How Are Women Saved?

[Mungo]

Part 1
"Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." (1 Tim 2:11-15)
According to Paul a wamna has to have a child to be saved. You may think I’m joking, but there is a serious point here. Paul is clearly defining a separate path of salvation for men and for women.

The bulk of scripture is about how men are saved. Paul to the gaoler – a man. Jesus to Nicodemus, the scribes and Pharisees – all men. Who is Paul addressing in his letter to the Romans? Men – “Are you unaware brothers” (Rom 7:1); “In the same way my brothers...” (Rom 7:4). James – about works + faith – “What good is it my brothers…” (James 2:14).

His letter to Timothy is the only time Paul specifically addresses the route of salvation for women “she will be saved through childbearing..” (1Tim 2:15).

So women, you can forget about repenting, or believing or being baptised, all you need is the work of childbearing (and I’m told by women who have done this that it is hard work).

Its True – Its Biblical – Prove me wrong.

In his statement that women will be saved through childbearing Paul gives no indication that they should be married. Indeed in his letter to the Corinthians he says that he prefers that all stay unmarried.
"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am" (1 Cor 7:8)

Obviously Paul also prefers women to be saved. So what he seems to be advocating here is that women should have children so as to saved, but do so in an unmarried state. Is he setting aside the Old Testament strictures against fornication being sinful?

No, obviously not. So we must look for another explanation. We cannot take Paul as speaking of childbearing literally. He is probably speaking of symbolical childbearing, or perhaps more likely spiritual childbearing. But what would spiritual childbearing or spiritual birthing be? What is spiritual birth?

The obvious clue to this is in Jn 3:5 where Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born from above (born again). Nicodemus takes this literally. But Jesus explains he means spiritually and that he must be “born of water and Spirit”. This follows the correct sequence of physical and then spiritual as noted in 1Cor15:46 “But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual.” Now there are two actions here, one earthy (water) which is water baptism by a human agent (the woman who is going to spiritually rebirth them). The other is heavenly (Spirit) which is God’s action. “He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” (Ti 3:5)

So women are to spiritually birth men by baptising them. And here we men must repent because for centuries we have been reserving baptism for male clergy and depriving women of their chance of salvation. Note that women do not need to be baptised as they are saved by the act of spiritually birthing men (i.e. baptising them).

Note the efficiency of this. Two people are saved for the price of one act. This is economical - part of what the Catholic Catechism calls the sacramental economy (joke for Catholics).

So ladies I give you a new slogan:

Baptise and Be Saved

It’s True – Its Biblical

Now read the next post (Part 2)

 

[Mungo]

Part 2

You may be wondering what I am rambling on about. What is all this nonsense? Have I gone off my trolly? Am I just being silly?

Well perhaps, but I’m trying to make a serious point. It is possible to take a couple of scripture verses and link them together – and come up with nonsense, particularly if you can start with an obscure verse. Yet is looks logical and is scripture based. And given a bit more padding I could make it more convincing

And this is what happens when we take ourselves as the rightful authority for interpreting scripture. If we just select bits of scripture and wave them around we get nowhere, or rather we get endless and pointless discussions. This is what we get when we decide on what a verse means, on what is literal and what is symbolic or spiritual, based on our pre-conceived theology.

We need to be like the Ethiopian in Acts 8:30-31 who, when Philip asked if he understood what [scripture] he was reading, replied “How can I unless someone instructs me?” We need to submit to the instruction of those whom Jesus Christ left to carry on his mission and gave authority to – the apostles and their legitimate successors, those he promised he would “guide into all truth” (Jn 16:13); those to whom he gave the guarantee that the “gates of hell would not prevail against”. Our own ideas, worthy as they might seem, must be tested against 2,000 years of consistent teaching.

Note that the Ethiopian submitted to the authority of the Church (in the form of Philip the Deacon) for instruction. That Church is the one that still exists today under the guidance of the successor of St. Peter.

It's True – It's Biblical – It's Apostolic

 

[BloodBought 1953]

Part 2

You may be wondering what I am rambling on about. What is all this nonsense? Have I gone off my trolly? Am I just being silly?

