Dead Orthodoxy

At no time does Scripture teach us that all men are born with an pure heart. AT NO TIME. "For all have sinned" This is typical of Baptist theology.

Not punished for the sin of Adam? What is death? God's declaration for all of mankind. Corruption of the heart is also God's declaration of all mankind. No person is guilty of Adam's sin. Only Adam is. However, God declaration of the curse effects all of mankind. Death and corruption of human heart is universal. Jesus said it, "Out of the heart comes all evil." Baptists and American evangelicals fail to make the distinction between born in a condition of sin and actual sin. Ez 18:20 deals with actual sin. Genesis 3 deals the condition mankind is born into. A sinful condition is sin itself.

Disagree. Jesus said in Mark 7 15 there is nothing outside the man which can defile him if it goes into him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man... Do you not understand that whatever goes into the man from outside cannot defile him, 19 because it does not go into his heart, but into his stomach, and is eliminated?” (Thus He declared all foods clean.) 20 And He was saying, “That which proceeds out of the man, that is what defiles the man. 21 For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed the evil thoughts, fornications, thefts, murders, adulteries, 22 deeds of coveting and wickedness, as well as deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride and foolishness. 23 All these evil things proceed from within and defile the man.” Mankind is born with a CORRUPTED heart, and no where Scripture states a man's heart is made incorrupted then become corrupted at the Age of Accountability. Age based sinfulness exists in Baptist theology....but is Scripturally unsupported.

So as you put it "was passed down throughout history." How was that knowledge passed down? Internally? If so, sin is inherited.

You are NOT answering my question. When we FIRST sin, where does that first sin come from? Does it come from imitation of others (from the environment) or does it come from an internal desire to sin (something we inherit)?

Where does sin come from for those that are born before the innovative doctrine of the Age of Accountability? Is it imputed (born with and internal) or or imitated (external).

Where does God say we are "surrounded" by sin. Surrounded by sin is a theological innovation.

What? Jesus is saying little ones can RECEIVE the Kingdom of Heaven, not that they HAVE the Kingdom of Heaven. Because if they HAVE the Kingdom of Heaven, the early church would have not have started baptizing children as a remedy for imputed sin. Furthermore, if children HAVE the kingdom of have there would be not need to invent a fictitious belief called the "Age of Accountability."

The Biblical evidence we have is God DOES NOT create billions of souls. God’s work in creating the universe is finished. God ceased to create on the Seventh Day “He rested from all His work which God had created and made.” The soul’s of infants are derived from their parents. The biblical idea is that God has ceased creating the universe and is now allowing the forces that He created to maintain it. Although God created these natural forces He exercises a continuous care over them. God ceased created but not governing or preserving it through the natural laws of the universe. God seems to be very consistent with how He’s ordered things. Absent a clearer verse from Scripture than we already have, God resting from creating on the seventh day is the norm.

An infant can be sinful and guilty without having committing actual sins personally. The soul of the newborn infant is derived from its parents, in the same way Eve’s soul was derived from Adam. Scripture informs us God breathed life into man only once and we are never told that it was repeated. Therefore, God breathed the breath of life (soul) into Adam not Eve. Eve acquires her soul from Adam. We see a similar instance in the Incarnation. Jesus derives his sinless nature from the Holy Spirit and not from Mary. Sinfulness is part of human nature. In conformity to Scripture, the place where the seat of sin resides is the soul. This is the immaterial part of man. In the Fall, Adam’s sin now resides in his soul. Adam’s sin is passed on from parent to child through propagation. That propagation includes the sinful soul. How this occurs is unknown and how the soul contracts sin is unknown. Scripture is silent on this issue. With the soul contaminated, we inherit Adam’s sin. When the sinful soul is passed on from parent to child through propagation, this explains how a infant could be sinful and guilty without having committed sins personally. . This then also relieves God from the charge of being the author of sin or responsible for its continuance. Adam and Adam’s descendants are solely responsible for the continuance of sin. Sin is therefore not an external substance or learned behavior of the environment, but the very part of the essence of what it means to be a person. The polluting effects of sin come from Adam sin, to which the soul is infected. As someone has said before, “Every person is inheriting a flawed soul, just like inheriting a genetic disease with 100% transmission rate.”

