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 find it necessary to repeat the simplicity of the fact that ALL people divorced 
because of adultery, are single - whether "guilty" or "innocent" - and on that basis 
ALONE - have God's right to marry - or REmarry, Ethan seems to have a hang-up 
with this obvious fact, pretending there is a difference them and other sinners, 
who are single - ANY person, who is free of marriage - for whatever reason - is 
single. And the N.T., WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, gives the "privilege" of 
marriage to all adults who are single - whether saints or sinners. It would make no 
difference to this fact, how many times a person has been married - or Scripturally 
divorced. Just like it makes no difference whether he is a saint or sinner.

We are NOT talking about forgiveness, or salvation, whether or not one is right 
with God, but about those who are obvious sinners, but with the right to marry – 
whether or not they repent.

The very fact that the church at Corinth had some as members who had been 
guilty of adultery, ought to end and settle the matter, especially since Paul said to 
THEM they had "not sinned" if they married - but Ethan thinks he knows better 
than Paul - that we should ignore what he said, in favour of what Ethan teaches.

Why is not the doctrine of celibacy required for other sins, which are even more 
grievous than adultery? Such as murder? That marriage is "forbidden" to some 
who are rightly single - as the result of Scriptural divorce - is not seen as a mark 
of false religion, shows just how bigoted the proponents of such a doctrine of 
imagination, can be. Ethan is one of them! There is no such thing as Scripture that 
teaches what he believes. He is prepared to step outside "the doctrine of Christ", 
2John:9, where he "hath not God", to peddle his doctrine.

I have quoted Scripture, in the N.T., that says those who have been "loosed from 
a" spouse, and were guilty of adultery, had "not sinned" if they married - thus I 
have honoured the proposition. If Ethan is faithful to his responsibility, and the 
proposition, he will deny that - claiming to know better - and quote Scripture to 
sustain his convictions - which of course he can't do. He will simply revert to 
much sophistry, and try to muddy the water - rather than deal with the clear and 
simple fact.

The issue simply concerns the right - "privilege" - of single people to marry. What 
led to some being single is of no concern, any more than if they are right with 
God.

Ethan faces an impossible task, to deny - by quoting Scripture from the N.T. - that 
denies the Scriptures already quoted that have established this simple fact - he 
must show that the Scriptures contradict themselves to remove the "privilege" of 
SOME divorced for adultery, to remarry.

I am amazed that he drew up propositions that he can neither deny, nor affirm – 
with Scripture - not sophistry. Ethan, please simply stay with the point, and quote 
Scripture that says one divorced, who is guilty of adultery, must remain single – 
celibate, unmarried - whatever you want to call it, that negates his right to marry. 
That's what you have signed to do - can and will you do it - or beat around the 
bush with sophistry? I repeat what I have already said, this debate will close 
before you are able to do it. 

1. Do you agree that, without exception, those divorced for adultery, are single – 
as opposed to any other divorce?

2. Do you agree that the N.T., WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, gives the 
"privilege" to marry, on the basis of being single - sin notwithstanding?

3. Do you agree that Paul said to adulterers they had "not sinned" if they 
married"?

4. Do you agree that one guilty of any other sin, may marry - if rightly single?

Since I guess you will agree with ALL points, I would like to know what you 
want to deny.

We agree that God's law for marriage is, one man, one woman for life. We agree 
that when that law is adulterated He allows the marriage to end in divorce. We 
agree that then when that happens, both parties are equally free of marriage. We 
agree that such a divorce is not sin [but the result of sin], as opposed to divorce 
for any other reason. Why can't we agree that both parties are therefore single? 
Since "single" simply means being free of marriage. A widower is single - free of 
marriage, one divorced for adultery [both parties] is single - free of marriage. That 
in either case they were previously married changes nothing in their present status 
- or the "privilege" to change it by AGAIN being married. A widower is no more 
obliged to remain celibate than one divorced for adultery - either party.

I have quoted Scripture, without apology or sophistry, that clearly says what I 
believe, without explaining it away and end up concluding that it does not mean 
what it says - as Ethan will do - wait and see. He can't be forthright and quote 
Scripture that says what he must deny, or affirm.

The N.T. teaches that ALL who are single have the "privilege" of marriage - or if 
it is the case, REmarriage - there being no difference between the two.

I am in receipt of your first denial, and though I am very tempted to, at this stage, 
to show it to be the hogwash that it is - for the most part, I will just say that I am 
very eager to get into the denial - to get my teeth into your nonsense and humbug.

Perhaps the debate should be, whether, or not, those Scrpturally divorced are free 
of marriage - single. And that single people can marry - whether saints or sinners  
your hang-up is with this truth - which you call an "inference" - you fail to realize 
that it is a NECESSARY one. That is EXACTLY what is taught in Matt.19:9. 
When Jesus gave the exception - it NECESSARILY follows that when it is 
applied - they DO NOT "commit adultery", in a further marriage.

I have already had a message from another saying exactly what humbug you 
would introduce. Stay with the proposition, and prove your "inference" that those 
divorced for adultery are not "single" - and therefore have no N.T. right to be 
married. As opposed to being divorced for any other reason. You keep harping 
about the wrong people. 

The N.T. grants the "privilege" of marriage - without discrimination - to EVERY 
adult who is single - and ALL those divorced for adultery - whether "guilty" or 
"innocent" are single. All the sophistry in the world wont change this fact.

ONLY those who are single have such a "privilege" - which does not include 
ANY who are unscripturally divorced. But includes ALL who are - saint or 
sinner.

You are the one who has not denied the proposition, in spite of all your sophistry. 
I have cited Scripture that says they can marry - being single - all you have done 
is falsely call it an "inference".

We, and the readers, are still waiting for Scriptural proof.

Max Burgin.