question about 3 Nephi 9

[skylark1]

3 Nephi 9:20

20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

How can one be baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost and not know it?

How could this happen and one be unaware of it?

 

[Rescued One]

3 Nephi 9:20

20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

How can one be baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost and not know it?

How could this happen and one be unaware of it?

That is an excellent question.

The baptism of fire, which John promised
Christ would bring, means that when men receive
the actual companionship of the Holy Spirit, then
evil and iniquity are burned out of their souls as
though by fire. The sanctifying power of that member
of the Godhead makes them clean.
Old Testament Student Manual, Enrichment D (Festivals)
http://ldsces.org/inst_manuals/OTInstGen_2Sam32489000/Chapters/OTInstGen_2Sam32489000_25.pdf

Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is sometimes called the baptism of fire. "For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost" (2 Nephi 31:17.) This "fire" from the gift of the Holy Ghost cleanses us from our sins when we repent and is what purifies and sanctifies us.
Gift of the Holy Ghost

When the baptism of fire was betsowed in Helaman, Chapter Five, it was not unnoticable:

44 And Nephi and Lehi were in the midst of them; yea, they were encircled about; yea, they were as if in the midst of a flaming fire, yet it did harm them not, neither did it take hold upon the walls of the prison; and they were filled with that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory.
45 And behold, the Holy Spirit of God did come down from heaven, and did enter into their hearts, and they were filled as if with fire, and they could speak forth marvelous words.
46 And it came to pass that there came a voice unto them, yea, a pleasant voice, as if it were a whisper, saying:
47 Peace, peace be unto you, because of your faith in my Well Beloved, who was from the foundation of the world.
48 And now, when they heard this they cast up their eyes as if to behold from whence the voice came; and behold, they saw the heavens open; and angels came down out of heaven and ministered unto them.
49 And there were about three hundred souls who saw and heard these things; and they were bidden to go forth and marvel not, neither should they doubt.
(Helaman 5:44-49)


13 And it came to pass when they were all baptized and had come up out of the water, the Holy Ghost did fall upon them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
14 And behold, they were encircled about as if it were by fire; and it came down from heaven, and the multitude did witness it, and did bear record; and angels did come down out of heaven and did minister unto them.
(3 Nephi 19:13-14)

So, hopefully, someone can explain why it was unnoticable in the particular instance mentioned in your post.

 

[BarryK]

I am looking foward to thear from the L.D.S. posters on this

 

[SoftSpoken]

3 Nephi 9:20

20 And ye shall offer for a sacrifice unto me a broken heart and a contrite spirit. And whoso cometh unto me with a broken heart and a contrite spirit, him will I baptize with fire and with the Holy Ghost, even as the Lamanites, because of their faith in me at the time of their conversion, were baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost, and they knew it not.

How can one be baptized with fire and with the Holy Ghost and not know it?

How could this happen and one be unaware of it?

Some people have no real understanding of God. They are taught from infancy that there isn't one, and that only the senses of the body can connect them to any form of reality. If such a person were to hear someone preach the word of God, and God were to touch his or her spirit with His Spirit as a witness that they had heard truth, how would they know what they were feeling? Would they not attribute the feeling to emotion, or to some other sense with which they are familiar? How do you explain what the Holy Spirit "feels" like to an atheist?

The Lamanites were spiritually ignorant for hundreds of years. They had no concept of God, well no substantial concept of Him. When Ammon began to teach King Lamoni the Gospel he "said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth." (Alma 18:24-25) I can see how such a person could be converted (something we don't do either by or to ourselves) and not understand what was happening. All they know is that they feel something quite similar to emotion. Have you never known someone who needed help understanding how to perceive the workings of the Spirit in his or her life? I know I have. It's not such an unfathomable thing, I don't think. Same with children. We all have to learn how to perceive the Spirit at some point.

 

[bbbbbbb]

This reminds me of a trial for which I was called up for jury duty. The case revolved around allegations by a lady against a man, charging that he had raped her. Unfortunately for her she had absolutely no memory of the incident because she was, as they say "drunk as a skunk" at the time and there was no other evidence of it having happened. During the process of jury selection we were asked if we thought it possible for a woman to engage in intercourse and not know a thing about it.

I would say, in response to the OP, that the folks in question may have been drunks as skunks when they were baptized by the Holy Ghost and fire, and remained so until it was revealed to them.

 

[skylark1]

That is an excellent question.