The Text: Moreover, your little ones who you said would become a prey, and your sons, who this day have no knowledge of good or evil, shall enter there, and I will give it to them and they shall possess it. Contextually, this verse refers Numbers 13-14 where Israelite spies were sent into the land of Caanan, lied about what they saw and convinced Israel leaders and elders to murmur against Moses. For the sin of grumbling, judged the whole of Israel, forcing them to wander in the wilderness for 40 years, and only those under the age of twenty would be able of enter the promised land. For many Credobaptists, who 1) deny original sin and 2) who hold to the Age of Accountability this verse teaches children below the age of accountability were exempt from God’s judgement due to their age—— “our little ones” who have “no knowledge of good and evil.” They reason those that have “no knowledge of good and evil” at minimum are morally neutral or as extreme as being sinless or guiltless. My contention is "knowledge of good and evil" is a Hebraism which yields a closer linguistic fit meaning "maturity and immaturity" rather than sinlessness or guiltlessness. See my previous post OP 12/4 on Is. 7:14. The question is raised: Were the “little ones” who had “no knowledge of good and evil” exempt from God’s judgment of Israel. ABSOLUTELY NOT. The judgment placed upon the “little ones” was they were forced to wander for 40 years in the desert. The exemption of death is seen as a pardon and an act of pure grace by God allowing the promises to Abraham to continue. This is the only passage of Scripture that God provides an “age based” exception to His judgments. No where does Scripture indicate such an "age based" exemption exists elsewhere or to be continued in the NT era. The OT is replete of examples where children fall under God's judgment which are not "age based." Examples would be: The tenth plague. Because of the sin of one man, all first born of the Egyptians were killed. No age based exemption. Sodom and Gomorrah. Because ten righteous people could not be found the cities were destroyed along with all the cities in the valley. All died under God's judgment. No age based exemption. Assyrian & Babylonian captivity. Children were punished for the sin of the elders or Israel in general. No age based exemption. Death of David’s son. Because David committed murder by proxy, his son seven day old life was taken from him. No age based exemption. The extreme example of the Flood. All unborn, infants, toddlers, and adolescents are killed by the flood and fall under eternal condemnation, based upon the sins of their parents, and grandparents participated in. Inherit natural depravity on all humans is evident in the Flood. Infants who are incapable of actual sin, here destroyed as well as adults. The cause of death for infants is original sin, because they are not capable of actual sin. The flood was just because all sin whether original in Adam or actual is a CAPITAL OFFENSE. “The wages of sin is death” (Romans 6:23). In the Flood, either infants and children were truly guilty or God was punishing the innocent. If they were not guilty of breaking a known commandment, then they must somehow be guilty because of their relationship to Adam. They must share in his guilt. They must have "sinned in Adam." That is the truth of imputation. THE JUSTICE OF GOD. If children and infants are seen as innocent of sin, hence infantile purity and do receive God’s judgment, would this make God unjust. As Mark Beach has said, “Baptists, while protecting the Justice of God from inherited guilt, maintain these same guiltless infants can and do suffer sin’s environmental consequences or the polluting effects of sin. “Infants and young children then are specifically created to suffer the curse of death for no sin of their own—a curse that includes disease, illness, war, genocides, murder, abortions, neglect, injury, emotional abuse, sexual abuse, physical abuse, forced famines, infanticide, starvation, child sacrifice, etc. “This is a self- contradictory stance. For, if infants are without personal sin and guilt, then they have not merited the suffering they are made to endure. This is nothing other than unjust suffering.” God is not unjust.

