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 

We come again to discuss this important issue, and we see yet again from the 
second affirmative that Mr. Burgin STILL has nothing but inferences based on his 
personal conclusions. 

We see further that he has not even ventured to answer many of the significant 
questions asked in the first rebuttal.  We do see, however, more rhetoric and ad 
hominems.  Is this a smokescreen to attempt to divert us from the obvious facts 
that Mr. Burgin does not want to deal with the truth of the issue and the 
implications of his belief?

Let us see what Mr. Burgin said.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: Let us again determine a very important principle:

1. Mr. Burgin keeps saying this "simple thing." 
2. Mr. Burgin has not yet actually provided any Scripture which actually PROVES his "simple thing." 
3. Mr. Burgin's "simple thing" is merely his own inference and not explicitly 
stated in Scripture.

So we shall ask Mr. Burgin again to please provide a Scripture which definitively 
states that "persons who are divorced have the exact same status as persons who 
are single who have never been married," that "the N.T. without discrimination, 
gives the 'privilege' of marriage to all adults who are single."

Notice also that Mr. Burgin does not want to deal with the implications of 
someone who is single who would desire to marry someone who already had a 
wife and was thus polygamous.  Does Mr. Burgin not want to answer this 
question because it would definitively prove that single people do not have the 
right in every situation to marry?

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: Who has discussed their status of salvation?  You've made an issue of 
this, not me.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: And Mr. Burgin yet again is touting his inference as "fact."  Where, Mr. 
Burgin, does Paul say in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 that "persons divorced for 
adultery" can marry? All I read in verses 27-28 is that a person "loosed from a 
wife" may remarry-- and we have discussed previously how Paul would not 
contradict Jesus by saying that anyone who was loosed for a wife for any reason 
could remarry.  I see also that you did not dare to touch that question and issue 
previously discussed-- and why would you?  That issue also demonstrates amply 
that 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 cannot be used to determine a doctrine regarding the 
ability of remarriage since there are situations that do exist where a man may be 
"loosed from" a wife but does not have the right of remarriage (Matthew 5:32, 
Matthew 19:9).  Further, where does Paul ever state in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 that 
the persons of 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 are being discussed?  These are all your 
INFERENCES-- not STATED GOSPEL FACT.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: Now Mr. Burgin must compare apples and oranges to make his point.  Let 
us fight fire with fire.

"Why is the doctrine of celibacy required for other sins, which are even more 
grievous than divorcing for improper reasons?  Such as murder?  That marriage is 
"forbidden" to those who have put away their wives-- as the result of their 
divorces-- is not seen as a mark of false religion, shows just how bigoted the 
proponents of such a doctrine of imagination, can be."

Does this not sound foolish?  Such ridiculous comments could be made about any 
Gospel fact that could be perverted in one's mind to be seen as wrong! I would 
also ask Mr. Burgin to give me some Scriptural evidence that proves his statement 
that "murder is more grievous than adultery."  Is God a respecter of sins?  Or is 
Mr. Burgin merely touting Roman Catholic traditions in some misguided attempt 
to justify his doctrines?

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: If Mr. Burgin's Scriptures are so "clear," that anyone who has been 
"loosed from a" spouse may remarry, then Mr. Burgin can answer this:

If John divorces Jane for burning his toast, and receives the divorce, he has been 
loosed from Jane.  He can therefore remarry since he is given the right to 
remarriage in 1 Corinthians 7:28.

Is this correct, Mr. Burgin? If not, why not?  Well, it's not correct because 
Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9 teach that a person who divorces his wife for 
such a reason CANNOT remarry without committing sin, and that if he DOES 
remarry he commits adultery!  How can he commit this "adultery" if he has been 
loosed from his wife?  We have already discussed "porneia" and how it refers to deviancy from God's plan for sexuality.

I will contend that Paul is by no means giving a blanket approval for all 
remarriages in 1 Corinthians 7:28, that anyone who has violated the marriage 
covenant and in so doing have attempted to "put asunder what God joined 
together" is not included in this passage.  This refers both to those who violate the 
marriage covenant by seeking a divorce for improper reasons and for those who 
violate the marriage covenant by committing adultery.  Mr. Burgin obviously will 
not even dare get close to that issue, since the conclusion is obvious: Mr. Burgin 
declares God to be a respecter of persons, arbitrarily giving the right of remarriage 
to one party who has put asunder what He joined together but declaring celibacy 
for the other party guilty of the same sin!

So what DOES 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 say?  It says that if a person has been 
loosed from a wife (legitimately), that he or she can remarry if they choose.  The 
"legitimately" portion is my inference based on the truth that God does not lie and 
does not contradict Himself, and that Paul would not approve of something that 
Jesus condemned.  So, to Mr. Burgin I ask again:

Is your doctrine of "the party put away for adultery is made single by the divorce 
and thus can remarry" actually stated in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 or is it your 
inference based on the conclusions you have derived from the text?

