Burgin/Longhenry Debate on Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
Proposition: 
The New Testament does not extend the privilege of remarriage to a person put away for having committed adultery.

Affirm: Ethan R. Longhenry 
Deny: Max Burgin

I am very happy to at last be in the denial, so that I can get my teeth into the 
humbug, and sophistry that Ethan has carried on with. I have used his approach, 
of quoting from him, then giving my response. To continue his pattern I will mark 
his quotes "ELDV", and my response "MAX".

Throughout these entire proceedings Ethan has made the fatal mistake of 
pretending that because one is "single" in the eyes of the law, because of an 
unscriptural divorce, he is therefore RIGHTLY single in God's sight - and therein 
lies the problem. Peter said it all by saying, "We ought obey God rather than 
man", showing that to comply with the law does not make one right with God.

Your attention is drawn to his second denial, where, after chiding me for making 
an "inference" - HE MADE ONE, and concluded that if one is 
"LEGITIMATELY" "LOOSED", "THEY MAY MARRY". I have pointed out 
that when the exception, given by Jesus in Matt.19:9, is followed, the result is that 
one is "LEGITIMATELY" "LOOSED" thus: notice he even called it an 
"inference":

ELDV: 
 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. 
    
MAX. What a mess!!!! Firstly he recognizes - at last- that one can be 
"legitimately" "loosed", and admits "they can marry" - he has conceded the debate 
- that is exactly what I have been saying all along - it's good to know that, finally, 
he has seen the truth.

Second, Jesus NEVER "condemned" the marriage of single people, neither did 
Paul - guilty sinners, or otherwise.

ELDV:  
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. YES, BY THE VERY SAME "INFERENCE" EVEN YOU MADE, just 
mentioned. You have completely undone your case - by admitting the truth.

You chided me constantly for making an inference, and then forming a conclusion 
- now, you have done the same thing - what's more you made the same 
conclusion, by inference, as I did - that apart from death, of a spouse, the ONLY 
way to be "legitimately" "loosed" is by divorce for adultery then, even you admit, 
"they can marry".

When a person is "put away" - divorced - for adultery, he becomes "legitimately" 
"loosed" from a spouse - and THEREFORE, even by your own admission, he can 
then remarry. This is the conclusion YOU have reached by "inference" - thus it 
becomes fact that is in harmony with N.T. TEACHING, and honours the 
proposition.

In view of this clear admission, I have decided to forgo the lengthy material I had 
prepared in favour of dealing with this latest development - which is very 
unexpected.

Ethan, you no longer have the privilege of your "assumption" that simply because 
one is "single"?, according to law, he is THEREFORE single in God's sight. I 
trust you will no longer carry on with your humbug, and sophistry, concerning 
this truth. I don't know if you realize the import of your admission, or are 
prepared to embrace the forced conclusions of having made a Scriptural 
"inference". It means that from now on, you must realize, understand - AND 
TEACH - the distinction in "single" people, between those who only pretend to be 
single - through an unscriptural divorce - and those whom God accepts as single. 
Between those who are divorced for adultery, and those divorced for ANY other 
reason. Between those who "commit adultery" when marrying, and those who 
don't.

It also means that you must understand, divorce for adultery, is the ONLY reason 
God accepts for ANY living people to become single. Further you must 
understand that being single, this way, is not a sin, NOR is anything that is right, 
for ANY person whom God accepts as single - example, marriage. You have 
agreed that such a person IS RIGHTLY SINGLE, as opposed to others – 
"legitimately" was the word you used in your "inference" - thus he is "loosed" – 
single - as opposed to others, who only pretend to be.

Divorce for adultery, is what makes the distinction, in each case - makes it 
"legitimate".

It has proved much easier than I expected to refute Ethan's material, and you are 
reminded that Ethan has proved guilty, as he has charged me, of "assumption" and 
"inference" - to make it worse he has concluded - by "inference" that one 
"legitimately" "loosed" "may marry" - this includes ALL who are divorced 
according to exception given by Jesus in Matt.19:9. Every bit as much as one 
whose mate has died. Ethan thus has supplied Scripture which affirms the 
proposition which he was supposed to deny. He therefore will be unable to deny 
this one. Notice that in spite of all his claims, he has not supplied ANY Scripture 
that says the "privilege" to marry is removed from one who is single, and guilty of 
adultery, and "put away" - divorced - for that reason.