The Text: Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, And in sin my mother conceived me. Christendom is divided both historically and geographically concerning how one interprets this psalm. The older European mega-theologies (RCC, Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, and Methodists) interpret Ps. 51 as referring to original sin. The newer post-Reformational American mega-theologies (Baptists, SDA, American Evangelicals, Charismatics and Pentecostals) do not. 1. David’s mother conceived him sin….meaning she committed adultery, thereby making David a bastard child. This interpretation conflicts with the civil exclusionary laws barring certain individuals or groups from leadership in the political realm of Israel. These would be considered to be teachers, judges, elders, officers and even KINGS. Civil exclusionary laws are located in Dt. 23:1-3 of which vs. 2 is pertinent: No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the Lord; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the Lord. It is impossible for David to be King of Israel and be a bastard at the same time. We have to remember barred individuals are not excluded from the religious life of the nation of Israel, but only from the political life of the nation. 2. David’s mother according to ancient Jewish tradition was an adulterer according to ancient Jewish sources (Talmud and Midrash). This conflicts with Sola Scriptura. We do not interpret Scripture with extra Biblical sources written 1,500 plus years after the fact. 3. The Psalms by nature are hyperbole and therefore can’t be interpreted literally. This notion is rampant among American Evangelicals. Just why the figure “hyperbole” is to be used exclusively in interpreting to the Psalms is unknown. It is just asserted. A hyperbole is a figure of speech of which functions ornamentally in language. A figure of speech is an expression used to make a greater effect on your reader or listener. Examples of figures of speech are redundancy, alliteration, parallelism, metaphor, simile, synecdoche, analogy, allegory, metonymy, etc. I have never heard of interpreting Psalms mainly through a hyperbole. Understanding figures of speech and how they work are intregal to proper interpretation OF ANY GENRE OF BIBLICAL TEXT. Paul's writings are full of figures of speech. 4. No interpretation can be assigned to any doctrine comprised of poetical or figurative language. Is this Jesus’ attitude towards interpreting the Psalms? No. Jesus said, “These are My words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about Me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled.” Here Jesus equates the Psalms on the same footing as the Pentateuch or Isaiah or any other prophet. Futhermore, we do get doctrinal content from the Psalms. In Peter first sermon on replacing Judas, he quotes two Psalms. “For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his homestead be made desolate, And let no one dwell in it’ (Ps 69:25); and “Let another man take his office. (Ps. 109:8)” This is doctrinal content because from this text the disciples nominate Matthias as Judas replacement. Jesus quotes Ps. 110 concerning Himself (four times) which has enormous Christological content. At minimum, the NT has at least 73 quotations from the Psalms ALL OF WHICH CONTAIN DOCTRINAL CONTENT. Our rules for interpreting Scripture come from Scripture itself. We are called to study the Psalms and search out it’s doctrinal content. My rules of interpreting Scripture: 1) Parallel passages interpret each other. 2) Clear passages interpret obscure passages. 3) The NT interprets the OT. 4) You must have two more passages of Scripture to establish doctrine. Romans 5:12-18 provides the NT parallel passage to Ps. 51:5. NOTE: If one were to do an internet search on “Psalm 51:5” or “Original Sin” the results would be 5x to 10x against the belief in the imputation of Adam’s sin. Why? Lutherans, Calvinists, Anglicans, the RCC and Methodists tend to have all doctrinal positions located at the denominations websites. On the other hand, Credobaptists are independent from each other, so naturally you will have more individual statements on their distinctives than denominations.

The Text 14) Therefore the Lord Himself will give you a sign: Behold, a virgin will be with child and bear a son, and she will call His name Immanuel. 15) He will eat curds and honey at the time He knows enough to refuse evil and choose good. 16) For before the boy will know enough to refuse evil and choose good, the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken. Many credobaptists see the remedy of infant salvation in the Age of Accountability and use Isaiah 7 as evidence. Some believe when Isaiah’s son Shear-jashub is old enough to “refuse evil and choose good,” is the functional equivalent of guiltlessness or sinlessness before God prior to the "Age of Accountability." I disagree. The age when the child “refuses evil and chooses good” is a Hebraism. It is much closer to the meaning of “maturity and immaturity” than “guiltlessness and sinlessness” of Isaiah’s child and the context bears this out. The Context of Isaiah 7. King Ahaz in Jerusalem is deeply troubled about being invaded by the alliance of Northern Israel and Syria. God tells Isaiah to take his young son Shear-jashub, to go to Ahaz and have Ahaz ask for a sign from God for Jerusalem not to be conquered. Ahaz refuses to ask for a sign, but God gives Ahaz not one sign but two signs. The first sign is remote and Messianic ( v. 14); the second sign (vs. 15-16) is immediate and specifically deals with the maturing age of Isaiah’s son. What vs. 15 means is when Isaiah’s child as infant or a toddler, can distinguish between the mild taste of curds (substance of milk obtained by coagulation, like cottage cheese) and the appreciate the harsher taste of honey, Jerusalem will be safe from a military attack from the Northern Kingdom and Syria. This will occur in just a few years. Isaiah’s child will eat mild foods like cottage cheese but being so young will spit out harsher tasting foods like honey. As the child grows and matures in developing his taste in food, he will be able to eat honey. The prophecy to Ahaz is when the Isaiah's child matures and can consume honey, the threat of Jerusalem will be no more. The prophecy is strictly tied to a time in the future when Shear-jashub has the ability to consume honey— the Hebraism -- to refuse evil and choose good. Within a few years of this prophecy, Shear-jashub is able to eat honey. Through God's providence, Assyria conquers the Northern Kingdom and Syria and took them into captivity. The last part of vs. 16 prophecy refers to this: "the land whose two kings you dread will be forsaken." God saves Jerusalem through the sign of Isaiah's son. Isaiah 7 has nothing to do with the sinlessness or guiltlessness of infants or toddlers. It is not a proof text for the Age of Accountability.

