Baptism in the Spirit?

So my thought for this week revolves around much research I have done lately. Two main points: first, how do you approach Scripture and Second, is the phrase or concept "baptism of the Spirit" used equivocally or univocally in Scripture.

Regarding the first point I would love if we could really wrestle with this one for some time. Here is the rub for me: I usually fall in the literal category (ofcourse allowing for figurative or symbolic language where the bible uses it that way: I.E. in Revelation when John is writing about the dragon in the next verse it is called "Satan, the devil, that serpent of old". The dragon is a symbol for satan) but in some of the more difficult passages I have caught myself leaning towards a spiritual understanding of something...in other words I am not being consistent in my approach to Scripture. This is very dangerous because if I spiritualize or allegorize or symbolize something in Scripture because of whatever reason then why can I not now spiritualize Jesus death on the cross? In other words, basically making Jesus' historic event nothing more than a figurative symbol for how all humans should be self-sacrificing for one another. Don't get me wrong on this point, I do believe Jesus is a perfect demonstration of this but the historicity of the cross and the God-man Jesus the Messiah communicates so much more beyond only that. For instance there is heated debate concerning the Kingdom of God...many would site Luke 17:21 which states "nor will they say, 'Look, here it is!' or 'There!' for behold, the kingdom of God is in the midst of you" to say that there will be no future physical kingdom. Now not even going into the fact that Jesus was talking to Pharisees what do we take from this? Does that fact that Jesus said this redefine the hundreds and hundreds of passages in the OT regarding the kingdom promised to the Jews? And if so how can Paul make the argument in Romans that the word of God does not fail (Romans 9:5)? Because if the Jews now get no kingdom then how can we trust that God is going to give us a kingdom or heaven...because quite frankly there is a whole lot more Scripture regarding the Jews and their kingdom/ inheritence in the OT than there are passages regarding the Church and her inheritence in the NT...unless of course you read the Church back into the OT passages which breaks almost every rule of exegesis not to mention makes God look like He was playing a cruel joke on the Jews for thousands of years. But this cannot be so, not that I don't think God can't do whatever He wants but because of the goodness of God that is always tied to His soveriegnty; for God is light and in Him is no darkness at all (1 John)...and there is not shifting shadow with out God (James). And though He has a hand in all that happens--good or ill--He is not malicious in those seemily unfair things that He does; in other words He is not like a murderer when He destroys someone (Eze 33:11).

Take another example for instance: I don't know how many times I have heard that the Song of Solomon should be understood allegorically of Christ and the Church...but if I do this even though there is no evidence from the text to do this then I could just as easily allegoricalize Jesus' death on the cross couldn't I. But let's just say for a minute that I do understand the Song of Songs as allegory...would I not be much more in tune with the OT and chronology to under Song of Songs, not as Christ and the Church but Yhwh and Israel?(Hos 2:16-19, Eze 16:32, Jer 3:20). Anyway the rubber has met the road because I must be consistent, lest I adapt to the ways of post modernity and the realitivism that is so characteristic of it. There is only one place in the Bible that states it is in allegory, and that is Gal 4?? maybe starts in 3. Inconsistency lends to instablity and we are not to be those who build their house on the sand but the rock.