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 

I am thankful for the opportunity to continue to speak with Mr. Burgin now in this 
public arena regarding the significant issue of a party that has been put away for 
having committed adultery and whether or not they have been given the privilege 
of remarriage in the Scriptures.  We have already had a conversation regarding 
this subject privately, and I feel this information is necessary for the viewing 
audience so that they may understand if we have a somewhat previously 
developed interchange.

As I begin my rebuttal, I do find it interesting how Mr. Burgin spends more time 
attempting to get me to deny certain things than he does actually affirming his 
proposition!  Any good Bible student will recognize from his affirmative below 
that he has by no means proven his proposition, at least by Biblical standards.  
He's certainly developed logical syllogisms, but so did John Calvin-- logical 
syllogisms can certainly perhaps be logical but not Scriptural.

Let us now actually examine the things which Mr. Burgin has stated and see how 
it aligns with the Scripture.  I will post his previous comments with "Max," and I 
will begin my comments with my handle, "ELDV: "

Max: 
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.

ELDV: 
We begin by a major assumption: that a person who has been divorced is as single 
as the day before he was ever married.  We will return to this later.  Not only do 
we have this assumption, but we have a nice declarative statement with NO proof, 
notably, that "both are equally 'put away' from the marriage- that's what divorce 
is..."  Is divorce that way?  Are BOTH parties equally put away?

Matthew 19:9 "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for 
fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth 
her when she is put away committeth adultery."

Does Jesus affirm that "both [parties] are equally 'put away,'" or does He point to 
one person actively instigating a divorce ("putting away") and the other person 
being the recipient of such a divorce (the "put away").  Where is Mr. Burgin's 
Scriptural evidence that "both [parties] are equally 'put away?'"  We're all waiting 
to see it!  Until he does provide this evidence, we have an assumption, an 
inference perhaps, but no Biblical evidence for such.

Max: 
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.

ELDV: We have some majorly overarching statements: the equality of "marriage" 
and "remarriage" and the idea that "any adult who is single" can therefore marry 
or remarry.

The Scriptures themselves, however, belie such a principle, for what do we see in 
Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9?

But I say unto you, that every one that putteth away his wife, saving for  the cause 
of fornication, maketh her an adulteress: and whosoever shall marry her when she 
is put away committeth adultery.  And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away 
his wife, except for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and 
he that marrieth her when she is put away committeth adultery.

So, we must ask Mr. Burgin:

1. If John divorces Jane for "irreconcilable differences," are not John and Jane 
single persons simply divorced?

2. Does Jesus give John or Jane the ability to marry or remarry [anyone else]?

3. If Jesus has not given this authority to them, how can it be said that "ANY adult 
single person" has the right to marry/remarry? 

Mr. Burgin will say, and rightly so, that these people are not truly single since 
their marriage was not truly dissolved; hence, if either remarries another, they 
commit adultery.  Nevertheless, we see that his statement would need at least this 
much modification!

Regardless of all this, let us look at the first basis of inference of Mr. Burgin, 1 
Corinthians 7:2:

But, because of fornications, let each man have his own wife, and let each woman 
have her own husband.

To whom is this verse addressed?  There is no contest to the fact that this verse is 
truly addressed to persons who have never been married, but where is the 
evidence that this verse is directed at those who have previously been married?  
More specifically, where is the evidence that this verse is directed at those who 
are no longer married because they were put away for having committed 
adultery?  I will make the stand to say that Paul is speaking only to those who 
have been given the Biblical privilege of marriage or remarriage, notably the 
following: persons who a. have never been married b. persons who have lost their 
spouse to death c. persons who have put away their previous spouse for adultery

Where, Mr. Burgin, is the evidence that Paul directs this comment to those who 
have been put away for adultery?  Is this not your inference derived from the text 
and not actually based on any specific evidence given in this verse?  We shall see 
his answer. 

