wicked men, justified men, and both been renewed by the laver of regeneration? But if he were to hear this who beyond all doubt knew what he was saying, he might answer and say: These things are true. In respect of all these things, they were of us. Nevertheless, in respect of a certain other distinction, they were not of us, for if they had been of us, they certainly would have continued with us. What then is this distinction? God’s books lie open, let us not turn away our view; the divine Scripture cries aloud, let us give it a hearing. They were not of them, because they had not been “called according to the purpose;” they had not been chosen in Christ before the foundation of the world; they had not gained a lot in Him; they had not been predestinated according to His purpose who worketh all things. For if they had been this, they would have been of them, and without doubt they would have continued with them.


Augustine, Saint. The Complete Works of St. Augustine: Cross-linked to the Bible and with in-line footnotes (pp. 9456-9457). Kindle Edition.

I had come to this conclusion long before I had heard of either Father Feeney or the Dimond Brothers.


The Dimonds cut off the first and last sentence of the paragraph.

That passage of Jurgens is from his footnote discussing the state of infants who die without Baptism, as he says in the first sentence, removed by the Dimonds. 

The "tradition" that Jurgens says "in fact is there" refers to the "obvious exception of invincible ignorance and physical impossibility."  Jurgens is saying BOD is the tradition that "in fact is there,", and "likely enough to be found so constant as to constitute revelation."  If that wasn't clear, any confusion is cleared up by the last sentence of the paragraph, which the Dimonds also removed. 

Here's the full paragraph (bolded sentences are the two the Dimonds removed):