Burgin/Longhenry Debate on Divorce & Remarriage

 
 
Proposition: 
The New Testament extends the privilege of remarriage to a person put away for 
having committed adultery.

Affirm:  Max Burgin 
Deny: Ethan R. Longhenry 

The proposition that I am to affirm on this occasion states, The New Testament 
extends the privilege of remarriage to a person put away for having committed 
adultery. 

I am most happy to do that, for they are single - as single as the "innocent party" – 
after such a divorce, and BOTH are equally "put away" from the marriage - that's 
what divorce is - they are synonyms, and neither refer to the person, as such - or 
the one who did not instigate the proceedings - but rather to the reason for the 
divorce.

The N.T. gives the "privilege" of marriage - or REmarriage - to ANY adult who is 
single - and on that basis alone - without discrimination 1Cor.7:2 and 27-28. And 
people who are divorced for adultery, are single Matt.19:9, being "loosed from a" 
spouse. Therefore they do not "commit adultery" - whether, or not, they remarry.

As opposed to a divorce for any other reason, which is sin, and not valid in God's 
eyes - the people involved being still married - hence THEY "commit adultery" in 
a further marriage - but that is not the case in a Scriptural divorce - there being no 
marriage to adulterate. It's important that we keep the right people in mind.

It will do Ethan no good to use passages that refer to "adultery" when people 
marry since it is impossible for single people to "commit adultery", there being no 
marriage involved, to adulterate. There is no such thing as a passage that mentions 
"adultery" in connection to the REmarriage of ANY person divorced because of 
adultery - any more than to any other single person. But Ethan will try to invent 
one - or pervert those that DO speak of "adultery".

Ethan, like many Americans, wants to apply celibacy as a punishment for one 
particular sin - adultery - and is in the stupid position of saying it is not necessary 
for him to become divorced and remain celibate, while he teaches that other guilty 
sinners, who are single, have the "privilege" to marry. The truth is that ANY sin is 
not a hindrance to ANY person, who is single, to marry.

What's more he believes in such a thing as a half marriage, where one party, after 
such a divorce, is free - being single - to REmarry - without adultery - but the 
other one remains "bound" - to whom???? - and "commits adultery", in a further 
marriage. I never heard of such a stupid situation where only one person 
"commits adultery", and the other - who does the same thing - does not. Guilt and 
innocence are not a consideration in any marriage, or REmarriage, only in a 
Scriptural divorce. 

The simple fact is that if the exception of Matthew 19:9 applies, NEITHER party 
"commits adultery", after they become single - free of marriage.

This debate will close before Ethan supplies any Scripture to deny that simple 
truth. There is no such thing as Scripture that says as he must deny - if he's 
faithful to the proposition.

Paul's first letter to the church at Corinth very much deals with the situation of the 
proposition. It is written to a church that had within its ranks some who had been 
guilty of adultery, 1Corinthians 6:9-11, and included them in 7:2, when he said, 
"let EVERY [emphasis mine] man have his own wife" - they were not excluded – 
if that is not clear enough, he said in verses 27-28, that they had "not sinned" if 
they married after having been "loosed from a wife" - it is agreed that this can 
only happen as the result of death, or, divorce because of adultery - in either case 
a man is as single as it's possible to be. That he may remain a "guilty sinner" - and 
rejected by God - is not the point under consideration. Ethan earlier made the 
statement that this refers to those never married, which is false, for if one was 
"loosed" he was formerly "bound" - it is impossible to "loose" one who is not 
"bound". Pure sophistry!

Exactly what do you want to deny Ethan?

1. Do you deny that both parties are equally single after a Scriptural divorce?

2. Do you deny that is the reason there is no adultery if either one then marries?

3. Do you deny that the N.T. teaches that God's only requirement, to give his 
blessing to marriage, is that those involved are single?

4. Do you deny that it is possible for sinners to be Scripturally married, more than 
once?

5. Do you deny that "forbidding to marry" to any single adult, is the mark of false 
religion?

6. Do you deny marriage to a single adult, who is guilty of one particular sin – 
adultery - but allow it for other sinners?

7. Do you deny that you require celibacy, only if one is divorced because of 
adultery, but that it is not necessary to be divorced and be celibate?

8. Do you deny that you believe in a half marriage?

9. Do you deny that there is no difference between the marriage, or REmarriage, 
of single people?

10. Do you deny the "privilege" to marry to a single person who "commits 
adultery" with a married person - or must he too remain celibate because of his 
sin?

To be consistent you must deny the "privilege" of marriage to EVERY person 
who is guilty of adultery - Paul didn't. You must allow it, as much to a "guilty 
adulterer" who has never married, as to a "guilty adulterer" who is divorced for 
his sin. There is no difference whatever between them -they are guilty of the very 
same sin - but you are in the unjust position of saying that one may marry but the 
other can't - BOTH are equally single, free of marriage. While they both meet 
God's criteria for marriage - being single - you make a distinction between them 
that does not exist - because of the foolishness of your doctrine.

Thus you say that SOME "guilty adulters" may marry - so long as it is not a 
REmarriage - utter sophistry. Scripture please. It also violates the proposition.

God will not accept adultery in any circumstances whatsoever Gal.5:19-21, and 
He doesn't expect others to, He has made provision for all who want to escape it – 
divorce because of adultery , Matt.19:9 - the result being that all who go through 
that process are severed - "put away" - from the marriage - whether "guilty" or 
"innocent".

You are guilty of discrimination of adults who are single - and who are "guilty 
sinners" - for one sin only. More than that you have the responsibility to produce 
the very thing you can't - Scripture from the N.T. that removes the right of an 
adult, who is single, to marry, because of earlier adultery, which was the cause of 
his divorce. You will be looking for a long time, since it does not exist. You teach 
a doctrine of imagination.

Getting back to the proposition [which you wrote], where does the N.T. teach that 
one who is "put away" for adultery, does not have the "privilege of remarriage"? I 
have cited Scripture that clearly says he does, but you must say that Paul was 
wrong.

What I am affirming is simply the right of ALL single adults - who are free of 
marriage, whether or not they have formerly been married - whether saints or 
sinners, the right to marry. And the divorce Jesus allowed makes ALL parties free 
of marriage - single.

It's as simple as that.

The truth put in the form of a syllogism:

MAJOR PREMISE Every person who is single has God's right to marry 
Gen.2:18, 1Cor.7:2.

MINOR PREMISE Every person divorced for adultery is single Matt.1:9:9.

CONCLUSION Therefore every person divorced for adultery has God's right to 
marry 1Cor.7:27-28.

You are challenged to do two things:

A. Show something wrong with that syllogism. That it either i] states an untruth, 
ii] does not accurately state the case, or iii] violates some rule of logic.

B. Draw up one that is right, in all points, to justify your position.

It is hoped that you will come to a "knowledge of the truth", and have the courage 
to embrace it, in spite of the error that is taught and is so popular. It is no more 
right, or has any more Scripture to support it than denominationalism, or infant 
baptism.

Max Burgin