Question: On what basis is immersion baptism the "precedent?" This seems to be your default argument. It seems to me you are establishing the mode of baptism according to the Hellenistic definition of baptism rather than how the NT uses it. The original Hellenistic meaning is any act of immersion into a substance. This is quite clear. Before the NT was written, the Jews first took the Hellenistic word “baptism” out of its original Greek context and used it for the practice of general ceremonial washing. This is the culture Jesus was born into. In New Testament times, “baptize” didn’t have to have a special religious meaning. It typically meant “to wash with water,” whether by immersing, pouring, or sprinkling. (Luke 11:38 & Mark 7:4). Credos have a hard time understanding this. They are stuck with the Hellenistic meaning of the word. The reality is many Hellenistic words have a change of meaning in the NT. Common Hellenistic words such as flesh, heaven, God, Agape and faith, do not have the same meaning for the pagan Greek as they do for Christian. Hundreds of ancient Greek words have migrated into the NT and other languages and take on new meaning. You never see Greek word for God in the NT means Apollo or Zeus. But for some reason the credos believe baptizo can't take on new meaning even if the NT says it does (Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4). And this is the only Hellenistic word I believe credos do this with. One of my rules for interpreting Scripture is the etymology of a word never trumps the contextual usage of a word. This would be committing the Fallacy of the Root. This and for the reason above, Paul truly was baptized in Judas house. Immersion baptism is NOT THE PRECEDENT. It never was until the Radical Reformation.

Supposing I were to say "I only drive Fords." Then I start talking about driving an F 250. Then someone would say....that is not correct you stated only drive Fords and now you are stating you drive an F 250. We would think that person would not be the bright bulb on the tree. Why? The semantic range of the word "ford" includes the F 250 truck. In the same way, baptizo has a wide enough sematic range to incorporate sprinkling and pouring. So you don't have to have a specific passage the expressly states the word sprinkling as baptism. Baptizo allows for sprinkling.

Baptism is water applied to the human body, in the Triune name, and another Christian baptizing you. We look to the NT and specifically the word baptizo to see how the word is used when applying water to the human body. Credobaptists only see immersion. Paedobaptists use Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4 where baptizo are examples where water is applied to the human body and it ain't immersion. This is the common NT usage of the word. Bapatizo has enough bandwith to its meaning to incorporate both immersion and non immersion baptisms. Simple. WHAT IS REALLY GOING ON HERE? Confirmation bias. Confirmation bias is the tendency to interpret Scripture which conforms to a persons prior beliefs while rejecting or ignoring any conflicting data. It is the tendency of the human brain to filter out and ignore evidence while at the time focusing focus on the things that confirm our notions. So if a Baptist were taught from cradle to grave before opening up the Bible, all baptisms in the NT are only by immersion…then they are! And no investigation is necessary. But how do you know all baptisms are immersion unless you study each passage that applies baptism to the person? The problem I have with Credobaptists is they start with a iron clad, concrete conclusion about the mode of baptism without examining the particulars. What are the particulars---a strong understanding of Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4. Water applied to the human body and NOT immersion. This then allows for sprinkling or pouring. The sematic range of baptizo is not narrow as the credos hold. Again simple. I hate to say it....but to a certain extend interpretation of Scripture is according to our tradition.

