Baptism by Fire

  • Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.

    If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!

    To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.

What is the baptism of/by/with fire?

  • refers to the day of Pentecost

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • refers to the Holy Spirit’s office as energizer/purifier for believers

    Votes: 4 36.4%
  • refers to judgment

    Votes: 3 27.3%
  • other

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    11
  • Poll closed .
A

Abiding

Guest
Dude, I am trying to be nice here. Do you have anything reasonable to say? Of course it is in verse 17. I never claimed it wasn't. So tell me, Why do you want to remove it from the baptism of Fire? Are you going to answer or make ad hominem attacks?
Not once did i add or remove anything. unquenchable is in verse17 where it belongs without the word babtize.

But it isnt in verse 16 where the word babtize is.
 
A

Abiding

Guest
Amen. I agree, Leave it as written. And God said through inspiration of the HS that baptism of fire is where God burns Chaff with a fire that shall never be quenched. So why do you wish to remove this aspect?


Oh i dont know i guess i just lose my mind sometimes:)

Haha...reread the posts...you imagined i was removing verse 17...but nope...wasnt me
wasnt me doing what you thought...it was in YOUR head that i was removing the facts of verse 17

I was merely trying to leave verse 16 as its written which is not part of the babtism
 
Last edited:
A

AnandaHya

Guest
Can anyone give me an example when the word "baptize" is used in a negative context?

baptize - definition of baptize by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

baptize
verb
1. (Christianity) christen, cleanse, immerse, purify, besprinkle I think your mother was baptized a Catholic.
2. initiate, admit, introduce, invest, recruit, enrol, induct, indoctrinate, instate baptized into the Church of England

Definition of BAPTIZE

transitive verb
1
: to administer baptism to
2
a : to purify or cleanse spiritually especially by a purging experience or ordeal
b : initiate
3
: to give a name to (as at baptism) : christen
 
A

Abiding

Guest
Oh i dont know i guess i just lose my mind sometimes:)

Haha...reread the posts...you imagined i was removing verse 17...but nope...wasnt me
wasnt me doing what you thought...it was in YOUR head that i was removing the facts of verse 17

I was merely trying to leave verse 16 as its written which is not part of the [ unquenchable fire of verse 17]




this changes the last post..i goofed
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Can anyone give me an example when the word "baptize" is used in a negative context?

baptize - definition of baptize by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

baptize
verb
1. (Christianity) christen, cleanse, immerse, purify, besprinkle I think your mother was baptized a Catholic.
2. initiate, admit, introduce, invest, recruit, enrol, induct, indoctrinate, instate baptized into the Church of England

Definition of BAPTIZE

transitive verb
1
: to administer baptism to
2
a : to purify or cleanse spiritually especially by a purging experience or ordeal
b : initiate
3
: to give a name to (as at baptism) : christen
The word Baptize is not native to the english language. It is a transliteration of the greek word "baptizo" which means to place into, immerse, If you read greek literature, You will see they use the word baptize as a verb, where they placed something into something else. Try to do a study on it in its greek form. Men have twisted the english word to mean many things it never was intended to mean.

As a greek person. If I would have seen "baptize in water" I would interpret it as saying a person was placed into, or immersed in water (vs being dipped in water, which would be "bapto" or sprinkled with water, which would be "rantizo"
)

This when you see baptize with fire. You would interpret it as saying a person was placed into, or immersed in water. Anything else would be a mistranslation of the greek word, from which the english word gets its true meaning. Since it is a transliteration, and not a translation of the greek word.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Not once did i add or remove anything. unquenchable is in verse17 where it belongs without the word babtize.

But it isnt in verse 16 where the word babtize is.
And?? So John uses vs 17 (which by the way was not vs 17 when he wrote it. but a continuation of what we now know of as vs 16) we should remove its meaning?

So are you saying you never used a word or phrase, and never immediately after explained what you meant by that phrase. Just like John did?