Now, regarding 1 Corinthians 7:27-28:

Art thou bound unto a wife? Seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? 
Seek not a wife. But shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned; and if a virgin 
marry, she hath not sinned. Yet such shall have tribulation in the flesh: and I 
would spare you.

The statement under discussion, of course, is "art thou loosed from a wife...but 
shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned."  I will not contest that this part of the 
passage is directed at one who is in a divorced statement, but I do contend that the 
only person to whom Paul is speaking is one who has put away his wife for 
adultery.

Mr. Burgin, of course, would have us believe that this privilege extends also to 
one who has been divorced for adultery.  I again will ask Mr. Burgin to answer 
the following:

1. If John divorces Jane for "irreconcilable differences," is not John loosed from 
Jane, at least in his mind?

2. Can it be said that John can now marry another according to 1 Corinthians 
7:27-28, or is it sin for him to marry another?

3. Is it not a sin because he has not acted legitimately but has violated the law of 
God by putting asunder what God put together?

4. Does not an adulterer do the same thing, having violated the law of God by 
putting asunder what God put together?

5. If God is not a "respecter of persons," as He has said He is not in Romans 2:11, 
why would God allow the adulterer to remarry but not John, since both have 
committed the same sin but only by different means?

Here is where the original inferences begin to break down, and Mr. Burgin's 
position begins to run contrary to the revealed message of God.  We may see by 
these questions that the inference that Paul refers to those having been put away 
for adultery in 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 7:27-28 is by no means legitimate.

Max: 
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".

ELDV: Another major inference by Mr. Burgin touted as "fact," and what 
Scripture do I need to provide to refute air?  All I need to do is say the obvious: 
prove it.  It is not my job to prove the upcoming proposition in my rebuttals to 
you; it is only my job currently to show that you have by no means proven your 
proposition and it still hangs in the air.  So far you have not proven your 
proposition, nor does it look like you actually will. So I ask again: you've made 
these statements-- PROVE THEM WITH SCRIPTURE.

Max: 
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.
 
ELDV: We again see the head of the inferences rising, being touted as fact, 
notably, that a divorced person is the same as a single person in status and that the 
same rules apply.  We have shown the falsehood of that proposition, for there are 
many who would claim to be single who really are not.

I would also like to see some specific examples of the following quotation: "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."

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: More absolutely amazing assumptions!  I would encourage the reader to 
notice how many Scriptures have been given so far to support this "bulwark of 
evidence:" two, and neither specifically deal with a party divorced for adultery.  
Yet we certainly are seeing piles and piles of assumptions and inferences, are we 
not?

Further, Mr. Burgin has built up his strawman of his own design, notably, the idea 
that after a divorce for adultery one party is "single" and one party is "bound," and 
then ascribes this belief to me.  Very interesting since I haven't said much yet at 
all!   The way he presents the story does sound stupid-- but that's because he has 
foisted his inferences and assumptions upon me and I don't agree with them!

I believe firmly that a single man and a single woman, who have never been 
married and are consenting adults, have the right to marry (Genesis 2:18, 1 
Corinthians 7:2).

I also believe firmly that the privilege of remarriage has been given to a person 
who divorces his wife for having committed adultery (Matthew 5:32, Matthew 
19:9).

I believe firmly that the privilege of remarriage has been extended to those whose 
spouses have died (Romans 7).

I believe that the privilege of remarriage has NOT been extended to one who has 
been put away for having committed adultery since they are guilty of having put 
asunder what God joined together, the same sin committed by those who divorce 
for improper reasons, and God is not a respecter of persons (Romans 2:11, 
Matthew 19:4-9).  A remarriage of such a person results in "porneia," translated 
commonly as "sexual immorality" but a term for which English does not have a 
counterpart.  "Porneia" refers to sexual perversion, any sexual activity that 
transgresses the law of God.  A "single" person can commit porneia just as 
quickly as a married person can, and no doubt divorced people commit porneia 
also.

Mr. Burgin may desire to construe this as a "half-marriage," but the discerning 
reader will see the difference.