Well perhaps, but I’m trying to make a serious point. It is possible to take a couple of scripture verses and link them together – and come up with nonsense, particularly if you can start with an obscure verse. Yet is looks logical and is scripture based. And given a bit more padding I could make it more convincing

And this is what happens when we take ourselves as the rightful authority for interpreting scripture. If we just select bits of scripture and wave them around we get nowhere, or rather we get endless and pointless discussions. This is what we get when we decide on what a verse means, on what is literal and what is symbolic or spiritual, based on our pre-conceived theology.

We need to be like the Ethiopian in Acts 8:30-31 who, when Philip asked if he understood what [scripture] he was reading, replied “How can I unless someone instructs me?” We need to submit to the instruction of those whom Jesus Christ left to carry on his mission and gave authority to – the apostles and their legitimate successors, those he promised he would “guide into all truth” (Jn 16:13); those to whom he gave the guarantee that the “gates of hell would not prevail against”. Our own ideas, worthy as they might seem, must be tested against 2,000 years of consistent teaching.

Note that the Ethiopian submitted to the authority of the Church (in the form of Philip the Deacon) for instruction. That Church is the one that still exists today under the guidance of the successor of St. Peter.

It's True – It's Biblical – It's Apostolic

You make a good point....

One can make the Bible say Anything if they are willing to take verses out of contexts — “ Text Without CONTEXT is Error”

Some try to take things given in one Covenant and insist upon cramming them in to another Covenant or Dispensation...... it just causes needless confusion...the Bible is a Book that MUST be “ Rightly Divided”....

 

[Randy Kluth]

Part 1
"Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." (1 Tim 2:11-15)
According to Paul a wamna has to have a child to be saved. You may think I’m joking, but there is a serious point here. Paul is clearly defining a separate path of salvation for men and for women.

Though you may be less than serious, it's still a good and sensible questions, and deserves an answer. Obviously, Paul is *not* advocating for a different means of salvation for males and females with respect to eternal life.

What Paul applies to the male gender biblically also applies to the female gender since that is the biblical order: "God made Man, male and female." The word "man" is not loaded with bigotry, but includes within it an equal partnership of male and female, although due to the curse the male assumes headship in a marriage.

In my view there is perhaps a 2-fold meaning involved.
1) In the Garden, Eve initiated the transgression, and so had to learn submission to God's word, as well as to a husband's authority. But this is offset by their essential equality, created coming out of the side of man, and not lower in rank. And it is borne out by woman's continuing role as the producer of children for God.

This is a generic application to women, since many women do not bear children. It is a statement in general that God has not yielded up the productivity of women in view of the fact their purpose in child-bearing has continued, regardless of whether some women do not bear children at all. If women continue to contribute to "filling the earth with mankind," then God has indicated in this that He has not abandoned women to the scrap pile, simply because they had initiated sin in Mankind.

2) Women were given not just to continuing bearing men, but they also, as a gender, have contributed, through Mary, to producing the Christ, our Savior. And so, women are saved by having produced the very thing that brings all men salvation, Jesus, son of Mary and son of God.

But I think it is largely the fact that God has continued to use women, after the Fall, by their producing children that indicates God has not given up on *any* woman, and thus is willing to save *all* women. If He continues with child-bearing women, then He has indicated He is willing to continue with *any* woman, child-bearing or not!

Child-bearing is just an example of God's continuing use of women to be productive in His Kingdom. They are "saved" because God treats them as still being useful in HIs original calling, to bear children for God and to fill the world with mankind.

 

[Cassandra]

Though you may be less than serious, it's still a good and sensible questions, and deserves an answer. Obviously, Paul is *not* advocating for a different means of salvation for males and females with respect to eternal life.

What Paul applies to the male gender biblically also applies to the female gender since that is the biblical order: "God made Man, male and female." The word "man" is not loaded with bigotry, but includes within it an equal partnership of male and female, although due to the curse the male assumes headship in a marriage.

In my view there is perhaps a 2-fold meaning involved.
1) In the Garden, Eve initiated the transgression, and so had to learn submission to God's word, as well as to a husband's authority. But this is offset by their essential equality, created coming out of the side of man, and not lower in rank. And it is borne out by woman's continuing role as the producer of children for God.