The baptism of fire, which John promised
Christ would bring, means that when men receive
the actual companionship of the Holy Spirit, then
evil and iniquity are burned out of their souls as
though by fire. The sanctifying power of that member
of the Godhead makes them clean.
Old Testament Student Manual, Enrichment D (Festivals)
http://ldsces.org/inst_manuals/OTInstGen_2Sam32489000/Chapters/OTInstGen_2Sam32489000_25.pdf

Receiving the gift of the Holy Ghost is sometimes called the baptism of fire. "For the gate by which ye should enter is repentance and baptism by water; and then cometh a remission of your sins by fire and by the Holy Ghost" (2 Nephi 31:17.) This "fire" from the gift of the Holy Ghost cleanses us from our sins when we repent and is what purifies and sanctifies us.
Gift of the Holy Ghost

When the baptism of fire was betsowed in Helaman, Chapter Five, it was not unnoticable:

44 And Nephi and Lehi were in the midst of them; yea, they were encircled about; yea, they were as if in the midst of a flaming fire, yet it did harm them not, neither did it take hold upon the walls of the prison; and they were filled with that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory.
45 And behold, the Holy Spirit of God did come down from heaven, and did enter into their hearts, and they were filled as if with fire, and they could speak forth marvelous words.
46 And it came to pass that there came a voice unto them, yea, a pleasant voice, as if it were a whisper, saying:
47 Peace, peace be unto you, because of your faith in my Well Beloved, who was from the foundation of the world.
48 And now, when they heard this they cast up their eyes as if to behold from whence the voice came; and behold, they saw the heavens open; and angels came down out of heaven and ministered unto them.
49 And there were about three hundred souls who saw and heard these things; and they were bidden to go forth and marvel not, neither should they doubt.
(Helaman 5:44-49)


13 And it came to pass when they were all baptized and had come up out of the water, the Holy Ghost did fall upon them, and they were filled with the Holy Ghost and with fire.
14 And behold, they were encircled about as if it were by fire; and it came down from heaven, and the multitude did witness it, and did bear record; and angels did come down out of heaven and did minister unto them.
(3 Nephi 19:13-14)

So, hopefully, someone can explain why it was unnoticable in the particular instance mentioned in your post.

Thanks for the references. I had looked up the passages in Helama and 3 Nephi 19 (although I thought that this was supposed to be a later time), and the student manual for commentary on 3 Nephi (but not the commentary that you posted from it) before I decided to post the thread, but decided to get the OP simple. Posting these references makes it easier for all to follow the discussion.

 

[skylark1]

Some people have no real understanding of God. They are taught from infancy that there isn't one, and that only the senses of the body can connect them to any form of reality. If such a person were to hear someone preach the word of God, and God were to touch his or her spirit with His Spirit as a witness that they had heard truth, how would they know what they were feeling? Would they not attribute the feeling to emotion, or to some other sense with which they are familiar? How do you explain what the Holy Spirit "feels" like to an atheist?

The Lamanites were spiritually ignorant for hundreds of years. They had no concept of God, well no substantial concept of Him. When Ammon began to teach King Lamoni the Gospel he "said unto him: Believest thou that there is a God? And he answered, and said unto him: I do not know what that meaneth." (Alma 18:24-25) I can see how such a person could be converted (something we don't do either by or to ourselves) and not understand what was happening. All they know is that they feel something quite similar to emotion. Have you never known someone who needed help understanding how to perceive the workings of the Spirit in his or her life? I know I have. It's not such an unfathomable thing, I don't think. Same with children. We all have to learn how to perceive the Spirit at some point.

SoftSpoken, thanks for your explanantion.

I still wonder though, according to the book of Helaman, didn't they both understand (due to the preaching of Aminadab) and have faith in Christ? Or are you saying that they had faith, but lacked understanding? Or that their understanding was so rudimentary, that it can be said that they did not understand what was happening when they were baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost?