The typography of Jerusalem has been known for some 5,000 years and no known streams nearly. Jerusalem is located on a mountain. The Gihon Spring was the main source of water for the city of Jerusalem

Ah, still vying for another location for Paul to be baptized. I believe Acts 9 taken as a whole, gives ample evidence that Paul was indeed baptized in the house of Judas. Let me make my case The key pieces of evidence. 1) Paul’s encounter with the risen Christ 2) Being struck blind 3) not eating or drinking for three days, 4) Ananias command to stand 5) eating 6) It took some time for Paul to recover from this event. We notice the text doesn’t say that he fasted. Fasting is a separate Greek word and implies Paul voluntary didn’t eat or drink. The text says he didn’t eat or drink for three days. So why didn’t he eat or drink for three days? Perhaps he had no desire to eat or drink or maybe he couldn’t eat or drink. What would cause this? ACUTE TRAUMA Paul just survived an encounter with the glorified rise Lord and was struck blind. The full weight of Jesus’ judgment is upon him. The law railed at him harshly….Paul was persecuting Jesus Himself. This is something you don’t recover from in a heart beat. This is what induces the trauma. To understand this unique and particular type of trauma, we go other passages of Scripture that describe what happens when sinful man encounters a holy and righteous God. And then see if we can make application to Paul’s situation. Is. 6 is a key text. Isaiah encounters God who is Holy and Righteous. What does he say? “Woe is me, I am undone.” Isaiah pronounces a malediction on himself, and has a feeling of existential disintegration. Then a burning coal is placed on his lips. “and your guilt is taken away and atonement is made for your sin.” No person can endure an encounter with God being sinful. It is a terrifying experience. Isaiah says "Send me" only after he receives the forgiveness of sins. We also see this same terror and dread with Jesus and the disciples. Normally, Jesus divinity is hidden behind his humanity, but what happens with Jesus’ divinity is made manifest? Jesus walking on the water. (Mt 14) When the disciples saw Him walking on the sea, they were terrified, and said, “It is a ghost!” And they cried out in fear. But immediately Jesus spoke to them, saying, “Take courage, it is I; do not be afraid.” Jesus calming the storm (Mark 4) 39 And He got up and rebuked the wind and said to the sea, “Hush, be still.” And the wind died down and it became perfectly calm. 40 And He said to them, “Why are you afraid? Do you still have no faith?” 41 They became very much afraid and said to one another, “Who, then, is this, that even the wind and the sea obey Him?” The Greek in vs. 41 is ἐφοβήθησαν φόβον or fearing with fear, or fear upon fear or even fear multiplied by fear. This is terror, dread, trauma inducing stuff. We also see terror and fear with the angelic encounters in the NT. The women at the tomb…5 And the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid; for I know that you are looking for Jesus who has been crucified. Angelic encounter of Zechariah 12 Zechariah was troubled when he saw the angel, and fear gripped him. 13 But the angel said to him, “Do not be afraid, Zechariah, And Mary…..And the angel said to her, “Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. The resurrection appearance in Luke… 36 Now while they were telling these things, Jesus Himself suddenly stood in their midst and *said to them, “Peace be to you.” 37 But they were startled and frightened, and thought that they were looking at a spirit. 38 And He said to them, “Why are you frightened, Summary: Within these supernatural encounters, two key points. Humans are terrified but can endure such an encounter with the words “Do not fear” or “Peace be with you.” BUT WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE IS NO PRONOUNCEMENT OF “Do not fear” or “peace be with you.” We have two examples. The guards at the tomb…. And behold, a severe earthquake had occurred, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon it. And his appearance was like lightning, and his clothing as white as snow. The guards shook from fear of him and became like dead men. It is interesting to note why the angel sat on the rock. As if saying “I ain’t leaving till you do.” So the guards left just before the women came to the tomb. THE EXAMPLE OF PAUL Paul suffers from a double whammie. No pronouncement of “Do not fear” and he is struck blind. He doesn’t have God’s help to overcome this terrifying event. We have no human category of this kind of acute trauma. It is only revealed in Scripture what a supernatural encounter without the help of God can do to a person. This is probably why Paul couldn’t eat or drink for three days. Acute trauma beyond human imagination. This is what it took to turn a person like Paul around. Was Paul near death? I don’t know. If Ananias didn’t come to Paul, would Paul’s death occur? Most likely. No person can endure what Paul endured without the help of God. Paul encounter was with Jesus not with angels. Ananias pronouncement “Receive the Holy Spirit” probably functions like “Peace be with you” which begins the healing process. Ananias tells Paul to stand up. This would be natural. Paul for three days was probably just lying on a bed (fetal position?) with a numbed mind. Couldn’t do much more. It is interesting to note that it takes some time for Paul to recover from this horrid event. The text doesn’t specify the length of time at Judas’ house, but when Luke mentions this “recovery time” emphasis is place on how bad Paul was physically and psychologically. Yes all these events occurred in the house of Judas including his baptism. Luke records he ate food after his baptism. It is textually unsupported, he walked to another location for an immersion baptism before or without eating food in his physical condition. So why do credobaptists insist on immersion baptism in every description of baptism in the NT? That is the subject of my next post.