This is a generic application to women, since many women do not bear children. It is a statement in general that God has not yielded up the productivity of women in view of the fact their purpose in child-bearing has continued, regardless of whether some women do not bear children at all. If women continue to contribute to "filling the earth with mankind," then God has indicated in this that He has not abandoned women to the scrap pile, simply because they had initiated sin in Mankind.

2) Women were given not just to continuing bearing men, but they also, as a gender, have contributed, through Mary, to producing the Christ, our Savior. And so, women are saved by having produced the very thing that brings all men salvation, Jesus, son of Mary and son of God.

But I think it is largely the fact that God has continued to use women, after the Fall, by their producing children that indicates God has not given up on *any* woman, and thus is willing to save *all* women. If He continues with child-bearing women, then He has indicated He is willing to continue with *any* woman, child-bearing or not!

Child-bearing is just an example of God's continuing use of women to be productive in His Kingdom. They are "saved" because God treats them as still being useful in HIs original calling, to bear children for God and to fill the world with mankind.

Well, Gee Willakers, I'm feeling better about myself now .

Complain all you want about women and the Fall, but here's the thing
1 Cor 15:22 " 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Wait. what? For in who do all die? Eve? NOPE. Let's quote it again:
1Cor 15:22 "22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

And God is still using women for things? Gee, I see you put a whole lot of thought into this, didn't you? Thanks for trying to validate our existence.

Women are beings bought by the blood of Christ whether you like it or not.
There was some joker on here saying women would not go to heaven because angels are referred to as men. That is ridiculous.
Everyone is bought with a price. That Bible we have is as much about me as it is about you. It doesn't say that women are not saved.
I am not saved because I am useful ---wow. God using me as a utility? That is a slap in the face to He who died for me. Does he die for things? no for people.

I am saved because I am loved by the Lord, every bit as much as you.


You guys who think women are less than you when it comes to salvation, are some of the worst witnesses when it comes to displaying the love of Christ.

 

[TLHKAJ]

Actually, when you study out the meaning of the word "saved" in that scripture, it means "healed, protected, whole, preserved, do well." So it means that if she continues in faith, charity, and holiness with sobriety ...she will be protected and do well in childbirth (as opposed to the curse that says in pain and sorrow she would travail and give birth).

Anyway, I get what the point of the thread is. I have to shake my head sometimes at the strange doctrines I see people come off with by taking scripture out of context.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well, Gee Willakers, I'm feeling better about myself now .

Complain all you want about women and the Fall, but here's the thing
1 Cor 15:22 " 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Wait. what? For in who do all die? Eve? NOPE. Let's quote it again:
1Cor 15:22 "22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

And God is still using women for things? Gee, I see you put a whole lot of thought into this, didn't you? Thanks for trying to validate our existence.

I have zero interest in putting you on oxygen to rehabilitate your attitude--it already sucks, as I can plainly see. But I do want you to feel better. So let me try again?

In saying, "in Adam all are made alive" there is nothing here that is cavalier and anti-woman. It is not a gender statement at all. As I said, reference to Adam, the Man, is a reference to Man, male and female. What applies to one applies also to the other, unless of course context means to distinguish between the sexes.

Women are beings bought by the blood of Christ whether you like it or not.

When did I *ever* say that women are not being bought by the blood of Christ? You are truly out of control, emotionally, or perhaps caught up in the women's lib thing? Maybe you've even bought into the idea that men, by nature, are brute beasts, who wish to rule their women by physical force, and are all chauvinists?

But if I capitulated to such stereotypes I would be as bad as you seem to be. I hope you're not falling off the edge here? I hope you're not just rebellious against the thought you have to submit to God's choices, direction, and authority? For all Christians, male and female, we have to submit to the Lord, period. Otherwise, we vent with a fury against anything based on *our* choices--not the *Lord's* choices. And in this I'm not even spelling out what those choices are. He's always in charge, no matter what the occasion.

There was some joker on here saying women would not go to heaven because angels are referred to as men. That is ridiculous.

I agree. That's ridiculous. Angels are genderless, I believe? Post the need to bear any more children, our future in the Kingdom of God will also be genderless.

