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 

It is obvious that Ethan has a hang-up with the fact that ALL people, who are 
Scripturally divorced, that is for the exception Jesus gave - adultery - whether 
"guilty" or "innocent" are single as the result. THESE are the people of the 
proposition - AS OPPOSED to those divorced for ANY other reason - whether 
saint or sinner - who in fact are still married, in heavens sight, in spite of having a 
"legal" divorce - which is not valid in God's eyes.

ANY person who is free of marriage is single - which includes ALL who are 
Scripturally divorced - but Ethan will have the gall to call this an "inference" , and 
then to make matters worse will say it fails to prove the proposition - fortunately 
the readers will know better.

Being rightly single is the ONLY thing that gives the "privilege" to ANY adult to 
get married - and WITHOUT EXCEPTION those who are Scripturally divorced 
are rightly single - free of marriage. If a man who was an adulterer, has been 
divorced for his sin, he is "loosed from a wife" and has "not sinned" if he then 
marries. That is Scripture that clearly says the proposition - without any 
"inference" - and will satisfy ANY genuine Bible student - but it will not satisfy 
Ethan - just watch him squirm, and revert to more sophistry. The interesting thing 
is that it was written to those who had been guilty, and they were not excluded. 
But Ethan will say Paul was wrong.

His arguing that this makes God a respecter of persons, and even stating that He 
favours a sinner over the righteous, is of course not the case, the whole point is, 
when it comes to marriage, He "favours" ALL who are single - whether sinner or 
righteous - of THEM He is not a respecter of persons - as Ethan is.

Ethan faces an impossible task, that of denying what I say, and the proposition he 
signed to deny, with N.T. Scripture - the best way he can do that, is to honour his 
responsibility, by quoting the passage, which removes the "privilege" of marriage 
to one who was divorced for his adultery - thus he would prove both propositions 
- but he can't in denial, and wont when in the affirmative - wait and see.

He could, that easily, demonstrate that this debate is a futile waste of time - but he 
wont do it - he would rather revert to lengthy sophistry. This debate will close and 
it wont be done.

He has one last chance to prove me wrong by quoting that passage, but ALL 
readers will observe that it wont be done. Ethan might have plenty of gall, but 
inventing Scripture is not one of them, so he seeks to twist and pervert them.

The challenge is clear and plain - but will be ignored.

He is in the stupid position of saying that though he is unmarried - having been 
divorced because of his adultery - he is not single - which brings us back to the 
half marriage concept. If a person is unmarried, why is he not single? If a person 
is divorced because of his adultery, is he unmarried? You are guilty of grabbled 
quibble and sophistry.

Being unmarried, free of marriage, "put away", divorced, single, is what gives 
him the right - "privilege" - to be REmarried - without further adultery. That he 
remains a guilty sinner, who is rejected by God, is NOT the matter under 
consideration.

Guilty sinners who are unmarried, "alone", spouseless, single, may marry. And 
EVERY person "put away" for adultery is among them. AND ONLY those "put 
away" for that reason have that "privilege" - or the exception Jesus gave means 
nothing. Being divorced for that exception is what makes all the difference. That 
is what Ethan fails to recognize.

He quotes the exception when it suits him, to allow a divorce, which allows the 
"innocent" to marry without adultery - because they become spouseless - single – 
but refuses the "guilty" who is in EXACTLY the same situation. If either one can 
marry without adultery, it is impossible for the other to "commit adultery". It is a 
case of either they BOTH do, or NEITHER does. ALL depends solely on the 
REASON for the divorce - if one guilty of adultery is involved. Where there is no 
adultery, the divorce is not valid.

God will not accept a divorce that is not the result of the grievous sin of adultery, 
only then He allows the marriage to cease to exist - equally for them both. After 
such a divorce He binds no one to His law for marriage - that's what the exception 
is all about. It makes the divorce valid. Being divorced for adultery is not a sin – 
otherwise there would be no such thing as an "innocent party".

Ethan, to take a page out of your book, I will deal with your material, IN 
DETAIL, when I am in the denial. Until then you have the responsibility to cite 
Scripture that shows me to be wrong - which so far you have failed to do. You 
could end this debate if only you would quote Scripture that says one "put away" 
for adultery is precluded the "privilege" to marry. You are the only one who does 
not see the simplicity of the task you face.

Can you show they are not single, but bound in some way, that does not limit the 
"innocent"?

Like many messages received which state that you are not able to prove you 
proposition. As I said earlier, you CAN'T do it in denial, and WON'T in 
affirmative.

You face a lost cause.

Max Burgin,