Was this baptism by immersion?

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.

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.

 

I am not disputing that it was the true response of a good conscience. I am disputing that it was baptism.

And like the thief on the cross, he would have still gone to heaven. That's why I think this gets overblown sometimes. It is a key issue of obedience, but if baptism cannot be carried out, I see no need to substitute sprinkling or pouring (even dumping). I think we end up going down the wrong road with that.

 

I cannot object to this.

 

There is no argument. There is not a Bible scholar in the world that will argue that Baptism in it's original sense was not full immersion. The argument with those that sprinkle or pour is that Baptism is only a symbol and sense it is symbolic the method is not important.