"41 And Aminadab said unto them: You must repent, and cry unto the voice, even until ye shall have faith in Christ, who was taught unto you by Alma, and Amulek, and Zeezrom; and when ye shall do this, the cloud of darkness shall be removed from overshadowing you.
42 And it came to pass that they all did begin to cry unto the voice of him who had shaken the earth; yea, they did cry even until the cloud of darkness was dispersed.
43 And it came to pass that when they cast their eyes about, and saw that the cloud of darkness was dispersed from overshadowing them, behold, they saw that they were encircled about, yea every soul, by a pillar of fire.
44 And Nephi and Lehi were in the midst of them; yea, they were encircled about; yea, they were as if in the midst of a flaming fire, yet it did harm them not, neither did it take hold upon the walls of the prison; and they were filled with that joy which is unspeakable and full of glory.
45 And behold, the Holy Spirit of God did come down from heaven, and did enter into their hearts, and they were filled as if with fire, and they could speak forth marvelous words.​

I do understand that the Holy Spirit often works in people's lives before they understand or believe. Do LDS teach that one must have faith and understanding of Christ and the gospel in order to receive the baptism of fire (gift of the Holy Ghost), or only faith? It seems that there must be understanding on some level. In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, when the tongues of fire descended on the apostles and heard them speaking in tongues, they didn't understand. Some supposed that they were drunk. It wasn't until Peter addressed the crowd and preached the gospel that they believed, were convicted, repented, were baptized, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

 

[SoftSpoken]

Thanks for the references. I had looked up the passages in Helama and 3 Nephi 19 (although I thought that this was supposed to be a later time), and the student manual for commentary on 3 Nephi (but not the commentary that you posted from it) before I decided to post the thread, but decided to get the OP simple. Posting these references makes it easier for all to follow the discussion.

Do bear in mind that the reference in the OP (that in 3 Ne. 9) does not specify at all which group of Lamanites is being mentioned. There are various instances mentioned in the BoM where the conversion of large groups of Lamanites is made a major event. Is it one of those being referenced, or is it some other instance that is not even recorded?

For example, in Alma, very brief mention of a Lamanitish woman named Abish is made, who was converted unto the Lord "on account of a remarkable vision of her father." (Alma 19:16) The BoM record covers a thousand years. On how many occasions were Lamanites converted, for which occasions we have no record? Phoebe has chosen to ascribe 3 Ne. 9:19 to perhaps the most remarkable account Lamanite conversion, which would certainly cause one to wonder, "How could they have not known?"

 

[skylark1]

Do bear in mind that the reference in the OP (that in 3 Ne. 9) does not specify at all which group of Lamanites is being mentioned. There are various instances mentioned in the BoM where the conversion of large groups of Lamanites is made a major event. Is it one of those being referenced, or is it some other instance that is not even recorded?

For example, in Alma, very brief mention of a Lamanitish woman named Abish is made, who was converted unto the Lord "on account of a remarkable vision of her father." (Alma 19:16) The BoM record covers a thousand years. On how many occasions were Lamanites converted, for which occasions we have no record? Phoebe has chosen to ascribe 3 Ne. 9:19 to perhaps the most remarkable account Lamanite conversion, which would certainly cause one to wonder, "How could they have not known?"

Since several sources that I had found linked 3 Nephi 9:20 and Helaman 5 together, and because there is a footnote at Helaman 5:45 linking to 3 Nephi 9:20, I had assumed that this is what was being referenced.

I hope that you didn't miss my response to you (post #7) right before your post.

 

[SoftSpoken]

SoftSpoken, thanks for your explanantion.

I still wonder though, according to the book of Helaman, didn't they both understand (due to the preaching of Aminadab) and have faith in Christ? Or are you saying that they had faith, but lacked understanding? Or that their understanding was so rudimentary, that it can be said that they did not understand what was happening when they were baptized with fire and the Holy Ghost?

Skylark, as I just posted above (we overlapped here, I think) I do not connect the two citations as Phoebe has. That said, however, the point I was trying to convey earlier is most in line with your last thought above (bolded). But I can see many situations that could cause someone not to know that they had been moved upon by the Spirit. Doubt can cloud one's judgement, even after one has received a witness. I think of the parable of the sower. That has always helped me understand the concept of various people receving spiritual witnesses with differing outcomes.

I do understand that the Holy Spirit often works in people's lives before they understand or believe. Do LDS teach that one must have faith and understanding of Christ and the gospel in order to receive the baptism of fire (gift of the Holy Ghost), or only faith?