How would you feel if someone removed your explanation in order to make his belief come true? You would not be very happy would you? I doubt God, who inspired John Mathew and Luke to write those words down. And the men who wrote the words. or John, Who said them, would not be happy your trying to remove the meaning of what he tried to explain.


What your doing is no different than a catholic who removes most of John 6 to make his eucharistic theology stand., because it falls on its head when taken in context.
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Oh i dont know i guess i just lose my mind sometimes:)

Haha...reread the posts...you imagined i was removing verse 17...but nope...wasnt me
wasnt me doing what you thought...it was in YOUR head that i was removing the facts of verse 17

I was merely trying to leave verse 16 as its written which is not part of the [ unquenchable fire of verse 17]




this changes the last post..i goofed

The problem is vs 16 and 17 was not separated in verse form when it was origionally written. Thus you can't remove 17 and make it a different meaning. John was not talking about two fires. he was explaining what he meant by the two baptisms .

When you do what you are doing, you are destroying context of what John said. Which is a dangerous thing
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Not once did i add or remove anything. unquenchable is in verse17 where it belongs without the word babtize.

But it isnt in verse 16 where the word babtize is.
Lets see it as it was origionally written. Without vs form. (which men did many years after it was written)

Now as the people were in expectation, and all reasoned in their hearts about John, whether he was the Christ or not, John answered, saying to all, “I indeed baptize you with water; but One mightier than I is coming, whose sandal strap I am not worthy to loose. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather the wheat into His barn; but the chaff He will burn with unquenchable fire.”

This is how it was written. The whole thing would be a paragraph. You can not remove any part of the paragraph without destroying context. When you read a book, do you remove a sentance from a paragraph? No. Why would you do this with Gods book given to us?
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
If we are baptized with fire then we will not be able to be burned with fire as the 3 in Daniel 3 cause we have the character of God we become like Him cause the verse says
Luke 3:16-17
(16) John answered, saying unto them all, I indeed baptize you with water; but one mightier than I cometh, the latchet of whose shoes I am not worthy to unloose: he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire:
(17) Whose fan is in his hand, and he will throughly purge his floor, and will gather the wheat into his garner; but the chaff he will burn with fire unquenchable.
Daniel 3:27
(27) And the princes, governors, and captains, and the king's counsellors, being gathered together, saw these men, upon whose bodies the fire had no power, nor was an hair of their head singed, neither were their coats changed, nor the smell of fire had passed on them.
Exodus 24:17
(17) And the sight of the glory of the LORD was like devouring fire on the top of the mount in the eyes of the children of Israel.
Hebrews 12:29
(29) For our God is a consuming fire.
Revelation 21:3
(3) And I heard a great voice out of heaven saying, Behold, the tabernacle of God is with men, and he will dwell with them, and they shall be his people, and God himself shall be with them, and be their God.
Daniel 3:24-25
(24) Then Nebuchadnezzar the king was astonied, and rose up in haste, and spake, and said unto his counsellors, Did not we cast three men bound into the midst of the fire? They answered and said unto the king, True, O king.
(25) He answered and said, Lo, I see four men loose, walking in the midst of the fire, and they have no hurt; and the form of the fourth is like the Son of God.
 
L

Laodicea

Guest
Better to be baptized with fire before Jesus returns than to have the fire consume us later
 
A

Abiding

Guest
The problem is vs 16 and 17 was not separated in verse form when it was origionally written. Thus you can't remove 17 and make it a different meaning. John was not talking about two fires. he was explaining what he meant by the two baptisms .

When you do what you are doing, you are destroying context of what John said. Which is a dangerous thing

Ya youve made that clear..ty..now i know there were no verses in the original.

