<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Dr. Russell Moore on Husbands and Wives</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/</link>
	<description>A commentary on theology, politics, and culture</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 06:07:42 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/#comment-41279</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 18:52:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2188#comment-41279</guid>
		<description>Weight TUAD&#039;s ridiculous posts hold = 0.0 lbs</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Weight TUAD&#8217;s ridiculous posts hold = 0.0 lbs</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Truth Unites..  and Divides</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/#comment-41269</link>
		<dc:creator>Truth Unites..  and Divides</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:25:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2188#comment-41269</guid>
		<description>From Complementarians Tim Challies and Bruce Waltke:

&quot;Satan is a theologian who despises God with every bit of his being. When he turns to Eve and says, â€œDid God really sayâ€¦?â€ he brings Eve into a dialogue that opens her mind to a new realm of possibility, one she would not have thought of on her own.

Satan takes the command of God and rephrases it as a question. â€œDid God really say?â€ What was a clear statement suddenly becomes hazy. Posing as a theologian he asks, â€œAre you sure about this, or is this only Adamâ€™s testimony as to what God said? Are you sure? How do you know? Is this really a command? Can we discuss this a little bit? Is it possible that you misinterpreted what God said? Is it possible that there is some context here weâ€™ve ignored?â€ Waltke says, â€œWithin the framework of faith, these questions are proper and necessary, but when they are designed to lead us away from the simplicity of childlike obedience, they are wrong.â€ And so we see Satan raising questions of interpretation and authority necessarily designed to create doubt and confusion and to lead away from the simplicity of a childlike obedience.

Satan carefully and deliberately distorts, â€œYou may surely eat of every tree of the gardenâ€ into â€œYou shall not eat of any tree in the garden?â€ He overlooks the great freedom God gave Adam and Eve and instead overstates the one prohibition. He gets Eve to focus on the prohibition rather than the gift and the freedom. Instead of focusing on the Tree of Life, from which she was free to eat, and on the millions of other trees available to her, &lt;b&gt;Satan got her to focus her heart on that one tree from which she was not allowed to eat. And Eve began to focus not on what she had been given, but on what had been forbidden. And suddenly nothing but what was forbidden could satisfy her.&lt;/b&gt;

He convinces Eve that God is limiting her, that He is not giving her the full measure of humanity. He is holding back, reserving for Himself things that she deserves to know and to experience. 

In the final step, Satan flatly denies what is true. â€œYou will not surely die.â€ The fruit of all of the doubt and the resentment is unbelief. If Godâ€™s words happen to hinder us from becoming what we want to be or from doing what we want to do, Satan convinces us that we can safely ignore them.

&lt;b&gt;In the face of such temptation, the woman yields to Satanâ€™s denials and half-truths.&lt;/b&gt; â€œHaving stripped Eve of her spiritual defenses, Satanâ€™s work is done.&quot;

And Eve is only the first to be drawn in and to succumb to the temptation. &lt;b&gt;Every one of us&lt;/b&gt; has fallen for the same old trap.&quot;

Excerpted from (but please read it all):  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/the-shape-of-temptation.php#comments&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; The Shape of Temptation &lt;/a&gt;

