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  

Well, Mr. Burgin's third affirmative has come and gone, and yet again Mr. Burgin 
spends the whole time in an ad hominem campaign and again has not proven his 
proposition.

He again merely restates his evidence which has been questioned and 
demonstrated as not being sufficient to prove his case.  

He has taken three affirmations and STILL has not proven the following:

1. A divorced person has the exact same status as a person never married.
 2. A single person can marry whomever they want without penalty. 
3. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 must interpret 1 Corinthians 7:27-28. 
4. 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 1 Corinthians 7:27-28 refer to a person divorced for 
adultery.

The proposition that was supposedly affirmed was the following:

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

Mr. Burgin has proved, however, this proposition:

Max Burgin believes that the privilege of remarriage has been extended to a 
person put away for having committed adultery and don't you dare question him 
about the Scriptures because he can't defend this doctrine with them.

Mr. Burgin has said that it is "obvious" that the New Testament teaches his 
doctrine and that I can't get around that.  Funny-- I have yet to see any New 
Testament Scripture that says anything about a party put away for adultery able to 
remarry nor are there any examples of such.  What is there for me to prove wrong 
when he hasn't proven his proposition?

It ought to be obvious to everyone that Mr. Burgin is (a) unable to defend his 
belief with Scripture; (b) incapable of recognizing the difference between a "thus 
saith the Lord" and his inference; (c) incapable of defending his own wild 
arguments; and (d) unwilling to recognize the implications of his doctrine.  

Regarding (A): we have seen that when his Scriptural evidence is questioned, 
especially regarding the remarriage rights of those who unlawfully put away or 
are unlawfully put away, Mr. Burgin is unable to provide a good answer.  He 
recognizes that if he were to answer the question properly that 1 Corinthians 7:27-
28 is demonstrably far more limited than he would like it to be.  When his 
inference about Matthew 19:9 is questioned an another inference that runs 
completely contrary to his doctrine (and one that affirms mine) is introduced, he 
has proven incapable of answering this objection also, since this would further 
undermine the foundation of his position.  Mr. Burgin has only proven able to 
make grandiose declarations about the Scriptures he has chosen, and has proven 
completely ineffective at successfully countering significant objections to his use 
(or rather misuse) of those Scriptures.

Regarding (B): Mr. Burgin maintains that his doctrines are actually explicitly 
spoken in Scripture and not his inferences based on his conclusions.  He says that 
I have "gall" to say this, but interestingly he does not actually provide a Scripture 
which would end all doubt about whether his doctrine is inference or a 
commandment.  Is this not a pattern with Mr. Burgin, of having a loud bark but no 
bite?  He can rouse up a lot of great insults and ad hominems, and he can certainly 
appeal to simplicity, but when all is said and done his doctrine remains an 
inference and an overgeneralization of Scripture that causes internal contradiction 
and the loss of many precious souls.  He has made the implicit admission that he 
has no New Testament Scripture which explicitly says that a person put away for 
adultery can remarry since he has not actually provided one this entire time-- yet 
he remains, as always, unwilling to admit the true nature of his doctrine, that it is 
based only on inference and without any specific Scripture to prove it.  And then 
he has the "gall" to ask me to prove his doctrine wrong with a Scripture?  Why 
ought I prove his doctrine wrong from the Scriptures when he cannot even prove 
it is even a possibility from the Scriptures?  

Regarding (C): I have found it amazing how many ridiculous arguments Mr. 
Burgin has advanced and after their clear refutation remained completely silent.  I 
think that this is significant to discuss again, for it goes to show how ludicrous 
arguments must get to defend a ludicrous doctrine.  Mr. Burgin at first contended 
that I was inconsistent for I would allow marriage for a single person who was an 
"adulterer" for having sexual relations with a married person but would not allow 
remarriage for that married person after their divorce.  I proved conclusively that 
such a single person is no adulterer but a fornicator, since one cannot be an 
adulterer unless there is a marriage covenant that one is violating by committing 
adultery.  Notice how silent Mr. Burgin has been about this in the past two 
affirmatives-- will he admit his error in this arena or will he simply keep up his 
appearances with this argument as he has with his whole doctrine?  

The ridiculous levels that he is willing to go was shown in his second affirmative 
when he actually made an argument that adultery is not as serious as a sin such as 
murder and therefore I am being ridiculous for allowing a murderer to marry but 
an adulterer to remain celibate.  I saw through this specious argument, asking Mr. 
Burgin for any Scripture which shows that God considers some sins more serious 
than other sins and re-wording his argument to discuss the situation if improper 
divorce.  Notice that Mr. Burgin was unwilling to continue this line of argument 
in his third affirmative yet he was also unwilling to retract it.  Does he still believe 
that God considers some sins more grave than others?  Since Mr. Burgin already 
demonstrably believes in a God who is a respecter of persons, it ought not be 
surprising that his god would respecter of sins, also. 

Regarding (D): Mr. Burgin has proven himself unwilling and unable to handle the 
clear implications of his doctrine as I have noted in my rebuttals.  If two Christian 
married couples are having difficulties, and the wife of the first couple works hard 
to make the marriage work but her husband divorces her for "irreconcilable 
differences," Mr. Burgin (and I) agree that according to Matthew 5:32 that she has 
no right to remarry another.  If the wife of the second couple, however, sees that 
her marriage is going to end and goes out and participates in an orgy and is 
divorced for it, according to Mr. Burgin, she can remarry!  Mr. Burgin says that 
"this is not the case," yet it is obviously the case!  He has not yet denied or 
retracted that he assented to these examples and their outcomes, yet says that the 
conclusion, that God has blessed the sinning Christian while punishing the holy 
and righteous Christian, is "not the case."  Then what "is the case," Mr. Burgin?  
Well, his only defense is that I must be a respecter of persons since I do not 
recognize that all single people have the right of remarriage.  This would almost 
be humorous if it were not for his hypocrisy, for Mr. Burgin himself has affirmed 
that a woman divorced for improper reasons cannot remarry.  She is "single" 
according to Mr. Burgin's definitions, and his only appeal is that her marriage was 
not ended Scripturally.  Mr. Burgin's work of "sophistry" in changing the 
definitions of words so that all persons who are not in a state of marriage are thus 
as single as they ever were has now entangled him.  He forces his inferences upon 
my belief system and of course they do not work well together-- but is that the 
fault of my belief system or of his inferences?  We shall certainly see.  In the end, 
the God of Mr. Burgin will punish the righteous Christian for attempting to 
uphold the sanctity of marriage while his god blesses those who spit upon the idea 
of marriage by violating its covenant.  He can certainly attempt to deny that this is 
the case, but any clear-thinking person can see that it is the necessary result of his 
doctrine.  

So what do we have then?  A bunch of unproven assumptions, inferences, and 
assertions.  The 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

...stands not proven and Mr. Burgin has proved himself unable to prove the 
proposition.  Therefore I declare the proposition stated as false since it cannot be 
defended with the holy message of the Scriptures.

Ethan R. Longhenry (ELDV)