Thing is this is all your opinion...it could have been a second to who knows how long a pause between statements..we will never know. For you to say its all one big gooblygoop is also your call..but it isnt that way in scripture all the time. Especially in cases like this where it talks of Jesus accomplishments and mission on earth and judgement later all in one text.

refer to Isa 61:1-2 along with Luke 4:17-21 In fact this is more the rule than the exception

Also as i said there are many verses i didnt share to show there are two ideas behind fire. If context is important that read Malachi 3:1-4:6
 
A

Abiding

Guest
And?? So John uses vs 17 (which by the way was not vs 17 when he wrote it. but a continuation of what we now know of as vs 16) we should remove its meaning?

So are you saying you never used a word or phrase, and never immediately after explained what you meant by that phrase. Just like John did?

How would you feel if someone removed your explanation in order to make his belief come true? You would not be very happy would you? I doubt God, who inspired John Mathew and Luke to write those words down. And the men who wrote the words. or John, Who said them, would not be happy your trying to remove the meaning of what he tried to explain.

What your doing is no different than a catholic who removes most of John 6 to make his eucharistic theology stand., because it falls on its head when taken in context. [/quot



Yes verse 17 is a continuation of verse 16...but it isnt a commentary of verse 16
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Ya youve made that clear..ty..now i know there were no verses in the original.

Thing is this is all your opinion...it could have been a second to who knows how long a pause between statements..we will never know. For you to say its all one big gooblygoop is also your call..but it isnt that way in scripture all the time. Especially in cases like this where it talks of Jesus accomplishments and mission on earth and judgement later all in one text.

refer to Isa 61:1-2 along with Luke 4:17-21 In fact this is more the rule than the exception

Also as i said there are many verses i didnt share to show there are two ideas behind fire. If context is important that read Malachi 3:1-4:6
My opinion huh?

Can you show me in that paragraph I showed how John changes meaning and thoughts? If you can. I will listen to you.

Why would John talk about a winnowing fan? Why did Jesus have it in his hand? How is it he separates the chaff from the wheat? What does the barn represent? what does the fire represent? And why did he say it all after speaking of two baptisms. Show me how this is not Johns way to explain what the two baptisms meant. I mean up until this time no one had heard of a baptism of the holy spirit or fire. Would it not be logical for John to explain what he meant?

I can say the same, It is your opinion that the two verses are not related. You have not proved it is not. All you have done is given your opinion.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
Yes several times you have put the word unquenchable into Luke 3:16 rather than where it actually is in 3:17. Then you throw around words. Ive called on it a few times and you dont see it, but seem to justify it.
just for the exercise:D

once again, the text:

Matthew 3
4 Now John wore a garment of camel’s hair and a leather belt around his waist, and his food was locusts and wild honey. 5 Then Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, 6 and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins.

7 But when he saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism, he said to them, “You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? 8 Bear fruit in keeping with repentance. 9And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham. 10 Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees. Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

11 “I baptize you with water for repentance, but he who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. 12 His winnowing fork is in his hand, and he will clear his threshing floor and gather his wheat into the barn, but the chaff he will burn with unquenchable fire.”

~

my personal meditations:

leaving fire in vs 11, followed by vs 12, let's narrow the context:



He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


the problem i have with "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" applying to the general audience - (meaning that each repentent man would be baptised with The Holy Spirit and fire) is not only what is said in the verses just prior to (vs 7-10) and just following vs 11's fire , but what is said immediately following in vs 12, AND IN THE VERSES FOLLOWING 12 - (vs 13-17: more on this below).


Back to the immediate context:

John is actually baptising repentent jews in water, in preparation for the messiah coming: "
Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand."

John appears to be intently going about making a straight path for The Lord to travel. he is busy indeed, for:
"Jerusalem and all Judea and all the region about the Jordan were going out to him, and they were baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins."

then he sees some Sadducees and Pharisees
"coming to his baptism"
[now, it might even be possible to rule out that the Sadducees were coming to be baptised (water) in anticipation of the kingdom of heaven (Spirit), since they did not believe in an after-life.]

when John "saw many of the Pharisees and Sadducees coming to his baptism".....shockingly he reacts rather sharply, launching (apparently out of the blue) into a rebuke:

“You brood of vipers! Who warned you to flee from the wrath to come?
Bear fruit in keeping with repentance.
And do not presume to say to yourselves, ‘We have Abraham as our father,’ for I tell you, God is able from these stones to raise up children for Abraham.
Even now the axe is laid to the root of the trees.
Every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.

what's interesting is that Luke wants to tell us something very specific about this episode:

Luke 7:28-30 (NLT)
I tell you, of all who have ever lived, none is greater than John. Yet even the least person in the Kingdom of God is greater than he is!”
When they heard this, all the people—even the tax collectors—agreed that God’s way was right, for they had been baptized by John.

