There has always been some diversity of opinion on this subject, even among the ancient fathers, e.g.:
"but that One would shortly come who would baptize in the Spirit and fire--of course because true and stable faith is baptized with water, unto salvation; pretended and weak faith is baptized with fire, unto judgement." - Tertullian, On Baptism, Ch. 10
"Now as to John's expression, 'with fire,' though tribulation might be understood, which believers were to suffer for the name of Christ; yet may we reasonably think that the same Holy Spirit is signified also under the name of 'fire'. Wherefore when He came it is said, 'And there appeared unto them cloven tongues like as of fire, and it sat upon each of them.' Hence also the Lord Himself said, "I am come to send fire on the earth.' Hence also the Apostle says, 'Ferant in the spirit;' for from Him comes the fervor of love. 'For it is shed abroad in our hearts by the Holy Ghost which is given unto us.'" - St. Augustine of Hippo, Sermon XXI on the New Testament
"The Savior baptized the Apostles with the Holy Ghost and with fire, when 'suddenly there came a sound from heaven as of the rushing of a mighty wind, and it filled all the house where they were sitting. And there appeared to them cloven tongues like as of fire; and it sat upon each one of them, and they were all filled with the Holy Ghost.'" - St. Cyril of Jerusalem, Catechetical Lectures 3, 9
I think one will find that these represent many of the recurring interpretations of what the "fire" is:
1) Judgment
2) Persecution
3) The Holy Spirit
So at the very least there has been some diversity of opinion as to how to properly interpret the words "and fire". It could mean the fire of Judgment, it could mean the fire of suffering and persecution, or "Holy Spirit and fire" can literally be referring to the same thing.
-CryptoLutheran
Of those three, I only really care about St. Cyril of Jerusalem. Some Latin fathers I respect, but in my opinion Tertullian did little for the faith other than coin the word trinitas, and then he apostasized. St. Augustine I respect on a personal level, but his theology lags behind that of his mentor St. Ambrose, his peer St. John Cassian, and other Latin theologians like St. Isidore of Seville and St. Vincent of Lerins. In particular, I side with the Eastern Orthodox on the mode of transmission of original sin, which follows the model of John Cassian, and I reject St. Augustine’s suggestion that sexual intercourse is the vector for the transmission of sin; the hereditary model of St. John Cassian favored by the Eastern churches is much better. And St. Augustine’s idea that babies who die without being baptized are damned has historically been repulsive to most Christians. These two errors prompted the erroneous Roman Catholic doctrines of the Immaculate Conception* and Limbo.
My views on the Baptism of Fire are taken from the Eastern churches alone, where Chrismation normally immediately follows baptism, and is in the liturgy described as receiving the seal of the Holy Spirit and explicitly likened to the tongues of fire on Pentecost. Then Communion is administered immediately, even in the case of infants, which I think is a very good thing as I believe infants cannot partake unworthily nor fail to discern the Lord’s body. And since Eastern Catholic churches also do it this way, I wish the entire Roman Catholic Church would standardize on the method of the Byzantine Rite Catholics, Armenian Catholics, Coptic Catholics, Syriac and Malankara Catholics, Ethiopian Catholics, and Chaldean and Syro-Malabar Catholics (the Maronites I think adopted Roman practices in this area, but they may have reverted after Vatican II, when the de-Latinization of Eastern Catholic churches began in earnest.
There is, regarding persecution, the Baptism of Blood for martyrs. So the Holy Innocents, infants of Ramallah, killed by Herod, became the first martyrs for Christ* and were baptized in blood. A more recent case would be the Ghanaian who chose to be martyred by ISIS with his Coptic coworkers, saying “Their God is my God.”
*St, Stephen the Deacon is venerated as the Protomartyr because he was the first to be martyred after the Ascension and Pentecost, for preaching Christianity, as opposed to the Holy Innocents, who were killed before Christ’s Gospel was known, for fear of what he might be, whose feast day is two days after the feast of St. Stephen.
The Armenians by the way do the best job with the feast of St. Stephen I think, in that all their deacons wear crowns on that day to celebrate the martyrdom of St. Stephen. And as you doubtless know, St. James the Great is Great because he was the first of the Twelve to receive the glorious crown of martyrdom (to use a common Orthodox theological expression).