The baptism of fire, in the purest sense of the term, refers to a post-faith, post-water-baptism event. It is a gift for those who submit to God's will. But manifestations of the Spirit may be felt by anyone at any time God sees fit to bestow them—including of course by the disbelieving and spiritually ignorant. Else how could they ever be drawn to truth? If faith comes by hearing the word of God, then hearing the word of God is all that is required in order for one to be eligible to receive a manifestation of the Spirit. (Romans 10:17) But manifestations of the Spirit and the gift of the Spirit (baptism by fire) are two separate things, and the latter has never been promised but upon the conditions of faith, repentance, and baptism (Acts 2:38)

It seems that there must be understanding on some level. In Acts 2 on the day of Pentecost, when the tongues of fire descended on the apostles and heard them speaking in tongues, they didn't understand. Some supposed that they were drunk. It wasn't until Peter addressed the crowd and preached the gospel that they believed, were convicted, repented, were baptized, and received the gift of the Holy Ghost.

Yes. This is how I understand it as well. Just as with whatever group of Lamanites was being referenced, these men in Peter's day needed additional instruction to understand what they had felt (the pricking of their hearts). But even that pricking of their hearts, though not the full baptism of fire, was still a baptism of fire, was it not? That was the moment of their conversion, right? It happened before they were baptized with water. It must! We aren't converted because we're baptized, we submit to baptism because we've been converted. That conversion only occurs when we are given a manifestation of the Holy Ghost. Thoughts?

 

[SoftSpoken]

Since several sources that I had found linked 3 Nephi 9:20 and Helaman 5 together, and because there is a footnote at Helaman 5:45 linking to 3 Nephi 9:20, I had assumed that this is what was being referenced.

Sure. That's fair. But it is interesting to note that 3 Ne. 9:19 does not reference the account in Helaman in the footnotes. Sometimes the footnotes cross-reference verses because they share similar topics, not necessarily because they refer to identical events. That might be splitting hairs though. I think my point has been understood, and that Phoebe's point is understood as well. Were it not for the ideas that I have offered here, I would be inclined to conclude what Phoebe has—that it is very unlikely the Lamanites in the Helaman account would not have known they had received a baptism of fire. But then again, these Lamanites were coming in to kill Nephi and Lehi. They weren't exactly well-versed in gospel principles! They likely believed in the Great Spirit, as had been the tradition of their forefathers for generations, and which belief seems to be more superstition-based than faith-based. I can totally see them not understanding what had happened to them, even though it was incredible, and even though they had been told to have faith. Abinadab knew what was happening precisely because he had a "spiritual education," being a Nephite dissenter.

 

[skylark1]

Skylark, as I just posted above (we overlapped here, I think) I do not connect the two citations as Phoebe has. That said, however, the point I was trying to convey earlier is most in line with your last thought above (bolded). But I can see many situations that could cause someone not to know that they had been moved upon by the Spirit. Doubt can cloud one's judgement, even after one has received a witness. I think of the parable of the sower. That has always helped me understand the concept of various people receving spiritual witnesses with differing outcomes.

The baptism of fire, in the purest sense of the term, refers to a post-faith, post-water-baptism event. It is a gift for those who submit to God's will. But manifestations of the Spirit may be felt by anyone at any time God sees fit to bestow them—including of course by the disbelieving and spiritually ignorant. Else how could they ever be drawn to truth? If faith comes by hearing the word of God, then hearing the word of God is all that is required in order for one to be eligible to receive a manifestation of the Spirit. (Romans 10:17) But manifestations of the Spirit and the gift of the Spirit (baptism by fire) are two separate things, and the latter has never been promised but upon the conditions of faith, repentance, and baptism (Acts 2:38)

Yes. This is how I understand it as well. Just as with whatever group of Lamanites was being referenced, these men in Peter's day needed additional instruction to understand what they had felt (the pricking of their hearts). But even that pricking of their hearts, though not the full baptism of fire, was still a baptism of fire, was it not? That was the moment of their conversion, right? It happened before they were baptized with water. It must! We aren't converted because we're baptized, we submit to baptism because we've been converted. That conversion only occurs when we are given a manifestation of the Holy Ghost. Thoughts?

I had typed up a reply, only to find when I was ready to post it that somehow I had been logged out. So I will try again.

Do you believe that in Helaman 5, that what the Lamanites received was a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, rather than the gift of the Holy Ghost?

I agree with you that conviction and being cut to their hearts did not happen apart from the presence of the Holy Spirit. However, I think that this pricking of their hearts came after they heard Peter preach the gospel. And I agree that baptism follows conversion. I'm just not sure that I would call a conviction from the Holy Spirt a baptism of fire. I think that the disciples and apostles prior to the crucifixtion of Christ were convicted by the Holy spirit. But the baptism of fire did not come for them until the day Pentecost. It seems to me that the term baptism with fire is something that is equated with the gift of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit, rather than the influence of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost. It is something that empowers believers to live for Christ, by the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost.