Max: 
The simple fact is that if the exception of Matthew 19:9 applies, NEITHER party 
"commits adultery", after they become single - free of marriage.
    
ELDV: Here again we have more inferences!

Matthew 19:9 "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except for 
fornication, and shall marry another, committeth adultery: and he that marrieth 
her when she is put away committeth adultery."

Let us examine the scenarios Jesus gives us:

1. If a man puts away his wife for any reason but porneia and marries another, he 
commits "porneia," in this circumstance, true adultery. 
2. If a man puts away his wife for porneia and marries another, he himself does 
not commit porneia. 
3. If the woman put away for any reason but porneia and anoher marries her, that 
person commits porneia, in this circumstance, true adultery.

These are the ONLY stated truths from this passage.  To make a fourth point 
saying that the third truth is negated if the person is put away for adultery is 
merely an INFERENCE, and comes without any Scriptural backing.

Where is your evidence to support your inference? Where is the evidence that the 
dissolution of the marriage necessitates that both parties have the same right of 
remarriage?

We're all waiting.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: Is it my job to provide Scripture to deny you or is it your job to provide 
Scriptures to defend your proposition?  If you perhaps had a passage that referred 
specifically to a person divorced for adultery I might have to provide Scripture, 
but so far you don't-- all you have are your assumptions and inferences, and have 
not provided one ounce of Scriptural proof of your claims.

Max: 
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!
    
ELDV: It still is entirely possible for "luo" to mean "free from" without the 
connotation of previous bondage, but that is not the primary sense of the verb; for 
that reason I will not argue that portion.  Yet we see AGAIN that you have made 
more inferences.  Where is the evidence that the adulterers of 1 Corinthians 6:9-
11 were given the right to remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:2?  You've certainly 
stated it was so, but where is the evidence for this?  If John was a member in 
Corinth and he was divorced by his wife for "irreconcilable differences" and she 
moved to Spain, would he have the right from 1 Corinthians 7:2 to marry 
another?  Of course not, for such is against the law of God in Matthew 5:32.  His 
wife also does not have the right of remarriage since she attempted to put asunder 
what God joined, just like an adulterer does.  You've returned to the same two passages 
to pile even more assumptions and inferences upon them and yet you have STILL not 
provided any compelling reason that shows that what you have stated MUST be 
Biblically true.

Max then asks the following:

Exactly what do you want to deny Ethan?

1. Do you deny that both parties are equally single after a Scriptural divorce?
    
ELDV: Where is the evidence that both parties are equally single after a 
Scriptural divorce?

Max: 
 2. Do you deny that is the reason there is no adultery if either one then marries?
    
ELDV: Where is the evidence that there is no porneia committed if a person 
divorced for adultery marries again?

Max: 
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?
    
ELDV: Where has God stated that the only state required to be married is to be 
"single?"

Max: 
4.   Do you deny that it is possible for sinners to be Scripturally married, more 
than once?
    
ELDV: Where is the evidence that Scriptural marriages do any good to an 
unbeliever unless the unbeliever repents and is baptized and is faithful?

Max:  
5.  Do you deny that "forbidding to marry" to any single adult, is the mark of false 
religion?
    
ELDV: Will you affirm that teaching people who have been divorced for adultery 
that they can remarry with God's approval if it causes them to commit porneia is 
the mark of a false teacher who leads souls to hell in their sins?

Max: 
6. Do you deny marriage to a single adult, who is guilty of one particular sin – 
adultery - but allow it for other sinners?
    
ELDV: 
 Do you affirm that God is a respecter of persons by forbidding remarriage to a 
person who attempts to put asunder what God joined together by improper means 
of divorce yet permitting divorce for those who attempt to put asunder what God 
joined together by adultery? 

Max: 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?
    
ELDV: Do you affirm that you are teaching people that they have a right to 
remarry when they will be guilty of porneia and thus cast into Hell, or will you 
deny the truth of Matthew 19:12?