But the Pharisees and experts in religious law rejected God’s plan for them, for they had refused John’s baptism.

so let's look again at Matthew:


He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire. His winnowing fan is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clean out His threshing floor, and gather His wheat into the barn; but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.


so again:
the problem i have with "He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and fire" applying to the general audience - (meaning that each repentent man would be baptised with The Holy Spirit and fire) is not only what is said in the verses just prior to (vs 7-10) and just following vs 11's fire , but what is said immediately following in vs 12, AND IN THE VERSES FOLLOWING 12 :

Matthew 3
The Baptism of Jesus
13 Then Jesus came from Galilee to the Jordan to John, to be baptized by him. 14 John would have prevented him, saying, “I need to be baptized by you, and do you come to me?” 15 But Jesus answered him, “Let it be so now, for thus it is fitting for us to fulfill all righteousness.” Then he consented. 16 And when Jesus was baptized, immediately he went up from the water, and behold, the heavens were opened to him, and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and coming to rest on him; 17 and behold, a voice from heaven said, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased.”

nothing here about FIRE.

lastly, a commentary on the only similiar passage i can find:

Isaiah 4:4
The Lord will wash away the filth of the women of Zion; he will cleanse the bloodstains from Jerusalem by a spirit of judgment and a spirit of fire.

burning-(Mt 3:11, 12). The same Holy Ghost, who sanctifies believers by the fire of affliction (Mal 3:2, 3), dooms unbelievers to the fire of perdition (1Co 3:13-15).

1197a. baar
to burn, consume​
Transliteration: baar
Short Definition: burn

Word Origin
a prim. root
Definition
to burn, consume

NASB Word Usage
blazed (1), burn (15), burned (12), burning (13), burns (3), clean sweep (1), consume (1), consumed (2), destroy (1), devoured (1), expelled (1), heated (1), kindle (2), kindled (5), light (1), make (2), make a clean sweep (1), make fires (1), purge (9), remove (3), removed (4), set (1), set ablaze (1), sets it afire (1), started (1), sweeps away (1), utterly sweep (1), utterly sweep you away (1).


a-a-a-a-nywayz-z-z-z
interesting.​
 
E

eternally-gratefull

Guest
Yes verse 17 is a continuation of verse 16...but it isnt a commentary of verse 16
How do you know? This is your opinion. And this is fine. But I do not see how it could be interpreted any other way. It makes no sense John would bring two new terms no one had ever used and not explain them. This is exactly what John did in vs 17. Unless you can prove otherwise. And to do so., You have to use context with what John said.
 
A

Abiding

Guest
How do you know? This is your opinion. And this is fine. But I do not see how it could be interpreted any other way. It makes no sense John would bring two new terms no one had ever used and not explain them. This is exactly what John did in vs 17. Unless you can prove otherwise. And to do so., You have to use context with what John said.
I dont want to be all negative and say this has not been a benificial dialogue becuase it may have effects i dont see right now....but ill comply with all thats been said about the context of this section becuase what has been said in its motive is true..yes it is true there will be a burning with unquenching fire.

To close ill say that ceremonial washings were not at all strange to the Isrealites, nor was the term fire, or the term unquenchable fire or really any part of the whole chapter.

