hmm...interesting.... do you consult systematic theology prior to arriving to that conclusion? i.e., first the gift was given, (also mentioned in Romans), then now 'each member has its own measure'?

Question to all my Christian brethren who are NOT Catholic specifically, regarding baptism.

Do you believe that the Baptism of Water 💦 and the Baptism of Fire 🔥 is actually the same ?

Or do you believe that both the Baptism of Water 💦 & Fire 🔥 are different and that they are mutually exclusive ?

Or do you have a completely different answer from the above 2 answers ?

Thank you very very much.

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.

Fire is always associated with judgement.

Contrary to what most people believe, the context of fire in Matthew 3 refers to judgement.



Many people missed the latter part of the verse.

The believers (wheat) will be gathered, but the chaff(unbelievers )will be burned. (judgement)

I think what Paul was trying to say is that women shouldn't hook her beauty on her adornments, that's different from saying, you cannot wear those.


Read it carefully.

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?

Actually why don't you come straight to the point, what is it, you want to say?

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.

Do you know that when the apostle recorded the bible, there are no chapter or verses?

you get what I'm pointing at? What makes you think 1 tim 2 v9 onwards has to be all women?

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

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

Thank you very much Alexkos for your sharing, I really appreciate it.

Will pray over it and like usual, I am sure something will turn up, if it is the will of our Lord.

There was a post earlier that wrote something like this "... You and I are not His church." Although I didn't follow the evolution of that discussion in great detail, that line caught me off guard. Here's what I must add specifically "Anyone who does the will of God is already my brother, my sister and my mother of our Lord Jesus Christ."

In summary, 1 Timothy 2:9-10 should refer to women in general. Verse 11 onward should refer to wives in general.


This can be supported by 1 Corinthians 14:34. Look at verse 35, who are those women referring to? Do you see the word husbands?

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?

Yes it should.

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?

It's interesting to note in almost all the translation, the phrase 'The woman" is indicated, instead of just women, emphasize on "the".

In ESV and Young's translation translated it as wife. But it's up to you really as I've said, not here to force you to anyone's interpretation.

Either way, You'd think in life Women in general or married would never argue or speak out or teach the husband or man? Quite sure you'll agree with me in reality it does happen.

So, what do you do to force women to submit according to what you've accepted in translation to be quiet and submissive? You scream at them? Whack them to submission so that they obey scripture according to what you understand?

This post has been edited by unknown warrior: Mar 4 2019, 01:09 PM

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

The whole context there talks about hair, how do you interpret it being quiet, cannot teach a man?

Thank you Thomasthai. How did I miss your reply ? Hmmm

Will sleep over all the 2 answers provided by Alexkos & U, and reply soon or followed by another question.

This post has been edited by Roman Catholic: Mar 5 2019, 04:32 PM