"For there are eunuchs, that were so born from their mother's womb: and there are 
eunuchs, that were made eunuchs by men: and there are eunuchs, that made 
themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, 
let him receive it."

Max: 8. 
Do you deny that you believe in a half marriage?
    
ELDV: Where is the evidence that porneia is limited to adultery?

Max: 
9. Do you deny that there is no difference between the marriage, or REmarriage, 
of single people?
    
ELDV: How can I deny what is impossible, that a person never married can 
remarry?  There are four states of an individual: single, married, divorced, or 
widowed.  And now I will ask again: where is the proof that there is no difference 
between a single person who was never married and a person who was divorced?

Max: 
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?
    
ELDV: A person who is not married cannot commit "adultery" itself, for the 
married person with whom he commits a sin is guilty of adultery.  He IS guilty of 
what is commonly called "fornication," and BOTH fit under the Greek term 
"porneia."  A single person has not himself attempted to put asunder what God 
joined together; he is an accomplice in the act since it was his role as the party 
with whom the married person committed adultery, but he himself is not guilty of 
breaking his own marriage bond.  What this has to do with a person divorced for 
adultery, however, is beyond me. 

 Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: This entire paragraph demonstrates a complete lack of understanding of 
God's plan for marriage and of the idea of marriage itself.  "Adultery" is when a 
MARRIED person has sexual relations with anyone (or anything) other than his 
or her spouse.  The sin of adultery-- and really porneia itself-- is the reason given 
for a legitimate divorce because it is an act that attempts to put asunder what God 
joined together.  A person who is single who has sexual relations with a married 
person cannot commit adultery, for the single person is not in a marriage covenant 
which has been breached.  He commits fornication, and if he repents of his sin 
and does it no more, he may marry since he has not violated any previous 
marriage covenant he has entered.

One who does violate a marriage covenant and is divorced for it, however, is a 
COMPLETELY DIFFERENT ISSUE-- and you have by no means established 
that such a person has been given the privilege of remarriage.  I would like for 
everyone to see how far Mr. Burgin must go to build his strawmen-- based on his 
own slanted opinions and assumptions-- and then applies them to me.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: Sophistry, eh?  I must confess I have never been charged of attempting to 
use subjectivity in words to make a weaker argument the stronger when I have 
never actually made the argument considered "sophistry."  I certainly believe that 
guilty adulters may never marry, but I do believe that repentant fornicators can 
marry with God's blessing.  And if you do not understand the difference between 
the two we will never be able to determine much of anything in this debate.

Max:  
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".
    
ELDV: I find this statement rather humorous in its hypocrisy.  I have said 
previously that Mr. Burgin and I have already had some discussion, and I will 
bring up a situation I provided and his answers, not because I desire to bring out 
what was spoken privately but as an expedient since Mr. Burgin has only two 
more affirmations left.  If he feels that anything is misrepresented below I will 
immediately retract and correct the situation.

I asked him the following questions about the following scenarios:

1. If John and Mary are married, and their marriage is on the rocks, and John 
divorces Mary for "irreconcilable differences," does Mary have the right to 
remarry?

Mr. Burgin answered that she does not since such would be porneia-- certainly 
adultery-- in Matthew 5:32.

2. If John and Mary are married, and their marriage is on the rocks, and Mary 
fears that John will divorce her, and she goes out and performs in an orgy, thus 
committing adultery, and John divorces her for it, [and she later repents], can Mary remarry?

Mr. Burgin answered, as can be well believed, that yes, she can remarry.

If Mr. Burgin will affirm that we did speak about two such examples and that I 
have accurately reported his answers, I would like to ask the following: 

1. By teaching this, are you not saying actually the opposite of what you have 
quoted, that God actually gives the "out" of marriage to those who would commit 
adultery and not to the one who in holiness and godliness attempts to keep the 
marriage bond true yet are divorced improperly?