&quot;And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.&quot;  (1 Timothy 2:14)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>From Complementarians Tim Challies and Bruce Waltke:</p>
<p>&#8220;Satan is a theologian who despises God with every bit of his being. When he turns to Eve and says, â€œDid God really sayâ€¦?â€ he brings Eve into a dialogue that opens her mind to a new realm of possibility, one she would not have thought of on her own.</p>
<p>Satan takes the command of God and rephrases it as a question. â€œDid God really say?â€ What was a clear statement suddenly becomes hazy. Posing as a theologian he asks, â€œAre you sure about this, or is this only Adamâ€™s testimony as to what God said? Are you sure? How do you know? Is this really a command? Can we discuss this a little bit? Is it possible that you misinterpreted what God said? Is it possible that there is some context here weâ€™ve ignored?â€ Waltke says, â€œWithin the framework of faith, these questions are proper and necessary, but when they are designed to lead us away from the simplicity of childlike obedience, they are wrong.â€ And so we see Satan raising questions of interpretation and authority necessarily designed to create doubt and confusion and to lead away from the simplicity of a childlike obedience.</p>
<p>Satan carefully and deliberately distorts, â€œYou may surely eat of every tree of the gardenâ€ into â€œYou shall not eat of any tree in the garden?â€ He overlooks the great freedom God gave Adam and Eve and instead overstates the one prohibition. He gets Eve to focus on the prohibition rather than the gift and the freedom. Instead of focusing on the Tree of Life, from which she was free to eat, and on the millions of other trees available to her, <b>Satan got her to focus her heart on that one tree from which she was not allowed to eat. And Eve began to focus not on what she had been given, but on what had been forbidden. And suddenly nothing but what was forbidden could satisfy her.</b></p>
<p>He convinces Eve that God is limiting her, that He is not giving her the full measure of humanity. He is holding back, reserving for Himself things that she deserves to know and to experience. </p>
<p>In the final step, Satan flatly denies what is true. â€œYou will not surely die.â€ The fruit of all of the doubt and the resentment is unbelief. If Godâ€™s words happen to hinder us from becoming what we want to be or from doing what we want to do, Satan convinces us that we can safely ignore them.</p>
<p><b>In the face of such temptation, the woman yields to Satanâ€™s denials and half-truths.</b> â€œHaving stripped Eve of her spiritual defenses, Satanâ€™s work is done.&#8221;</p>
<p>And Eve is only the first to be drawn in and to succumb to the temptation. <b>Every one of us</b> has fallen for the same old trap.&#8221;</p>
<p>Excerpted from (but please read it all):  <a href="http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/the-shape-of-temptation.php#comments" rel="nofollow"> The Shape of Temptation </a></p>
<p>&#8220;And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.&#8221;  (1 Timothy 2:14)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lydia</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/#comment-41060</link>
		<dc:creator>Lydia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 13:46:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2188#comment-41060</guid>
		<description>Oh yes, the Baylys have quite an internet reputation for their &#039;loving&#039; and &#039;humble&#039; approach to this issue. (wink)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh yes, the Baylys have quite an internet reputation for their &#8216;loving&#8217; and &#8216;humble&#8217; approach to this issue. (wink)</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/#comment-41042</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 06:23:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2188#comment-41042</guid>
		<description>Slander, insulting, judgmental, mean-spirited...are these attributes a Christian is supposed to possess?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Slander, insulting, judgmental, mean-spirited&#8230;are these attributes a Christian is supposed to possess?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Truth Unites... and Divides</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/#comment-41036</link>
		<dc:creator>Truth Unites... and Divides</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Jul 2008 05:46:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2188#comment-41036</guid>
		<description>&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/01/on-the-eve-of-i.html#comment-95735212&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; &lt;b&gt;Tim Bayly&lt;/b&gt; &lt;/a&gt; offers an opinion on Sue and her egalitarian approach:

&quot;&quot;Sue&quot; claims to be an expert in Greek after many years of study and she has many citations she uses to bolster her idiosyncratic views. But here is how one New Testament scholar with the Ph.D. from Cambridge University sums up &quot;Sue&#039;s&quot; own scholarship: &lt;b&gt;&quot;From what she has written here, I would not be able to say that &quot;Sue&quot; should be considered a reliable source of information for understanding Greek or for quoting other authors (like myself) fairly and with attention to context.&quot;&lt;/b&gt; The evidence support[ing] this statement is insurmountable.

...

But then &quot;Sue&quot; added to my tension (and exasperation, really) by telling us that she was an abused wife who bore on her body the inevitable marks of patriarchy.

Of course, I was not exasperated because &quot;Sue&quot; talked about her abuse publicly; healing requires fellowship and love from brothers and sisters in Christ. Rather, I was exasperated because &lt;b&gt;&quot;Sue&quot; used her abuse as a weapon in her war against the plain meaning of the Word of God&lt;/b&gt; and I knew from long experience that her bringing up her victimhood, legitimate though it may be, would be a straitjacket it would be exceedingly difficult to escape in dealing with her deceptions and errors here, publicly.

So what to do?

I&#039;m not going to allow &quot;Sue&#039;s&quot; attacks upon the plain meaning of Scripture to permanently stand here on our blog. They dishonor Christ and His Word and David and I have no obligation to provide them a public home. Yes, they&#039;ll still be able to be accessed through Google&#039;s caches, but that&#039;s not something David and I are responsible for.

Some may disagree saying that it&#039;s unfair to allow someone to post comments spending tons of time on those comments, and then pull them off the blog. I agree that this seems unfair, but I can&#039;t see my way clear to do anything else. 