 

[SoftSpoken]

I had typed up a reply, only to find when I was ready to post it that somehow I had been logged out. So I will try again.

Do you believe that in Helaman 5, that what the Lamanites received was a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, rather than the gift of the Holy Ghost?

I agree with you that conviction and being cut to their hearts did not happen apart from the presence of the Holy Spirit. However, I think that this pricking of their hearts came after they heard Peter preach the gospel. And I agree that baptism follows conversion. I'm just not sure that I would call a conviction from the Holy Spirt a baptism of fire. I think that the disciples and apostles prior to the crucifixtion of Christ were convicted by the Holy spirit. But the baptism of fire did not come for them until the day Pentecost. It seems to me that the term baptism with fire is something that is equated with the gift of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit, rather than the influence of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost. It is something that empowers believers to live for Christ, by the abiding presence of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost.

I am very flexible here, as I seem to see fewer distinctions that you may, as far as the baptism of fire is concerned. So, for the sake of not getting stuck in definitions, let's agree that your conclusion here is correct—that being "pricked" or "convicted" by the influence of the Spirit does not equate to a baptism by fire. If that is the case, then I'd need to know your feeling about whether or not baptism by water precedes the baptism by fire, before we can really go on. I believe that baptism by water is a prerequisite to receving the baptism by fire, which, as was taught on the day of Penetecost, was a gift to those who would submitt to baptism. Where do you stand?

 

[A New Dawn]

I am very flexible here, as I seem to see fewer distinctions that you may, as far as the baptism of fire is concerned. So, for the sake of not getting stuck in definitions, let's agree that your conclusion here is correct—that being "pricked" or "convicted" by the influence of the Spirit does not equate to a baptism by fire. If that is the case, then I'd need to know your feeling about whether or not baptism by water precedes the baptism by fire, before we can really go on. I believe that baptism by water is a prerequisite to receving the baptism by fire, which, as was taught on the day of Penetecost, was a gift to those who would submitt to baptism. Where do you stand?

Jumping into the discussion here, I believe that baptism by fire is regeneration of the heart, which must occur first, prior to baptism by water, as baptism by water is an outward testimony, or symbol, of the baptism that has occurred from on high, since baptism by water is commanded of those who already believe. Often it is said in this way, It is an outward symbol of an internal grace.

 

[skylark1]

I am very flexible here, as I seem to see fewer distinctions that you may, as far as the baptism of fire is concerned. So, for the sake of not getting stuck in definitions, let's agree that your conclusion here is correct—that being "pricked" or "convicted" by the influence of the Spirit does not equate to a baptism by fire. If that is the case, then I'd need to know your feeling about whether or not baptism by water precedes the baptism by fire, before we can really go on. I believe that baptism by water is a prerequisite to receving the baptism by fire, which, as was taught on the day of Penetecost, was a gift to those who would submitt to baptism. Where do you stand?

Sometimes in the New Testament the gift of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit came after baptism, and sometimes it came afterwards. In Acts 2, it is implied that it would come after the people were baptized. Yet in Acts 10, the gift of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit appears to have preceeded baptism.

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.​

Are we in danger of trying to limit God if we demand they the gift of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost must be given in a certain way? I don't think that it must be the same for everyone.

The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."​

Would you mind answering this question? I promise not to dwell on it.

Do you believe that in Helaman 5, that what the Lamanites received was a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, rather than the gift of the Holy Ghost?​

 

[skylark1]

Jumping into the discussion here, I believe that baptism by fire is regeneration of the heart, which must occur first, prior to baptism by water, as baptism by water is an outward testimony, or symbol, of the baptism that has occurred from on high, since baptism by water is commanded of those who already believe. Often it is said in this way, It is an outward symbol of an internal grace.

I'm not really disagreeing witih you here, so much as exploring this.

If baptism of fire is the same thing as regeneration, then I don't know how one would explain several passages of scripture. Here is on of them:

Acts 8
14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.​

These people had already received the word of God, they believed it, and been baptized in the name of Jesus, but they had not received the Holy Spirit.

