I understand the fundamental interpretive differences that exist between the two main baptismal paradigms, and realize that's not going to change, but I guess I was simply looking for
any exegetical or grammatical reason for seeing an allusion to mode in
Acts 10:47 (or
Acts 22:16) as you suggested there is. And the metaphorical applications of baptism have all been historically understood in terms of immersion/covering/overwhelming.
I'll simply add that to sort of suggest that the exposition of earlier Reformed theologians, which is in in continuity with patristic and mediaeval theologians, on the significance of passages like
Rom 6:4 (and others) would somehow have been more cautious had they foreseen the later demographics of Christendom, is to me, well, rather astonishing. It was nowise polemical. It was very plainly a rich theological/modal concept that they fully endorsed and often quite extensively expounded on as being most edifying to the church. Even though they didn't insist on immersion, or normally practice it, neither did they avoid or minimize declaring the theological merits that they obviously perceived in such matters.
So, again, for me, we're kind of back to realizing how differently people approach and process information. que sera, sera...
Who doesn't read/study a passage where baptism is mentioned--particularly a narrative text--and eliminates the
conception the underlies the presentation? Problems arise when we raise our supposed mechanics or logistics (trying to answer the question, "How?") beyond "possible." If you think a cup of water is sufficient to the conception of a Christian baptism rite, that thinking will affect the range of interpretation acceptable to the terms that govern. The same is true if you think an immersion-font is required for the conception. I do not insist that Act.10:47 (or Act.22:16) positively teach on mode, but what they do say in so many words should not be precluded from the shape of our thinking, even touching mode. Historical narrative particularly invites a practical curiosity. As a literary onlooker, it's reasonable to imagine events taking place before your mind's eye, which requires a plausibility structure.
Peter asks what I interpret as a rhetorical question; it is clear he does not expect opposition (or to lose a challenge if one is raised), based on his reasoning expressed in words that justify what he thinks should be done. Though it is not stated in the text, we know there was an historic Jew vs. Gentile prejudice that has already been exposed in the book of Acts. Peter's own reluctance to defile himself with Gentile contact was preempted by the heavenly vision resulting in a crushed barrier to gospel-witness, laying the groundwork for the moment of Act.10:47f. For all that is the thrust of Peter's desire, he expresses his aim with words that put attention on the physical substance of baptism, as if hypothetical resistance to his desire would be imagined as someone trying to hide the water; or put up a barrier to the water or to those who would provide it; or refuse to provide the water themselves.
I'm not used to Baptists presenting baptism as
the application of water to a person, but ordinarily as the application of the
person into the water. I'm not a Baptist, and so I may not appreciate how little distinction there is between the two ideas in a Baptist's mind. Still, Peter's expression, "Can anyone hold back the water?" conveys to my mind (with its wiring) some aim of bringing the water
into this situation, with the first thought being that it will be brought forward by someone. But that is not the only idea that comes to mind. Holding back the water invokes the idea of a dam, so Peter may want no person standing like a dam in front of a flood
that has already been experienced in any event, vv44-46; the baptism of water only signifies the spiritual reality. Perhaps Peter was standing in a room with vats and baths, and wanted the taps opened so baptisms could commence? Peter's words point to the intrusion of water there and then. I can't rule out the possibility he was obliquely proposing an adjournment to the seaside, where there was no lack of water. There are more and less complex notions of actually accomplishing the deed, with sprinkling/pouring being least elaborate and most instant.
Having written so much above, I wonder about the wisdom of addressing other items. I do not think "immersion/covering/overwhelming" are adequate to handle all the metaphors of baptism and its effects. Baptism as a drink, 1Cor.12:13, trades on the pouring out of the Spirit and the liquidity of water and other connections to the provision of water to the church in the wilderness (1Cor.10:4); the verbal "root" of baptism is totally evacuated. The idea that only a total, simultaneous immersion effects cleansing is contrary to many passages in Scripture; Rich mentioned one, Jn.13:10; see also Ezk.36:25; many places in the Law, e.g Num.8:7. The principle of union with a mediator involves notions both of being subsumed and of attachment. One verbal concept or depiction does not suffice. Baptism is ritual, symbolic washing even before the NT appropriation of the term, which use only expands the metaphors.
As for ancient writers, I don't see why we must criticize them from any angle, other than they had their own dominant perspectives, plus their consuming heresies and challenges to address. They did not owe the future some prophetic emphasis. When the Reformed-era writers joined to bash the Anabaptist sectaries, they critiqued those objections from a position of strength
and historic continuity; so we should not expect them to feel the same pressures felt by later generations (including the present) when possible inadequacies in their claims and stances were not yet exposed by 300yrs or more of Baptist persistence. It is no critique of our fathers to observe that our arguments should have been refined and strengthened since their day, as we have continued their contest. That's like doubting the military prowess of Wellington, because he had no modern combined-arms experience.
I've acknowledged in some prior thread a personal debt to you, Phil, and through you to previous authors for helping me recover some of my heritage even on the topic of baptism. I grew up in an era when each side (Baptist & Presbyterian) had their own emphasis and arguments, to the exclusion of the other's valid interests. I'm no longer shy of Baptist appeal to the "root" idea of the term baptism, a thing to ignore in favor of more developed utility as a church sacrament. It has become an essential element of my theology of baptism, while that theology isn't reducible to a basis so simple.