130 Dimensions of Baptism
thought affords no ground whatever for the modern theories which seek to
effect a separation in the one action and to distinguish a "Spirit-baptism"
and a "water-baptism", not as the inward and outward parts of one sacra-
Ment, but as independent entities'.^30 Dunn immediately comments: 'But
what is the "one action"? The "modern theories" are as old as John the
Baptist!' But Dufin's statement is only true if, first, John the Baptist's
spying is taken as antithetical (see below) and, secondly, if he ignores his
own contention throughout this and his other works on baptism that Spirit-
aftd water-baptisni are integral parts of conversion-initiation, that is, a proc-
ess. This is axiomatic for his work on baptism and the Spirit.
Dunn also makes the bold declaration that, The fact is that for Paul
(3dTrri£et v has only two meanings, one literal and the other metaphorical:
it describes either the water-rite pure and simple (1 Cor. 1.13-17) or the
spiritual transformation which puts the believer "in Christ", and which
is the effect of receiving the gift of the Spirit (hence "baptism in the
Spirit").'^31 But this is mere assertion. Fee comments that while 'baptize'
beeailie the technical term for the Christian rite of initiation at an early
date, this does not mean it is what Paul means in 1 Cor. 12.13.^32 But
equally it does not mean he does not either. Who is to say that Paul could
not use PcxTTTi^eiv equivocally of both Spirit- and water-baptism, espe-
cially when, as Dunn recognizes, both are integral to conversion-initiation
and th6 New Testament includes at least one passage which links the two
together so closely—Acts 2.38. Further, we have already seen that this
was how it was understood for the next century and more;. Dunn appears to
concede the point when he states that Gal. 3.27 is the only reference to
baptism '(if it is so)' in the letter in which 'Paul speaks regularly of the
conversion experience of grace or justification or dying/living or Spirit
(1.15-16; 2.16-21; 3.2-4; etc.). Evidently Paul could assume that that expe-
riential reality was so vivid in his own and his converts' memory that he
cotild refer to it directly [see 3.2]; whether through a reference to baptism
as metaphor or ritual act is a matter of less moment, it was their experi-
ence of the Spirit as such to which his primary appeal was addressed.'^33
By means of tracing the tradition history of the phrase 'baptized in the
Spirit', Dunn locates its origin in John the Baptist's^4 I baptize you with
Water, but he will baptize you with the Holy Spirit (and fire)' (Mk 1.8; Mt.
- Lampe, Seal, p. 57.
- Dunn, Baptism, p. 130.
- Fee, First Corinthians, p. 604.
- Dunn, Galatians, pp. 203-204, italics added.