 

[BarryK]

Jumping into the discussion here, I believe that baptism by fire is regeneration of the heart, which must occur first, prior to baptism by water, as baptism by water is an outward testimony, or symbol, of the baptism that has occurred from on high, since baptism by water is commanded of those who already believe. Often it is said in this way, It is an outward symbol of an internal grace.

also jumping into the discussion, being a Spirit Filled, Toungs speaking, Miricle Working, Streetcorner Preaching, Bible Teaching, "Post Pentecostal" I see it a bit differently

While it is true that nobody knows for sure the mind of The Father, it has been my personal experence that the "baptisism of Fire" is the infulling of The holy Spirit, and the evidence of various outward manifestations ( toungs being the most common) Keep in mine I used the word "evidence", and there is a reason for that.

Suppose some twisted derranged evil person were to kidnap a close friend of yours, burder them, dissamebe the body into 50 different pieces, incenerate each piece,scatter the ashes each in a different state, acid wash the various paraphenilla the fiend used, and destroy eery shred of anything that might even be considered incrimination, your friend will still be just as dead, but no "evidence"

now, putting aside that rather extreme illustration, just because there is no outward "evidence" that in no way means that the Baptisism of the Holy Spirit has not taken place.

Dont forget what the word "Baptise" actually means

βαπτίζω, (baptiz&#333 Strongs # g-907
1) to dip repeatedly, to immerse, to submerge (of vessels sunk)
2) to cleanse by dipping or submerging, to wash, to make clean with water, to wash one's self, bathe
3) to overwhelm

Consider this, when one is repeatedly dipped, imersed and sumerged, clensed and washed and overwhelomed with The Holy Spirit, what would the effect of that be on somebody?

What has the Word of God to say concerning a "refiners fire" and "fullers soap"

Remember that The Holy Spirit showed up as fire in the upper room.

There is also a sceondayr definition found in greek textx outside of the Bible, a cookbood specificly, it uses the word Baptizo, as a way to descrive brining of pickles.
When you take a cuke, and imerse it in the brinek it takes on ther character of the brine.

How much more whe we are soaked, imersed, set afire by TheHoly Spirit, we tak on the Charachter of he that peremiates us
after allwe are made in His image

I am in no way making excuse for the well known "Penticostal excess" that is rampant in the EKKLESIA today, after all God is a God of order, not emotional chaos, but whe the Holy Spirit decides to show up it is best that we do not grive Him.

The Baptisism of Water, the one you get to do when you make your intital commitment to Christ is important as well, it is a public declearation, and it is a symbolic( and much more than merely symbolic just the same) demonstation of you association with Christ in both His death, and His ressurection.
It is also an act of Obiedence
it is also an act of boldness for the Gospel of Christ.
(if you dont believe me about thei Boldness thing, take whater monies that you have availabe, get on Islamic soil, and get yourself publicly re-baptised in the Name of Jesus Christ, and wait and see what happens)

anyway, that my two cents

 

[A New Dawn]

I'm not really disagreeing witih you here, so much as exploring this.

If baptism of fire is the same thing as regeneration, then I don't know how one would explain several passages of scripture. Here is on of them:

Acts 8
14 Now when the apostles who were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the word of God, they sent Peter and John to them, 15 who, when they had come down, prayed for them that they might receive the Holy Spirit. 16 For as yet He had fallen upon none of them. They had only been baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus. 17 Then they laid hands on them, and they received the Holy Spirit.​

These people had already received the word of God, they believed it, and been baptized in the name of Jesus, but they had not received the Holy Spirit.

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been, relying on my experience too much (which I tend to do and forget that everyone is not me. )

Regeneration preceeds belief and baptism by fire, but sometimes (as in my case) it seems to occur at the same time. I believe that regeneration occurs, leading to belief and then baptism by fire.

The commentaries I have read on this passage are confusing because this passage seems to disagree with others, which indicate that the filling of the Holy Spirit opens the door for belief (as seen earlier in Acts), which in turn leads to those things that follow belief (repentance, baptism, good works, etc.) I am sure there really isn't a confusion, we are just seeing through the veil dimly.

 

[skylark1]

Maybe I wasn't as clear as I should have been, relying on my experience too much (which I tend to do and forget that everyone is not me. )

Regeneration preceeds belief and baptism by fire, but sometimes (as in my case) it seems to occur at the same time. I believe that regeneration occurs, leading to belief and then baptism by fire.

