Doctrinally speaking, I think you're right that baptizo means dipping/immersion. But we also have a definition provided in scripture that baptism is the answer of good conscience toward God. This was the purpose of that baptism. It was not a false salve, for it was a true response of a good conscience.Pastor Larry said:Wrong? Not necessarily. But useless? Surely. Because the guy still wasn't baptized. Baptism, by definition, is immersion. Anything than immersion, whatever it might be, and however noble its motives might be, is not baptism.
In cases like this, it would generally be better to wait until the man is better than to salve a conscience with a baptism that really isn't. Dumping a tub of water over someone is not baptism, biblically speaking. It does not conform to the definition, the practice, or the symbolism of baptism.
So I do not question the motives or the heart, but right motives do not change the facts of what baptism actually is.
This is the kind of case where I think we let "feel-goodism" overwhelm the biblical teaching. In an effort to feel good, or help others feel good, we do things that are not biblical and in so doing we provide a false salve to a conscience.
BTW waiting was not an option because we had already waited quite some time but his condition was worsening and the doctors said he would only last a few more days. He lived for about a month after the baptism.
But the next time I come across this type of situation, I will think about what you have said.