So, I&#039;m pulling all of the parts of &quot;Sue&#039;s&quot; comments that lead readers astray concerning the Word of God, its translation and meaning. But I&#039;m leaving up those parts of her comments where she reports being abused with the hope that she&#039;ll hear the ministry being offered her by our readers in these other areas.

If you think I&#039;m wrong in my decision, God bless you. I have no doubt I&#039;ve handled this badly, but I&#039;m responsible for what lives on permanently on this blog, and I cannot reconcile my own conscience to &quot;Sue&#039;s&quot; idosyncratic attacks upon God&#039;s Word to have a permanent home here on the Baylyblog.

Would you please pray for David and me, that God will give us wisdom and grace in our stewardship of this publication? Would you also please pray for &quot;Sue,&quot; that God will heal her heart and lead her into His Truth concerning sexuality? Thank you.]&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.baylyblog.com/2008/01/on-the-eve-of-i.html#comment-95735212" rel="nofollow"> <b>Tim Bayly</b> </a> offers an opinion on Sue and her egalitarian approach:</p>
<p>&#8220;&#8221;Sue&#8221; claims to be an expert in Greek after many years of study and she has many citations she uses to bolster her idiosyncratic views. But here is how one New Testament scholar with the Ph.D. from Cambridge University sums up &#8220;Sue&#8217;s&#8221; own scholarship: <b>&#8220;From what she has written here, I would not be able to say that &#8220;Sue&#8221; should be considered a reliable source of information for understanding Greek or for quoting other authors (like myself) fairly and with attention to context.&#8221;</b> The evidence support[ing] this statement is insurmountable.</p>
<p>&#8230;</p>
<p>But then &#8220;Sue&#8221; added to my tension (and exasperation, really) by telling us that she was an abused wife who bore on her body the inevitable marks of patriarchy.</p>
<p>Of course, I was not exasperated because &#8220;Sue&#8221; talked about her abuse publicly; healing requires fellowship and love from brothers and sisters in Christ. Rather, I was exasperated because <b>&#8220;Sue&#8221; used her abuse as a weapon in her war against the plain meaning of the Word of God</b> and I knew from long experience that her bringing up her victimhood, legitimate though it may be, would be a straitjacket it would be exceedingly difficult to escape in dealing with her deceptions and errors here, publicly.</p>
<p>So what to do?</p>
<p>I&#8217;m not going to allow &#8220;Sue&#8217;s&#8221; attacks upon the plain meaning of Scripture to permanently stand here on our blog. They dishonor Christ and His Word and David and I have no obligation to provide them a public home. Yes, they&#8217;ll still be able to be accessed through Google&#8217;s caches, but that&#8217;s not something David and I are responsible for.</p>
<p>Some may disagree saying that it&#8217;s unfair to allow someone to post comments spending tons of time on those comments, and then pull them off the blog. I agree that this seems unfair, but I can&#8217;t see my way clear to do anything else. </p>
<p>So, I&#8217;m pulling all of the parts of &#8220;Sue&#8217;s&#8221; comments that lead readers astray concerning the Word of God, its translation and meaning. But I&#8217;m leaving up those parts of her comments where she reports being abused with the hope that she&#8217;ll hear the ministry being offered her by our readers in these other areas.</p>
<p>If you think I&#8217;m wrong in my decision, God bless you. I have no doubt I&#8217;ve handled this badly, but I&#8217;m responsible for what lives on permanently on this blog, and I cannot reconcile my own conscience to &#8220;Sue&#8217;s&#8221; idosyncratic attacks upon God&#8217;s Word to have a permanent home here on the Baylyblog.</p>
<p>Would you please pray for David and me, that God will give us wisdom and grace in our stewardship of this publication? Would you also please pray for &#8220;Sue,&#8221; that God will heal her heart and lead her into His Truth concerning sexuality? Thank you.]&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lydia</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/#comment-40989</link>
		<dc:creator>Lydia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 06 Jul 2008 00:20:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2188#comment-40989</guid>
		<description>Don&#039;t you find it strange that God did not have the angel tell Joseph first since he was her authority in betrothel. Then Joe would tell Mary what she should do for God? Seems he just informed Joseph of a done deal. Where is the husband&#039;s authority in that.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Don&#8217;t you find it strange that God did not have the angel tell Joseph first since he was her authority in betrothel. Then Joe would tell Mary what she should do for God? Seems he just informed Joseph of a done deal. Where is the husband&#8217;s authority in that.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: madame</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/#comment-40985</link>
		<dc:creator>madame</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 23:53:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2188#comment-40985</guid>
		<description>May we all learn from Maryâ€™s example and submit well to those God has placed over us.â€