2. How can you affirm James' message in James 1:13-14, that God is no tempter 
of man, if adultery is the way for a Christian to dissolve a marriage bond and be 
able to remarry, while holy and blameless conduct can very easily lead (and often 
does) to a person divorced for improper reasons and therefore unable to remarry?

3. How can you affirm God's love for the saints who practice righteousness when 
you teach a doctrine that would have God give blessings to the one who sins and 
punishes the one who acts righteously?

4. How can you affirm 1 Corinthians 10:13, that God attempts to give a holy 
escape from difficult situations that lead us to temptation if you would have God 
give a means of escape from marriage which is deplorable and sinful?

Mr. Burgin is teaching a doctrine which calls good evil, and evil good. This truth 
should be plain for all men to see.  Is his teaching Biblical? We have seen-- and 
continue to see-- that his teachings are all based on assumptions and inferences, 
and we have yet to see solid Biblical proof for his statements.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: I do not know about the rest of the group, but I do find it amazing how 
much time Mr. Burgin has spent in his attempt to lambaste me and my teachings 
as opposed to actually affirming his proposition.  Is this not an indication of how 
weak his argumentation is when all he can resort to is slinging arrows at me as 
opposed to building a defense of his doctrine?

Mr. Burgin is also asking me to provide a Scripture which removes the privilege 
of remarriage from a person who was divorced for adultery.  Funny, I thought that 
such a responsibility was to be done when I affirm the next proposition!  This is 
not the time for me to bring forth my evidence in support of my proposition, but it 
is the time for YOU to bring forth YOUR evidence for YOUR proposition.  Right 
now it is not my responsibility to prove the negative; it is your responsibility to 
prove the POSITIVE.  So, let's have it: Where is the Scripture where God 
specifically gives the privilege of remarriage to a party put away for adultery?  
Since you have not actually produced any such Scripture, is not your doctrine 
itself an imagination, or worse-- a nightmare?

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: You have cited Scripture that clearly says he does?  Where?  1 
Corinthians 7?  You have a Scripture which would indicate the privileges of 
marriage for single persons, widowed persons, and persons who divorced their 
spouses for adultery, but you have not proven that these passages in any way or 
form authorize a person put away for adultery has this same privilege. You fall 
back on your argumentation that the Scriptures given are of a universal note, and 
to that I do respond again that a person who divorced his spouse for burning his 
toast is not properly loosed from his wife but is loosed nonetheless (cf. 1 
Corinthians 7:10-11), and Paul certainly does not give him the right of marriage to 
another.  Therefore, the Scriptures in 1 Corinthians 7 are by no means your 
"catch-all" to prove your proposition, and you're going to have to look elsewhere, 
lest you convict Paul of contradicting Jesus.  If not everyone has the right of 
remarriage then 1 Corinthians 7 by necessity refers to those who DO have the 
right of remarriage, or else we have a contradiction and the Gospel has obviously 
been compromised, and we are lost in our sins.  You have not established that 
everyone has the right of remarriage, nor can you; therefore, 1 Corinthians 7 will 
only be a battleground of conclusions derived from other passages, and you have 
amply demonstrated that you have none.  I, on the other hand, have a wealth to 
turn to, and this will be made evident in my affirmations of the next proposition.

I do not say that Paul was wrong; I actually affirm what Paul said.  You have not 
proven that your assumptions and inferences square with Paul's advice in 1 
Corinthians 7:2 and 7:27-28.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: You can certainly "affirm" these things by your convictions-- but you 
haven't proven them.  You have not provided one Scripture for your assumptions 
that divorced people and single people are one and the same, that the "freedom" 
from marriage requires that any future marriages are legitimate.

Max: 
It's as simple as that.
    
ELDV: It appears to be that simple: all assumption, no Scriptural foundation.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: And Mr. Burgin gives us a logical syllogism.  Since he cannot provide 
Scripture, he must provide syllogisms.  Whose word will we trust-- man's or 
God's?

