> General Discussions
saved through what?!
skydreamers:
--- Quote ---As far as Diana's view goes, I think God's word has more depth than can be figured out and hers is also an interesting observation that may have legitimacy. On the other hand, I think that here Paul was speaking plainly and was not trying to make a symbolic parable. It does not have any characteristics that would infer as such. What do you think?
--- End quote ---
Hi Roy, well certainly you can take what Paul is saying as "plainly" or literally, but then that is all you will get out of it as well. Only the spirit of God can open your eyes and confirm these things for you.
But here's a question for you, if we insist on taking this literally only and not allow a spiritual interpretation than what are we left with? We are left with an instruction from Paul that physical women are physically to keep silent in the church.
Is this forum not a church (an assembly of like-minded believers)? And if you go to a church do the women there speak? Here's the problem, if we are to live by "every word that proceeds out of the mouth of God" and if we are to take this instruction by Paul literally than neither I or any of the other fine ladies on this forum should be sharing our learnings with you....we should keep silent.
And you are left with the literal interpretation that a woman "shall be physically saved in physically childbearing" provided of course she continues in faith, love, holiness (none of which she can accomplish without Christ...without me you can do nothing...)
If you find it difficult to see yourself in the woman's role in terms of your relationship with Christ, than you won't seek after being His bride.
You run into all sorts of problems when you walk down this road of taking things literally. This model of the husband/man and his wife/woman is a deep mystery and stretches far past the physical world around us.
The scriptures are inspired by the spirit of Christ. We can be sure Paul is speaking the words of Christ. And if we can be sure of that, than we can be sure it is in parable form.
And with many such parables He was speaking the word to them as they were able to hear it; and He did not speak to them without a parable; but He was explaining everything privately to His own disciples.
Mark 4:33-34
May God bless you in your studies,
Peace,
Diana
lilitalienboi16:
To add to what Joe and diana have both said -
Dear roy, consider as ray has said;
"If any man teach otherwise, and consent not to wholesome words [what wholesome words? Whose wholesome words?], even THE WORDS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST…" (I Tim. 6:3).
"ALL Scripture is given by inspiration of God… "(II Tim. 3:16)
The words of Paul that have become Scripture were inspired of God, and they were the same words as "…THE WORDS OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST…"
and we know that Christ words are;
John 6:63 The Spirit gives life; the flesh counts for nothing. The words I have spoken to you are spirit and they are life.
God bless,
Alex
fe32k:
Hi Joe/Arcturus,
I am aware of these teachings and have been a reader of this site for over a year (just not very active on the forum). Ray's teaching of first physical then spiritual (Ph/Sp) is a great revelation and I have applied it many times in my studies. My issue with the verse in question is not this concept of Ph/Sp as I do believe it, but that I highly doubt that Paul was speaking in a parable to Timothy, a very young pastor. His intentions was to teach him and prepare him, so why would Paul not speak plainly? The example that arcturus gave me was from Jesus whom we all know ONLY spoke in parables to the multitudes. Paul on the other hand speaks plainly and with a clearly stated command in most of his writings, with maybe some exceptions. So if he said it with one intention, but then other deeper meanings can be derived from it, does that mean that we void his original intention and just apply the deeper meaning? I hope that question came out clear. I do not want this topic to take a bad turn, so maybe I will look into it more and pray for an answer. Although, I am just a lurker on this forum mostly, I have come to really appreciate many of you and I hope I have shown that I clearly ask sincerely and am not trying to be divisive.
God be with you,
Roy
fe32k:
Hi Diana,
I didnt see your post until now. Forgot to click on page 2 :P
I agree with you Diana. There is deeper, spiritual meaning in what Paul said, but was that his intention? That is what concerns me. It might have well been the intention of God's spirit to place this in scripture as a symbol of some sort, as a parable. But it is just beyond me why Paul would write an epistle that is seemingly instructive in nature to Timothy so that he may decipher some parables contained therein. This changes my question to what I said in the post before this one... Do we void what was intended in this writing? I know this is a difficult subject, but I hope you can understand my concern, exspecially coming from a married man. It must be admitted that Paul might have actually meant and taught exactly what he said without symbolic meaning.
GBWY,
Roy
skydreamers:
Hi Roy, I do see what you are saying. What do we do with Paul's "plain statements"? Well, here's how I look at. Applying "first physical, then spiritual" we could approach it in the same way Jesus approached the law. As someone matures in Christ and understands and applies the spiritual meaning inwardly, than the outward application is irrelevant.
For example, we no longer keep a physical Sabbath day because we apply the spiritual meaning of the Sabbath rest and rest carnally from our works inwardly in Jesus Christ, who is our Sabbath. But for a time, while a babe in Christ, many feel the need to adhere to an actual physical day. Is that wrong? No. Is it necessary once you have matured? No. Your growth in the spiritual determines what you do physically.
So, if a person feels the need to apply the physical application than they surely should do that until God convicts them of the spiritual, in which case, they will no longer need the "schoolmaster" because they have graduated (so to speak). And hopefully they will not go backwards to the elementary principles of the world (the physical stuff).
--- Quote ---I highly doubt that Paul was speaking in a parable to Timothy, a very young pastor. His intentions was to teach him and prepare him, so why would Paul not speak plainly?
--- End quote ---
So yes, perhaps there is a place and time at the beginning of one's walk that they could take this and apply it physically. Babes in Christ start in the physical...but all physical things point to a deeper spiritual application. Once God has given you the ability to grasp the spiritual meaning you don't need the type/pattern to help you understand. Once you know and understand how 4 +3 = 7 you don't need the abacus anymore to help you count in out.
Now, if all churches adhered to this instruction and women did not speak, would we have more enlightened churches? Highly unlikely. We know that there were many Jews including Paul "blameless" as to the Law, who faithfully performed all physical requirements and still did not have a clue as to what these physical requirements actually pointed to. So again, the "doing" of the physical is really irrelevant, it is the "understanding" of what the physical means (which comes from God) that is the only thing that matters. I don't have to have ever kept a Sabbath day to the "Tee" according to the Law, to now understand what it means. I can read about it in God's word and take it's instruction spiritually. If God has given someone that ability to SEE than you don't NEED the physical, since the physical only pointed to the understanding you already have. Am I making sense?
--- Quote ---Do we void what was intended in this writing?
--- End quote ---
No, I don't think we void it anymore than we void the Law, it is fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Do we void the Sabbath? No, it is fulfilled in Christ Jesus. Do we void "do not murder"? No, it is fulfilled in Christ Jesus who alone gives us the ability to adhere to an even higher standard and not hate our brothers. If we have come to that place where we are no longer under the law, but under grace within ourselves, than it no longer matters who is silent or not outside of ourselves.
We both know, there is no ideal church that exists today...God's true church is scattered. How then, are we assured that the men in our churches are indeed mature in Christ, able to lead the women? There are women, afterall, that are leaps and bounds ahead of their husbands, spiritually speaking. My husband doesn't even know what he believes! My true husband is Jesus Christ and He alone leads me. I don't need to be silent, here or anywhere else, as long as I am silent in the Lord. At least, that is my desire.
All this makes sense in my own head but I may have not articulated it right. I hope, at the very least, it has given you something to think about.
I will be silent now... ;D ;) (just kidding...)
Peace to you,
Diana
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version