Everyone is bought with a price. That Bible we have is as much about me as it is about you. It doesn't say that women are not saved.

Apparently you didn't understand my argument. It was about women maintaining their utility with God, and the proof of that in that *some women* continue to bear children. If some do that, then it is an indication God hasn't given up on women in general, whether they bear children or not. This is not about the doctrine of salvation. That is simply about whether God has given up on the human race or not. Remember, He almost did that in the time of Noah! But Noah's wife and daughters in law continued to bear children! That is, they remained useful to God, indicating that He planned to save them for eternity and in a spiritual way, as well. After all, they did survive the Flood!

I am not saved because I am useful ---wow. God using me as a utility? That is a slap in the face to He who died for me. Does he die for things? no for people.

I am saved because I am loved by the Lord, every bit as much as you.


You guys who think women are less than you when it comes to salvation, are some of the worst witnesses when it comes to displaying the love of Christ.

I don't personally know anybody, in my 50 years of Christian experience, who believes that women are *less* than men in the matter of Salvation and in the matter of God's love. You are barking up the wrong tree, it seems? Get your emotions under control! And I say that as your *equal!*

 

[Jim B]

Well, Gee Willakers, I'm feeling better about myself now .

Complain all you want about women and the Fall, but here's the thing
1 Cor 15:22 " 22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." Wait. what? For in who do all die? Eve? NOPE. Let's quote it again:
1Cor 15:22 "22 For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive.

And God is still using women for things? Gee, I see you put a whole lot of thought into this, didn't you? Thanks for trying to validate our existence.

Women are beings bought by the blood of Christ whether you like it or not.
There was some joker on here saying women would not go to heaven because angels are referred to as men. That is ridiculous.
Everyone is bought with a price. That Bible we have is as much about me as it is about you. It doesn't say that women are not saved.
I am not saved because I am useful ---wow. God using me as a utility? That is a slap in the face to He who died for me. Does he die for things? no for people.

I am saved because I am loved by the Lord, every bit as much as you.


You guys who think women are less than you when it comes to salvation, are some of the worst witnesses when it comes to displaying the love of Christ.

Great post! I don't understand how the Gospel can be so twisted in some people's minds. Randy Kluth is a perfect example of how some people can be so deceived.

 

[TahitiRun]

Part 1
So women, you can forget about repenting, or believing or being baptised, all you need is the work of childbearing (and I’m told by women who have done this that it is hard work).

Its True – Its Biblical – Prove me wrong.

LOL...wonderful post!

 

[bbyrd009]

We cannot take Paul as speaking of childbearing literally. He is probably speaking of symbolical childbearing, or perhaps more likely spiritual childbearing. But what would spiritual childbearing or spiritual birthing be? What is spiritual birth?

There are no male or female in the kingdom suggests that it might be women that should not be taken literally

 

[Randy Kluth]

Great post! I don't understand how the Gospel can be so twisted in some people's minds. Randy Kluth is a perfect example of how some people can be so deceived.

I have no idea what you're talking about? What twist, what deception? I just believe the Bible. I think evil attempts to bring division between Christians, between the genders, between the cultures, between the nationalities. But a house divided will not stand.

 

[quietthinker]

How Are Women Saved?
The Bill of Rights?

 

[theefaith]

[/QUOTE]

I am saved because I am loved by the Lord, every bit as much as you.

then all are saved cos all are loved Jn 3:16

what happened to “faith alone”?

 

[Jim B]

I have no idea what you're talking about? What twist, what deception? I just believe the Bible. I think evil attempts to bring division between Christians, between the genders, between the cultures, between the nationalities. But a house divided will not stand.

I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Jim B]

How Are Women Saved?
The Bill of Rights?

1) Is there an Australian Bill of Rights?
2) What does this have to do with the subject being discussed?

 

[Randy Kluth]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

Well then, you should probably ask before using my name contemptuously. At one point I saw you "liked" my post. The person I was communicating with then hurled insults at me, with you piling on (post #8), and you "liked" that as well. Or am I misreading things? Thank you.