We shall see what answer-- if any-- we shall receive.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: Book, chapter, and verse for this statement: "What led to some being 
single is of no concern, any more than if they are right with God."

So you are saying that if someone was led to be single because they divorced their 
spouse for burning their toast, that is of no concern in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28?  Or 
if they were the party divorced for having burnt the toast, that such is of no 
concern in 1 Corinthians 7:27-28, and they all have the right of remarriage to 
others?

Mr. Burgin is being rather inconsistent!  If he is going to affirm the Gospel truth 
of Matthew 5:32 and Matthew 19:9, that parties divorcing for reasons other than 
porneia and who marry another commit adultery and anyone who marries a 
person put away for such reasons commits adultery, how can he make the 
statement that "what leads some to becoming single is of no concern?"  The texts 
are clear: the persons are divorced.  They are no longer married.  According to 
Mr. Burgin's definitions, they are "single." Yet he does not give them the right of 
remarriage!  Why is that?  Because otherwise it would be fairly obvious that his 
use of 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is far too broad and that such a text is no stable 
foundation for his doctrine regarding the party divorced for adultery.  
Without this foundation--as shaky as it is-- his doctrine stands as naked as can be! 
His inference based on his conclusions, not on any "thus saith the Lord!" Let us
charge Mr. Burgin to be consistent: either everyone who is divorced is single and 
can therefore remarry, or 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 is written only to those who have 
been given God's approval to remarry.  You can't have it both ways.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: I have no issue with the Scriptures you have quoted.  I have demonstrated 
amply how they are used appropriately and how they are to be understood 
appropriately.  I do take issue to your perversion of these Scriptures by forcing 
them to approve far more than God intended for them to approve.  You have not 
established any "simple fact[s]" from the Scriptures-- only your inferences based 
on your conclusions.  And your lack of desire to see the truth of this statement 
speaks volumes.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: That is the role I have when I affirm my proposition, Mr. Burgin, and not 
a minute before.  My only task right now is to show how you have not proven 
your proposition, and quite honestly, you have not even endeavored to prove 
anything in this affirmative.  Not one thing!

Max then asks more questions; rather presumptuous, since he has refused to 
answer a single question I have asked, and he is on the "hot seat" right now, 
forced to prove his assumptions are Scripture, and I am not:

1. Do you agree that, without exception, those divorced for adultery, are single – 
as opposed to any other divorce?
    
ELDV: They are in a state of not being married as one who has been divorced
for having burnt toast is in a state of not being married.  Will you affirm 
the latter's right to remarry?

Max: 2. 
Do you agree that the N.T., WITHOUT DISCRIMINATION, gives the 
"privilege" to marry, on the basis of being single - sin notwithstanding?
    
ELDV: Will you affirm that a single woman can marry a man currently married 
and enter into a polygamous relationship without committing sin, since she is 
"single?"  Will you affirm that a woman divorced for burning toast may remarry 
without committing sin, since, according to your definition, she is "single?"

Max: 
3. Do you agree that Paul said to adulterers they had "not sinned" if they 
married"?
    
ELDV: Paul never told adulterers that they had not sinned if they married, Mr. 
Burgin, and you know that just as well as I do.  He said that those "loosed from a 
wife" did not sin if they married, and will you have Paul contradict our most holy 
Lord?

Max: 4. 
Do you agree that one guilty of any other sin, may marry - if rightly single?
    
ELDV: God is no respecter of persons.  Persons who have not violated a marriage 
covenant they have entered into may marry.

Max: 
Since I guess you will agree with ALL points, I would like to know what you 
want to deny.
    
ELDV: Mighty presumptuous.  Not too surprising since your entire doctrine is 
one of presumption upon the Scriptures.

Max: 
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.

ELDV: We do not agree since you have automatically assumed that both parties 
are in the same state that they were before they were ever married and also that 
you have assumed your proof that God has granted the privilege of remarriage.  
People who divorced for improper reasons are single too, according to your 
definition, since they are no longer married.  This reality is made evident in 
Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11.  They are "divorced," in a state of non-
marriage.  But you and I will both agree that neither party in such a situation has 
the right to marry another since God has called that porneia-- against His law, 
since there was a violation of the marriage covenant when one party decided to 
"put asunder what God joined."  Your assumptions lead anyone who accepts them 
into a conflict with the Scriptures, because there IS a difference between a person 
never married and a divorced person.  For a person to be able to remarry after a 
divorce they must have a clean marital record from that divorce-- and the only 
party for which this exists is the party who divorced their spouse for having 
committed adultery.  The party who committed adultery is in the same boat as the 
person who divorces for improper reasons: both have violated the marriage 
covenant by attempting to "put asunder what God joined together." Yet you refuse 
to see this and constantly declare God a respecter of persons.