Thanks zone for the work..my apologies for the sloth in my posts..seems i should think first and make a good visible presentation of my opinions rather than just little tidbits. I rekon the forum isnt so much for conversation as it is in full presentations...which i find to lengthy and sometimes presumptious.:)
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
You know you can teach anything you want here i spose...but try to do it in a way that you dont have to rewrite verses.

I understand the sentiment of protecting the teaching of judgement and eternal unquenchable fire.

I understand the sentiment of the dishonor of God charismatic freaks provide

But there is also a sentiment to leave the word of God as written. Ponder study dialogue. but leave it as its written.
Abiding:
could you search and re-post anywhere anyone has rewritten verses, switched words, or added them to the texts?

comments are generally understood as comments.

i've seen no one slip unquenchable into 16, it would have read like this:

Luke 3
16John answered them all, “I baptize you withc water. But one more powerful than I will come, the thongs of whose sandals I am not worthy to untie. He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with unquenchable fire. 17 His winnowing fork is in his hand to clear his threshing floor and to gather the wheat into his barn, but he will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.”

speaking for myself, i agree and have merely attempted to "Ponder study dialogue. but leave it as its written"
(and i've been using Matthew anyways...LOL)
OK?
 
A

Abiding

Guest
Zone, i understand your position:)
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
Oh i dont know i guess i just lose my mind sometimes:)

Haha...reread the posts...you imagined i was removing verse 17...but nope...wasnt me
wasnt me doing what you thought...it was in YOUR head that i was removing the facts of verse 17

I was merely trying to leave verse 16 as its written which is not part of the babtism
but....verse 16 IS about baptism.
 

zone

Senior Member
Jun 13, 2010
27,214
164
63
Can anyone give me an example when the word "baptize" is used in a negative context?

baptize - definition of baptize by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

baptize
verb
1. (Christianity) christen, cleanse, immerse, purify, besprinkle I think your mother was baptized a Catholic.
2. initiate, admit, introduce, invest, recruit, enrol, induct, indoctrinate, instate baptized into the Church of England

Definition of BAPTIZE

transitive verb
1
: to administer baptism to
2
a : to purify or cleanse spiritually especially by a purging experience or ordeal
b : initiate
3
: to give a name to (as at baptism) : christen
ananda:

it just means IMMERSE.

let's see what baptize means in the lexicon:


907. baptizó


to dip, sink​
Original Word: βαπτίζω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: baptizó
Phonetic Spelling: (bap-tid'-zo)
Short Definition: I dip, submerge, baptize
Definition: lit: I dip, submerge, but specifically of ceremonial dipping; I baptize.

907 baptízō – properly, "submerge" (Souter); hence, baptize, to immerse (literally, "dip under"). 907 (baptízō) implies submersion ("immersion"), in contrast to 472 /antéxomai ("sprinkle").

Word Origin
from baptó
Definition
to dip, sink
NASB Word Usage
Baptist (3), baptize (9), baptized (51), baptizes (1), baptizing (10), ceremonially washed (1), undergo (1).


from :

911. baptó
to dip​
Original Word: βάπτω
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: baptó
Phonetic Spelling: (bap'-to)
Short Definition: I dip, dye
Definition: (a) I dip, (b) I dye.

Word Origin
from a prim. root baph-
Definition
to dip
NASB Word Usage
dip (2), dipped (2).

A primary verb; to whelm, i.e. Cover wholly with a fluid; in the New Testament only in a qualified or special sense, i.e. (literally) to moisten (a part of one's person), or (by implication) to stain (as with dye) -- dip.

the other places variations of the word baptó:

Jesus therefore answered, "It is he to whom I will give this piece of bread when I have dipped it." So when he had dipped the piece of bread, he gave it to Judas, the son of Simon Iscariot.

He cried and said, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue! For I am in anguish in this flame.'

He is clothed in a garment sprinkled with blood. His name is called "The Word of God."


βάψας (bapsas) − 1 Occurrence
βάψῃ (bapsē) − 1 Occurrence
βάψω (bapsō) − 1 Occurrence βεβαμμένον (bebammenon) − 1 Occurrence