Hi, I may not be able to answer on behalf of every Protestant, because at this stage there's Charismaticism creeping in both streams.

Baptism is first mentioned in the NT at the account of John the Baptist.

The very idea of baptism is repentance from sin, and turning to God.

The instrument used was water.

The modes of baptism is, from appearance, a washing. A person going through the baptism is outwardly expressing his desire to be cleansed of his sin within.

Christ came to be baptised, though He is sinless. He did this because it is fitting' (read the exact scripture) for righteousness. Christ's life on Earth is an example. He needs not to repent, but for our sake He demonstrated that attitude of obedience.

Now it's mentioned that the believer is baptised not just with water, but with Holy Spirit, and fire.

Using systematic theology, 1 Cor 12:13 seems to fit well in this case. We were baptised into one body. Without the Holy Spirit, there's no salvation (Romans 8:9).

So, even before moving on to the fire part, there's already debate whether the baptism of Holy Spirit can be authenticated with some means. According to some accounts, one should exhibit the ability to speak in foreign language (tongue), exercise the gift of the Holy Spirit. Yet, many believers receive the Holy Spirit (Romans 8:9) and throughout his/her life there's no demonstration of extraordinary gift, but a repentant heart, and gift of ordinary service (like hospitality, showing mercy, charitable).

What will be the summary? Baptism is an important element when it comes to understanding salvation and sanctification. I believe that phrases used like "water" "Holy Spirit" "fire" each carry a meaning, but to say that it is distinct (to side with Charismatic's claim that one must exhibit supernatural gifts) is stretching.

Remember that 'fire' can be used both way. It lit up believer, it also consumes him. God is a consuming fire (talking about judgment).

So, I don't think justifying 'baptism of fire' as being different from the baptism (outlined above) in general.

If it is insisted, then we have a very different understanding of Salvation, and Sanctification, and there's the line to draw (and we will call such a doctrine as heterodox).

Hope it helps.

good observation. When Paul was writing this, is it to prevent a future possible occurance of this event? Or that such incidence (that woman/wives are showing off with gold necklaces) was already in place, hence the motivation of such letter?

I'm asking if the injunction toward wife in 1 tim 2 v12, is also applicable to the earlier verses, and the implication of that.

hmm....I'm trying to read from the perspective of 'wife' as you said...

so it's selectively to few wives in this case?

So, the correct reading for 1 Tim 2 is as follows

General for men
general for woman
from v11 onwards, only wives

Am i correct?

ok. I draw your attention to 1 Cor 11.

What do you think of the general principle drawn by Paul, on the head of the woman is man?

So... The general principle of Paul in 1 cor 11, when it says 'the head of woman is man', is up to any interpretation?

hehe, add one more, 'will be saved'.

welcome to soteriology.

that's true. Without humility, no Christian will spend his willpower to dig into Scripture. He will be a know-it-all.

btw since you say soteriology is easy, may i ask on your stance on the doctrine of grace. What's your position?

hmm....ok.... let me ask more, just want to make sure on your understanding on salvation.

When you said repentance, does it mean cooperation of sinner with divine grace in order to achieve salvation? When you say repentance, what does it mean?

Alright, we'll just move on first.

Do you think assurance of salvation is a legitimate teaching taught by scripture? referring to your last sentence.

So he is KJV only? The original language is in Hebrew and Greek btw. Please defend yourself.

Do you mean fake Jesus as derived from the Scripture? Can i have some examples?