I am a Sola Scriptura person. The concept of "mikveh" immersion is not found in Scripture. It is found in history. I am not bound whatsoever mikveh immersion is necessarily a precursor to Christian baptism. I am only bound to the text of the NT. Besides, in mikveh cleansing ritual, a person washing himself. In Christian baptism, another Christian baptizes you. John the Baptist was the forerunner to Christ. John's baptism is closer to Christian baptism, yet still not the same. But even John's baptism is not seen as Christian baptism. John's baptism doesn't contain the triune formula. This is why John's disciples had to be baptized by Paul's disciples in Acts 19.

Perhaps a better way to explain the wide and narrow semantic range is this: Candidates for the narrow definition of baptizo: John's baptisms, Jesus baptism and the Ethiopian Eunuch. Candidates for the wider definition of baptizo: Paul's baptism, the 3,000 and the Philippian jailer. Candidates for neither: Baptism of the Samaritans (Acts 8), Lydia's baptism, and John's disciples (Acts 19).

Baptism has at least three elements to the practice. 1) Application of water to the human body 2) in the true name of God (Triune Formula) and 3) another Christian baptizing you. Baptism as the application of water to the human body. Baptism has both a narrow and wide usage concerning the application of water to the human body. When water is applied to the human body in Luke 11:38 and Mark 7:4, it can be sprinkling or pouring, but certainly not immersion. (See my comments on previous post on this thread). This is the wide meaning of Baptizo. When water is applied to human body and the context defines it as immersion, then it is. The Ethiopian eunuch would be a good candidate for immersion baptism. This is the narrow meaning of the baptizo. The terms immersion, sprinkling or pouring do have historical significance. However, from the standpoint to strict exegesis in the NT, the mode of baptizo must be derived from each context passage mentioning the practice. In other words, baptizo has enough semantic range to incorporate all three modes. Historically, how this works out is the Didache every much points to the mode of baptism as immersion. On the other hand, the usage of baptizo in the early church fathers rarely emphasize mode, but clearly places stress on what Baptism accomplishes using the term "wash" as a synonym for baptism. Here we see Luke 11:38, Mark 7:4, Titus 3:16, I Cor 6:11, Acts 22:16, and Eph. 5:26-27 come into play. Using both examples, history really is a poor predictor whether which mode of baptism the early church used.

Amen.

What I am saying is a reasonable person would come to a conclusion that Paul was not immersed. How do we test a reasonable person standard? I got this analogy from the internet: Supposing I were to place an ad on Craigslist asking for thirty known secularists to interpret Acts 9:18 and each would receive $100. An explanation would be given on the various modes of baptism used historically (immersion, sprinkling, pouring). Then I would give a visual example of each mode. After reading the whole chapter nine, they then would try to determine what mode was used in 9:18. The result would be inconclusive, but they would certainly rule out immersion. The same would be true of Acts 22:16. The proper interpretation of this passage is the mode is unknown but it is not immersion. A possible mode would be pouring as just after Paul was baptized he ate food. He would have done the ceremony washing which entailed pouring. This is just a guess though. Baptism is water applied to the human body and how it is to be applied to the human body is up to Christian liberty and freedom. There is no command in Scripture for any mode over another.

No this quote comes from someone in England. I told him to go see a pastor about what he said. I didn't like his reply so I "ignored" all his subsequent posts.

Are you saying 3,000 people in Jerusalem were "spiritually baptized?" No water mentioned there! Are you saying the Philippian jailer was "spiritually" baptized? No water mentioned there! Are you saying Lydia was "spiritually" baptized? No water mentioned there! Are you saying the disciples of John in Ephesus were "spiritually" baptized. No water mentioned there! This is typical of a "credobaptist" interpretation of Scripture. They follow the three "S" sisters of Biblical interpretation: Symbolize, Spiritualize and Signifies. And they love to find these three sisters under every rock of Scripture.