I have taught that there are two words used in the original manuscripts to represent what the translators translated to be baptize. One in used primarily for Holy Spirit baptism because it indicates an immersion with no subsequent withdraw. This would be for Holy Spirit baptism or as you note immersion in doctrine.
The second word refers to dipping and not submerging like a sunken ship. This word is commonly associated with water baptism. When believers refer to Holy Spirit baptism they ought to know that it is a one time immersion without ever returning to the prior state. That being the fact there can only be one true baptism of the Holy Spirit. The other word where many confuse baptism is really filling in the original manuscripts. I attribute this to simple lazy exegesis of the word of God.
I have not come across this in any Greek word studies I have done. In this verse, the words of our Lord Jesus about John baptizing in water and the apostles being baptized in the Holy Spirit not many days hence, in Acts 1:5, the same Greek lexeme, inflected differently for grammar, is used to refer to baptism with water as with baptism with the Holy Ghost.
https://biblehub.com/interlinear/acts/1-5.htm
You can see that G907, the code from the Strong's concordance is used in both cases. If you know of any specific verses or passages that use the two terms you describe that are translated 'baptism' that illustrate your point.
And preemptively, do not say I just want to argue if you do not have any verses to prove your point like you did last time. It is unbecoming. If you do have some passages that use these two terms, this could be helpful for the discussion or for Bible study.
I have to say I would be surprised if a word for 'filling' was translated as 'baptism' in any standard translation, but I would be very interested to see it if you can find such passages.
Also, just as a general comment to some of your posts in the recent past, in previous posts, you were equating various passages about the work of the Spirit to baptism with the Spirit. I asked for specific Biblical evidence for that. You responded that I just wanted to argue.
If you did have scripture that associated 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' purely with soteriological aspects of the work of the Spirit and not with empowerment, we probably would never have had this discussion in the first place. The issue would be settled. I had a conversation with a continuationist recently who associates baptism with the Spirit with salvation. One thing I realize that with my knowledge and study of scripture, I cannot show a series of scriptures that prove the argument either way. I suspect that is why you responded as you did, since you cannot prove your case either. But the Bible does say, "for we know in part", and there could be scripture we have read but are unaware of something. That scripture applies to you or I suspect you would reply with knowledge rather than contankerousness or defensiveness when pressed on an issue.
'Baptized with the Holy Spirit' refers forward from Acts 1 to the Acts 2 event. Peter uses it of what happened in the household of Cornelius as well. The Spirit came with the sound of a rushing mighty wind, with cloven fire upon their heads. They spoke in tongues, in the languages of those present. Peter refers to the outpouring of the Spirit on on flesh in Joel, sons and daughters prophesying. It's an 'empowerment' scenario-- demonstrations of the Spirit's power including speaking in tongues. In Acts 10, the Spirit fell on those Gentiles and the spoke in tongues and magnified God.
One view, taken by interpreters from different backgrounds, not just Pentecostals and Charismatics, is that 'baptized with the Holy Spirit' relates to empowerment by the Holy Spirit. You might find someone who says he goes to a 'Church of Christ' who says that the baptism with the Holy Spirit is not for today. Dave-L also takes this position. I think I've also encountered Baptists who think that way. This view does not equate 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' with the soteriological work of the Spirit in salvation.
Others equate the two. Is that justified from scripture? Can we get that from John the Baptist's words? If that were the case, then the scripture does not really give us terminology to describe the Acts 2 outpouring. We could call it 'receiving the Spirit' but that would limit us to Luke's terminology, and using that term for empowerment and not soteriology doesn't really seem to fit with Pauline terminology.
Trinitarian Pentecostals and probably most Charismatics who think about such things would say that the Spirit has a role in salvation. For example, I Corinthians 6 says now ye are washed...sanctified...justified...in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. Some Pentecostals would say that at salvation, one receives the seal of the Spirit. But baptism with the Spirit may occur later.
Let us consider the terminology 'baptized with the Holy Spirit'. When we are baptized with water, we are completely soaked. It is one thing to drink a cup of water or to wash your hands. It is another to be baptized. That is the way Pentecostals view the verse-- not only to have the Spirit, but to be thoroughly submerged.
The idea that a Christian could have the soteriological aspects of the Spirit at work is not alien to Paul's writings. In Ephesians 1:13, but in Ephesians 5:17, he tells them to be filled with the Spirit.
If Pentecostals and some other groups are wrong and 'baptism with the Holy Spirit' refers to salvation, and empowerment goes unnamed in Acts 2-- which seems rather unlikely to me considering the context-- experience of Spirit empowerment is still a Biblical concept.
1