The commentaries I have read on this passage are confusing because this passage seems to disagree with others, which indicate that the filling of the Holy Spirit opens the door for belief (as seen earlier in Acts), which in turn leads to those things that follow belief (repentance, baptism, good works, etc.) I am sure there really isn't a confusion, we are just seeing through the veil dimly.

I'm going to try and leave the idea of whether or not regeneration precedes belief out of this.

The following commentary offers several views:

The fact that these Christians received the Holy Spirit in what seems to be a subsequent experience to their salvation has caused much controversy; there have been different explanations offered.

i. Some say they were never saved to begin with under Philip’s preaching. When Peter and John came, they really trusted in Jesus and then received the Holy Spirit.

ii. Some say they were really saved, and then in a subsequent experience, they received the Holy Spirit in a pattern that believers should follow today.

iii. Some say they were really saved at Philip’s preaching, yet God, in a unique move, withheld the gift of the Holy Spirit until it could be bestowed on them by Peter and John. God’s purpose in this was to ensure continuity between the church in Jerusalem and the new church in Samaria, guarding against division.

iv. Some say they were really saved and did really receive the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion, but were given special gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit at the laying on of hands by Peter and John.​

f. The last option seems to best explain what happened. Whatever the Samaritans experienced, it seems to have been more than the “regular” bestowal of the Holy Spirit at salvation. This is a filling of the Holy Spirit we should always desire and seek.

Blue Letter Bible - Commentaries - David Guzik - Updated Study Guide
​

I think that I agree most with the last option, "that did really receive the Holy Spirit at the time of conversion, but were given special gifts and graces of the Holy Spirit at the laying on of hands by Peter and John."

Since we are in the LDS forum, I am going to try to relate this back to Mormonism Substituting the word converted for saved, I think that it would be accurate to say that LDS teach that they were really converted, and then in a subsequent experience, they received the Holy Spirit in a pattern that believers should follow today. It anyone finds that inacccurate, then please correct me.

 

[SoftSpoken]

Sometimes in the New Testament the gift of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit came after baptism, and sometimes it came afterwards. In Acts 2, it is implied that it would come after the people were baptized. Yet in Acts 10, the gift of the Holy Ghost/Holy Spirit appears to have preceeded baptism.

44 While Peter was still speaking these words, the Holy Spirit fell upon all those who heard the word. 45 And those of the circumcision who believed were astonished, as many as came with Peter, because the gift of the Holy Spirit had been poured out on the Gentiles also. 46 For they heard them speak with tongues and magnify God.

Then Peter answered, 47 “Can anyone forbid water, that these should not be baptized who have received the Holy Spirit just as we have?” 48 And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord. Then they asked him to stay a few days.
​

Are we in danger of trying to limit God if we demand they the gift of the Holy Spirit/Holy Ghost must be given in a certain way? I don't think that it must be the same for everyone.

Is it demanding to "hold" an unchangeable God to His own word? (I know that sounds bad, but I don't know how else to say it). I will risk looking like a fool and say that I don't understand that they (in this instance) received the baptism of fire, as we have agreed to classify it. I know that the text clearly says "gift of the Holy Ghost." But in my understanding, the gift of the Holy Ghost, as a permanent, ongoing companion, has only been promised to those who submit to baptism.

Please understand that I have no interest in splitting hairs here, nor in putting some kind of limit on God's power. I know that He has all power to do whatsoever He will. But I also know that he is the same yesterday, today, and forever, and that He operates by covenant, and that he does not vary from that which he hath said. To bestow the full gift of the Holy Ghost upon someone who had not fulfilled the covenant would, in my mind, negate the necessity of baptism outright. Why would one then need to be baptized, if the gift promised upon submission to the sacrament had already been given?

Those are my thoughts here. What do you think?

Would you mind answering this question? I promise not to dwell on it.

Do you believe that in Helaman 5, that what the Lamanites received was a manifestation of the Holy Ghost, rather than the gift of the Holy Ghost?
​

Yes. I believe they received a manifestation of the Holy Ghost. I do not believe they received the full Gift of the Holy Ghost. The former is given temporarily, even though the influence may tarry for days at a time. But if the person does not act upon the influence—if the person acts contrary to what the Spirit has witnessed to him or her, the Holy Ghost necessarily departs. That is what the Gift of the Holy Ghost is all about. Never losing that companionship, barring unworthiness brought upon oneself through persistent sin. Admittedly, it is the Restored Gospel that compels me to draw a deeper line than you may be inclined to draw here. I am OK with that. It is what it is.

Your thoughts?