Must a woman have a child (or children) and only then she’ll be saved?
Explain this verse “literally”:
1 Timothy 2:15
“Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.”
Doesn’t it say: “That “literally” means that if a woman doesn’t have a baby, she can’t be saved. So I suppose that women who are barren, or past childbearing age when they come to Christ CAN’T be saved. Because that is clearly and plainly what it says. ..that the only thing that can save a woman is to have children. Next??????”
The literal meaning is not that.
Read carefully again (it’s a commonly misinterpreted verse):
The women is said to be saved (kept alive) even if she gives birth (child-bearing) on the condition that she continues in “faith, love and holiness with all sobriety”.
Try reading these translatios which more clearly depict this “same” meaning with the translation which you quoted:
Weymouth New Testament
Yet a woman will be brought safely through childbirth if she and her husband continue to live in faith and love and growing holiness, with habitual self-restraint.
English Revised Version
but she shall be saved through the childbearing, if they continue in faith and love and sanctification with sobriety.
As with the field of logic, the converse of the promise in this verse is “not” necessarily true.
The “saved” here is not referring to “salvation” but regarding “being alive” after “giving birth to a child” (one of the pangs referred to in Genesis after the fall of Adam & Eve). All “literally”.
I ‘ve already answered this statement: ” have to wonder about those unsaved women who were “brought safely through childbirth” even though they are heathen to the core, and so far from God they don’t have a clue. By your “logic”, all women who DON’T continue in holiness, etc, should die in childbirth. That is not only a factual lie, but utterly ridiculous as a an argument. Lots of unregenerste women give birth every freaking day, and live to tell about it…for like 50+ years or more….smh.”
Answer? “The converse need not be true”.
If p, then q (promise). where:
p = continue in faith, love & sobriety with holiness.
q = saved through childbearing.
Then, it does “not” necessarily mean “if q, then p” (as your empirical/statistical example proved)
It’s a simple fact in the field of logic.