His major premise is vastly incomplete.  If every person who is single has God's 
right to marry, does this give a single woman the right to marry a man who is 
already married to another (i.e. polygamy)?  Unless Mr. Burgin will affirm this, 
we see that his major premise as stated is not true.

I will also mention that in Genesis 2:18, God is creating a helpmeet for Adam 
who is therefore obviously not married.  Assuredly Genesis 2 can only be used to 
refer to persons who marry who have never been married before; any other 
interpretations foisted upon the text are mere inferences of the reader.

His minor premise stands unproven.  His evidence of Matthew 19:9 does not 
actually state in any way that "every person divorced for adultery is single."  To 
be more accurate, Mr. Burgin has read that a man can put away his wife if she 
committed adultery and he can remarry, and then he concluded that his ability to 
remarry is because the marriage has been dissolved, and therefore the wife to 
begin with must also be single.  These are INFERENCES based on 
CONCLUSIONS derived from the texts, not actual evidence from the texts.

His inferences perhaps may be legitimate, but the final inference-- that God would 
approve the remarriage of such a person only on the basis that they are "single" 
again-- stands not only unproven but contrary to the message of God.  There is 
absolutely NO indication from Matthew 19:9 that the remarriage of the adulterous 
party would be approved by God.  No mention of such a person is even given, and 
we have seen that in order for that to be true God would have to be a respecter of 
persons and a rewarder of the sinner and punisher of the saint.  Therefore this 
inference has now run contrary to the inspired message of God and is therefore 
anathema to those who hold to the true Gospel of Christ (Galatians 1:6-9).

And regarding his conclusion, we have seen that Paul would by no means 
authorize marriages to those whom Jesus prevented marriage, and therefore the 
mere existence of those passages does not in and of themselves authorize the 
party divorced for adultery to remarry.  Such evidence must be found elsewhere 
and then could perhaps be justified with 1 Corinthians 7, yet Mr. Burgin has not 
done any such thing.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: A I have performed amply: your major premise is too broad and therefore 
inaccurate, your proof is mere inference on the basis of your conclusions 
regarding certain texts, and those inferences violate the clear message of God as 
found in other Scriptures.  B is not my responsibility until we reach the next 
proposition, since it is only my responsibility now to demonstrate the lack of 
proof of your proposition and how your proposition actually runs contrary to the 
message of God.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: You have amply demonstrated that your proposition is not the "truth of 
God" but the "truth conjured up by Max Burgin on the basis of his inferences 
made by his conclusions regarding texts in the Bible."  You have not proven your 
proposition by the Scriptures and your reliance on two texts which never even get 
close to mentioning a party put away for adultery speaks volumes.  Not only this, 
but your inferences cause God to be a respecter of persons, telling one man that he 
cannot marry again but authorizing another to do so even though the sin they have 
committed is the same in the end.  An even greater travesty is brought forth with 
your doctrine, notably, that our just and holy God, the Holy One of Israel who 
loved us enough to send His only Son to die for us upon the cross, would punish 
the righteous saint who would attempt to keep their marriage together but ends up 
being divorced with celibacy for life while blessing the erring saint or sinner who 
would commit adultery as opposed to work to save the marriage with the ability 
of remarriage after they are divorced for their sin.  The Scriptures teach us that 
God will help us to do the right thing and to avoid temptations, yet you would 
have God place a colossal stumbling-block in the way of every saint in a troubled 
marriage.

Your proposition is as well-founded in Scripture as infant baptism is: as the latter 
is based on the inference that a "baptized household" includes children, so the 
former is based on the inference that "the person divorced for adultery is single 
and all single people can marry."  The inference for infant baptism is easily 
countered with the truth that the households believed also; so too your inference is 
most easily countered by demonstrating that doing so runs afoul of many 
Scriptures and is merely a license for Christians to commit adultery.

I trust that these truths are evident to all and that Mr. Burgin is very far from 
proving his proposition.  Perhaps in his second affirmation he may get a bit closer.

I doubt it.

ELDV