Max:     
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.

ELDV: You have stated your inferences and have forced them upon two 
Scriptures which do not state them.  You refuse to see this.  And you refuse to 
actually deal with the implications of your doctrine.

Max:     
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.

ELDV: You have assumed this statement without proof and I have offered 
multiple objections that you have flatly ignored.  Why do you ignore them? Is it 
because they prove your little "simple" idea is far from Biblical?

Max: 
 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.
    
ELDV: You may be in receipt of it, but you have not actually demonstrated any 
falsehoods which I have spoken there NOR have you provided any Scripture 
which definitively demonstrates my error.  What is the conclusion?  You are 
unable to actually defend your proposition against my objections, and therefore 
your proposition stands as false and unproven.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: Ah!  Finally!  An admission that Mr. Burgin is making inferences!  At 
least he is not completely delusioned by his proposition.  Now the argument is 
about the NECESSITY of the inference.

And the inference is by no means necessary.  Mr. Burgin infers that the exception 
clause that permits a man to divorce his wife for porneia can be extended to the 
party divorced for porneia to remarry.  How is this necessary, Mr. Burgin?  Can 
the text work just as well as stated, that the party divorced for adultery is not 
given an opportunity of remarriage since they violated the marriage covenant, just 
like a person who divorces for improper reasons violated the marriage covenant?  
Can the inference be made, Mr. Burgin, that Jesus refers to any "put away" person 
in the last clause of Matthew 19:9, which would include not only the party 
divorced for improper reasons but also the party put away for adultery?  Why is 
your inference necessary but this inference not necessary?  We're all waiting to 
see your answer.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: What do I have to prove in this part of the debate?  My proposition? That 
would certainly make the next phase of the debate rather redundant. No, I must 
prove that YOU have not proven your proposition and that YOU cannot do so.  
Thankfully, I have not needed to do too much work since you have proven unable 
to actually provide a defense for anything you have said. You merely repeat it.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: This statement becomes no more true by stating it 30 times.  It is not 
proven any more by stating it 30 times.  Mr. Burgin, I challenge you to stop 
SAYING it and begin PROVING it.

Max: 
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.
    
ELDV: So you are limiting your definition of "single" to those "not unScripturally 
divorced."  On what basis do you limit this definition, since both Jesus and Paul in 
Matthew 19:9 and 1 Corinthians 7:10-11 respectively recognize the severance of 
marriage for those improperly divorced?

Max: 
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".
    
ELDV: "Falsely" called it an inference?  You have not provided any Scripture 
which says "any divorced person is as single as they were before they were 
married and have the right to remarry" yet I say this is an inference falsely?!  Are 
we so blinded that we do not want to see reality?  If what you say does not have a 
specific Scripture which says exactly what you say you have made some 
inferences somewhere.  You have derived conclusions on the basis of some 
Scriptures and have made some inferences on the basis of those conclusions.  You 
charge me of sophistry; the charge can be leveled at you for attempting to change 
the definitions of terms we're all well-aware of.

Max: 
We, and the readers, are still waiting for Scriptural proof.
    
ELDV: Yes, we are, from you.

I asked many specific questions and have received no response.  You prove 
unwilling to recognize your gross overgeneralization of the Scripture and the 
impossibility of 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 stating what you purport it states.  You are 
unwilling to recognize the implications of your doctrine, since you say that God 
has decreed that adultery is the way out of troubled marriages.  You would not 
deny that you teach that if a Christian wife works hard to save her marriage and 
she is divorced for improper reasons that she cannot remarry, yet if that same 
Christian wife goes out and commits adultery and is divorced for that reason she 
may remarry.  You would have God punish those who act properly and bless 
those who sinned.  The God of the New Testament blesses those who pursue His 
righteousness, and will condemn those who do not obey Him (Matthew 6, 2 
Thessalonians 1:6-9).  You would have God punish those who pursue His 
righteousness by attempting to uphold a marriage while having God bless those 
who commit adultery and thus no longer obey Him with the ability of remarriage.  
Why won't you answer this, Mr. Burgin?  Is it an embarrassing truth?  It ought to 
be, for it shows your doctrine cannot and will not be from God.

You have certainly done well in stating your inferences and logical syllogisms 
again and again, but you have not actually done the work you need to do: prove 
that they are what the Bible says.  Merely because they have logic does not mean 
that they are right; ask John Calvin about such things. You have utterly failed to 
even address the vast majority of the objections raised to your affirmation, and by 
necessity those objections still stand. If the objections still stand at the end of your 
third affirmation, this only shows that your proposition is false and that you are 
unable to defend it when challenged.

ELDV