Mary submitted to God</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>May we all learn from Maryâ€™s example and submit well to those God has placed over us.â€</p>
<p>Mary submitted to God</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/#comment-40978</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:58:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2188#comment-40978</guid>
		<description>Immature, old, boring, worn out, childish...any other adjectives?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Immature, old, boring, worn out, childish&#8230;any other adjectives?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Truth Unites... and Divides</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/#comment-40973</link>
		<dc:creator>Truth Unites... and Divides</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 22:51:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2188#comment-40973</guid>
		<description>&quot;Here is yet another little quote drawn from that great big book Iâ€™ve been reading. In his Old Testament Theology, &lt;i&gt;Bruce Waltke is careful to prove that gender roles and differences are rooted not in society and culture &lt;b&gt;but in creation.&lt;/b&gt;&lt;/i&gt; He shows that, though men and women have been created equal, &lt;b&gt;man was to take the leadership role in family and in the church.&lt;/b&gt; This is not a result of the fall into sin but a part of the created order. This brief quote stood out to me as an example of &lt;b&gt;godly submission&lt;/b&gt; and one that is, of course, exceedingly counter-cultural. Here we see submission not as suffering but as a glorious and meaningful expression of faith.

&lt;i&gt;&quot;Maryâ€™s response to the angelâ€™s announcement that she would be with child, â€œI am the Lordâ€™s servant. May it be to me as you have said,â€ &lt;b&gt;models for Christian women an obedience she offers out of her freedom&lt;/b&gt;, her independence, and her thoughtful commitment so that her submission is meaningful and glorious, not a passive resignation to her fate.&quot;&lt;/i&gt;

May &lt;i&gt;we all&lt;/i&gt; learn from Maryâ€™s example and submit well to those God has placed over us.&quot;

From:  &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/quotes/quote-glorious-submission.php#comments&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt; Quote - Glorious Submission &lt;/a&gt;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Here is yet another little quote drawn from that great big book Iâ€™ve been reading. In his Old Testament Theology, <i>Bruce Waltke is careful to prove that gender roles and differences are rooted not in society and culture <b>but in creation.</b></i> He shows that, though men and women have been created equal, <b>man was to take the leadership role in family and in the church.</b> This is not a result of the fall into sin but a part of the created order. This brief quote stood out to me as an example of <b>godly submission</b> and one that is, of course, exceedingly counter-cultural. Here we see submission not as suffering but as a glorious and meaningful expression of faith.</p>
<p><i>&#8220;Maryâ€™s response to the angelâ€™s announcement that she would be with child, â€œI am the Lordâ€™s servant. May it be to me as you have said,â€ <b>models for Christian women an obedience she offers out of her freedom</b>, her independence, and her thoughtful commitment so that her submission is meaningful and glorious, not a passive resignation to her fate.&#8221;</i></p>
<p>May <i>we all</i> learn from Maryâ€™s example and submit well to those God has placed over us.&#8221;</p>
<p>From:  <a href="http://www.challies.com/archives/articles/quotes/quote-glorious-submission.php#comments" rel="nofollow"> Quote &#8211; Glorious Submission </a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lydia</title>
		<link>http://www.dennyburk.com/dr-russell-moore-on-husbands-and-wives/#comment-40953</link>
		<dc:creator>Lydia</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jul 2008 20:11:07 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.dennyburk.com/?p=2188#comment-40953</guid>
		<description>â€œBecause complementarianism doesnâ€™t say much more than the fact that you have different roles&quot;

And here I thought that a &#039;role&#039; was something you &#039;play&#039; or &#039;pretend&#039; to be. 

We are to BE in Christ.

So, basically, Moore is teaching an earthly priest for married women.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>â€œBecause complementarianism doesnâ€™t say much more than the fact that you have different roles&#8221;</p>
<p>And here I thought that a &#8216;role&#8217; was something you &#8216;play&#8217; or &#8216;pretend&#8217; to be. </p>
<p>We are to BE in Christ.</p>
<p>So, basically, Moore is teaching an earthly priest for married women.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