 

[Jim B]

Well then, you should probably ask before using my name contemptuously. At one point I saw you "liked" my post. The person I was communicating with then hurled insults at me, with you piling on (post #8), and you "liked" that as well. Or am I misreading things? Thank you.

Well then, you should probably ask before using my name contemptuously.

 

[Randy Kluth]

Well then, you should probably ask before using my name contemptuously.

You seem to be very confused. It was *you* who used my name disparagingly. Here is what you said in post #8:

"Randy Kluth is a perfect example of how some people can be so deceived."

I am telling you that *you* are using my name contemptuously. Instead if explaining what you mean, you say you didn't even know what I was saying. So you were claiming I was deceived when you didn't even know what I was saying. And now you're trying to throw back on me that I'm using *your name* contemptuously. I don't know what to make of you, but I think I'm done.

 

[Jim B]

You seem to be very confused. It was *you* who used my name disparagingly. Here is what you said in post #8:

"Randy Kluth is a perfect example of how some people can be so deceived."

I am telling you that *you* are using my name contemptuously. Instead if explaining what you mean, you say you didn't even know what I was saying. So you were claiming I was deceived when you didn't even know what I was saying. And now you're trying to throw back on me that I'm using *your name* contemptuously. I don't know what to make of you, but I think I'm done.

Goodbye. Sweet dreams!

 

[Bob Estey]

Part 1
"Let a woman learn in silence with full submission. I permit no woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. Yet she will be saved through childbearing, provided they continue in faith and love and holiness, with modesty." (1 Tim 2:11-15)
According to Paul a wamna has to have a child to be saved. You may think I’m joking, but there is a serious point here. Paul is clearly defining a separate path of salvation for men and for women.

The bulk of scripture is about how men are saved. Paul to the gaoler – a man. Jesus to Nicodemus, the scribes and Pharisees – all men. Who is Paul addressing in his letter to the Romans? Men – “Are you unaware brothers” (Rom 7:1); “In the same way my brothers...” (Rom 7:4). James – about works + faith – “What good is it my brothers…” (James 2:14).

His letter to Timothy is the only time Paul specifically addresses the route of salvation for women “she will be saved through childbearing..” (1Tim 2:15).

So women, you can forget about repenting, or believing or being baptised, all you need is the work of childbearing (and I’m told by women who have done this that it is hard work).

Its True – Its Biblical – Prove me wrong.

In his statement that women will be saved through childbearing Paul gives no indication that they should be married. Indeed in his letter to the Corinthians he says that he prefers that all stay unmarried.
"To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is well for them to remain unmarried as I am" (1 Cor 7:8)

Obviously Paul also prefers women to be saved. So what he seems to be advocating here is that women should have children so as to saved, but do so in an unmarried state. Is he setting aside the Old Testament strictures against fornication being sinful?

No, obviously not. So we must look for another explanation. We cannot take Paul as speaking of childbearing literally. He is probably speaking of symbolical childbearing, or perhaps more likely spiritual childbearing. But what would spiritual childbearing or spiritual birthing be? What is spiritual birth?

The obvious clue to this is in Jn 3:5 where Jesus tells Nicodemus that he must be born from above (born again). Nicodemus takes this literally. But Jesus explains he means spiritually and that he must be “born of water and Spirit”. This follows the correct sequence of physical and then spiritual as noted in 1Cor15:46 “But it is not the spiritual that is first, but the physical, and then the spiritual.” Now there are two actions here, one earthy (water) which is water baptism by a human agent (the woman who is going to spiritually rebirth them). The other is heavenly (Spirit) which is God’s action. “He saved us, not because of any works of righteousness that we had done, but according to his mercy, through the water of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit.” (Ti 3:5)

So women are to spiritually birth men by baptising them. And here we men must repent because for centuries we have been reserving baptism for male clergy and depriving women of their chance of salvation. Note that women do not need to be baptised as they are saved by the act of spiritually birthing men (i.e. baptising them).

Note the efficiency of this. Two people are saved for the price of one act. This is economical - part of what the Catholic Catechism calls the sacramental economy (joke for Catholics).

So ladies I give you a new slogan:

Baptise and Be Saved

It’s True – Its Biblical

Now read the next post (Part 2)

Women are saved the same way as men are saved, I believe.