Thus he has completely undone his case, and ended up agreeing with me.

Not only that, but he has also proved himself to be a respecter of persons, he 
agrees - by inference, are "legitimately" "loosed" - and single, and that by virtue 
of one sin only.

As a result of BOTH these failures, I have no intention of dealing further with his 
humbug and sophistry. I am happy to let the readers judge for themselves, the 
facts, and truth of the situation.

In spite of Ethan's empty, and hollow, charge, I have been faithful to the 
propositions, while he has been in violation of them - ending up agreeing with the 
one he was supposed to deny.

In proving the "privilege" to marry, of one "put away" for adultery – 
THEREFORE "LEGITIMATELY" SINGLE - "LOOSED" - AND ETHAN 
AGREES, I have thus PROVED the proposition he was supposed to affirm, to be false. 

In view of this unexpected admission I would ask the following questions:

1. Are both parties in a divorce according to the exception, "legitimately" 
"loosed" from a spouse?

2. Are they both equally and genuinely single as the result of such a divorce?

3. By necessary inference did Paul include those to whom he wrote, in the 
statements he made in 1Cor.7:27-28?

4. Are they included in your statement, "they may marry"?

5. You have conceded the truth on one major point, do you accept these also, by 
"inference"?

6. If not, how do you justify your conclusions?

7. Are those divorced for other reasons genuinely single?

8. Does God accept the marriage of genuinely single, "legitimately" "loosed" 
people, regardless of sin?

A contradiction in Ethan's argument - error: 

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. You yourself have given the answer - by your "inference" - because they 
are "legitimately" "loosed", and included in those to whom Paul wrote.

ELDV:  
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."
    
MAX. Matt.19:9 By necessary inference those divorced according to the 
exception are free of marriage - as single, "alone", as they were when never 
married. As single as a person whose spouse has died, as single as the "instigator" 
of the divorce, commonly called the "innocent party" - who everyone affirms has 
the "privilege" or marriage , for no other reason that they become free of 
marriage, so that they do not "commit adultery" in a further marriage.

THAT CAN BE SAID EQUALLY FOR THE "GUILTY PARTY" - all of it - but 
suddenly it is decided that THEY "commit adultery" in marrying again. I would 
like to know which marriage they adulterate, since the former one has ceased to 
exist - making him single again, so that no adultery is possible if he marries 
another single person.

ELDV: 
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.     
The right to marry is given to EVERY person who is single, the example cited is 
not relevant because ALL the people involved are not single - it therefore does not 
apply - or change the truth, in the slightest way, that ALL single people may 
marry.

That no one has the right to marry a married person, without it being polygamy, 
does not remove the right to marry - it is nothing but a red-herring.

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.
    
MAX. One can be "loosed from a wife" for only one of two reasons, death of a 
spouse, or divorce because of adultery. We are not talking about being "loosed" 
for any reason - but about those God accepts as "loosed". Indeed Paul did not 
contradict Jesus - both bound marriage - in saying one could be "reconciled" 
shows clearly they were still married. Paul was not talking about THEM when he 
said "art thou loosed from a wife", or, "thou hast not sinned if thou marry", he 
clearly was talking about the people in either of the two situations mentioned 
above - those to whom he wrote.

ELDV:  
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 
    
MAX. Name them. Paul clearly said they had "not sinned", but you think you 
know better.

ELDV:  
(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? 
    
MAX. Because he wrote to them, and ALL he said was addressed to them

ELDV:  
These are all your INFERENCES-- not STATED GOSPEL FACTS.
    
MAX. A necessary inference IS a "gospel fact".

ELDV:  
Now Mr. Burgin must compare apples and oranges to make his point. Let us fight 
fire with fire.
    
MAX. Quite apart from the fact that, if it were true, it would be fair - since both 
are FRUIT - it is simply not the case. The statements shows how desperate Ethan 
is, he wants to draw attention away from his responsibility - with red-herrings.

ELDV:  
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."
    
MAX. You have misquoted me, I said, "Why is NOT the doctrine of celibacy 
required for other sins..."

ELDV:  
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!
    
MAX. If the quote was accurate, this would not be the case.

ELDV   
I would also ask Mr. Burgin to give me some Scriptural evidence that proves his 
statement that "murder is more grievous than adultery." 

MAX.     
Scripture is not needed to prove an obvious fact - murder takes away life, adultery 
doesn't. This statement is typical of your confused, and befuddled thinking. You 
have forgotten that thought sin may vary, the reward does not - hell.

ELDV:  
Is God a respecter of sins? Or is Mr. Burgin merely touting Roman Catholic 
traditions in some misguided attempt to justify his doctrines?
    
MAX. NO!!!! God is not a "respecter of sins" - as you are - you "respect"[?] 
adultery different from other sins - and place a condition on it that you don't apply 
to other sins.

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.
    
MAX. Humbug!!!! You keep bringing up the wrong people - those divorced for 
OTHER REASONS - whose divorce is not valid - hence THEY "commit 
adultery" in a further marriage. You persist in bringing up people who are not in 
the proposition - stay with the point.

ELDV:  
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!
    
MAX. True, but we are simply not talking about THEM.

ELDV:  
How can he commit this "adultery" if he has been loosed from his wife?
    
MAX. The simple fact is, he has not been "loosed from a wife", in spite of having 
a "legal" divorce, he is not rightly "put away".

ELDV: 
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. 
    
MAX. Then why did Paul write to, and include them? You "contend" for 
something for which there is no Scripture - when will you cease such nonsense 
and sophistry?

ELDV: 
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. 
    
MAX. Inasmuch as both are sin, the result is the same - both are rejected by God 
but after a divorce, for the sin involved - only one is rightly single. This is what 
you fail to realize.

ELDV: 
Mr. Burgin obviously will not even dare get close to that issue, since the 
conclusion is obvious: 
    
MAX. By now you ought to know better - there is nothing you can say that will 
cause any problem, or difficulty at all - only show the weakness, and humbug of 
your position.

ELDV: 
 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!
    
MAX. I have pointed out the difference before, that only ONE is rightly single – 
having been "put away" for his sin - single - but that the other can be "reconciled" 
- married. I do not "declare God a respecter of persons" who are single - as Ethan 
does.

I see no need to go further into you contradictory sophistry, to do so would be the 
same as flogging a dead horse, whatever happens it will not revive. Will you try 
and make the futile attempt to revive yours? Or will you be forthright and honest 
enough to admit that, not only are you as guilty as you have charged me, in 
making inferences, but that you reached the same conclusion as I have been 
saying all along? That one "LEGITIMATELY" "LOOSED", and therefore single, 
has the "privilege" to marry - according to N.T. Scripture?

Finally my appeal to Ethan, is as stated earlier, to have the courage to embrace the 
truth - which he has finally recognized - and by mistake has affirmed - and that by 
"inference" - after having criticized me for the same thing.

Now to Ethan's first affirmative.

In his entire treaties he has forgotten his own "inference" and the forced 
conclusions, he must face. There is no doubt that he has introduced a lot of 
garbled, and confusing sophistry, when ALL he needed to do was quote a passage 
that says a person "put away" for his adultery is NOT RIGHTLY SINGLE - IN 
GOD'S SIGHT - AND THEREFORE DOES NOT HAVE THE PRIVILEGE OF 
REMARRIAGE. He has failed to provide it - he has made an "inference" where 
he speaks of those "legitimately" "loosed" - as opposed to others - THEY are the 
ones we are concerned with, stay with the point Ethan. Honour your "inference" 
without further sophistry - and recognize the distinction in "single" people. It's 
perfectly true that some "single"[?] people do not have the "privilege" to marry – 
but ALL who are RIGHTLY SINGLE -AND WITHOUT SIN - are NOT among 
them.

Your doctrine is now as dead as it can be - you murdered it.

Max Burgin