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

The time has come again to address Ethan's material, which I am more than happy 
to do. He still has not denied the proposition, in spite of his responsibility to do 
so, but has gone on at length, with other matters, including making conclusions 
with the wrong people in mind. One of these days he might control himself, and 
stay with the point, and address it.

I again use the same format as before, quoting him as ELDV  with my response as 
MAX to follow.

ELDV: 
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?
    
MAX. As has been pointed out before, I will refrain from commenting on Ethan's 
material until I am in the denial, at which time I will deal with in great detail.

Now that I AM IN THE DENIAL I will address them.

Ethan wants the term "put away" to refer ONLY to one person - the one who did 
not instigate the divorce - rather that to the fact of the divorce, both parties are 
equally "put away” from the marriage - or a spouse - divorced - they are 
synonyms. If it were true that it referred to people - rather than the fact of divorce 
- it would prove that if the "guilty" got in first, and instigated the proceedings, 
then the "innocent" would be a "put away" person - and therefore, by Ethan's 
reasoning, would not have the "privilege" of remarriage - but the guilty adulterer 
would. Pure sophistry. THE FACT IS, BOTH ARE EQUALLY "PUT AWAY" 
FROM THE MARRIAGE - DIVORCED - SINGLE.

It is very evident that Ethan has a hang-up with the word "single" - all because he 
fails to make the distinction his own "inference" states, that some are 
"legitimately" "loosed" - and therefore "can marry" - his own admission -while 
others can't.

Ethan keeps harping about "John and Jane" who are divorced for "irreconcilable 
differences", while they have no part in the proposition, and therefore should 
never be brought up.

Referring to 1Cor.7:2 you ask, "Where, Mr. Burgin, is the evidence that Paul 
directs this comment to those who have been put away for adultery? Is this not 
your inference derived from the text and not actually based on any specific 
evidence given in this verse? We shall see his answer."

The very fact that he wrote to them - included them is ALL he said - recognized 
they were "legitimately" "loosed" - to use your "inference" - and THEREFORE 
RIGHTLY single -and for THAT reason did "not sin", or "commit adultery", in a 
further marriage.

Then referring to verses 27-28 you said,

The statement under discussion, of course, is "art thou loosed from a wife...but 
shouldest thou marry, thou hast not sinned." I will not contest that this part of the 
passage is directed at one who is in a divorced statement, but I do contend that the 
only person to whom Paul is speaking is one who has put away his wife for 
adultery.

Then you "CONTEND" for what is in the silence of the Scriptures. The very fact 
that Paul wrote to those who had been GUILTY of adultery, and said to THEM, 
you have "not sinned" if you marry, proves my point - what's more you have 
"inferred" the same thing.

Then you show how confused you are, by again mentioning a situation that 
simply does not apply, by being very mixed up over a divorce that is NOT valid, 
as opposed to one that IS. Thus forgetting your own "inference". Indeed BOTH 
violate what God has joined together, but only one becomes single - that remains 
the entire difference - which you have constantly ignored.

Note this quote:

We may see by these questions that the inference that Paul refers to those having 
been put away for adultery in 1 Corinthians 7:2 and 7:27-28 is by no means 
legitimate.

Then why did YOU draw an "inference" that said they were "legitimately" 
"loosed"?

I have gone far enough, for ANY who respect Bible authority - whether 
established by express command, example, or necessary inference to uphold, and 
support, my position as the truth - what is even clearer is the fact that Ethan's 
"inference" agrees entirely.

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.
    
MAX. Nothing could be simpler than the truth on this subject. God has only one 
reason for divorce - adultery, and He has only one reason for marriage - being 
single. That's as simple as its possible to be.

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:  
Who has discussed their status of salvation? You've made an issue of this, not me.
    
MAX. I am glad you don't make an issue of it, like many do.

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. There is no such thing as being "loosed" WITHOUT THE 
NECESSARY "RIGHT" OF "LIGITAMETLY" "LOOSED" PEOPLE. This is 
your very own "inference". You have contradicted yourself.

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". It's OK when you make them, but 
not when I do!!!!

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 statement 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 though 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?

By your "inference" you concluded that WERE "legitimately" "loosed".

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. Your very own "inference" is what makes the difference.

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. AS DOES YOUR "INFERENCE".

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.

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.

You will never forget you made this statement - a Scriptural inference - showing 
SOME to be "loosed" "legitimately" - by divorce for adultery - which equally 
involves BOTH the "GUILTY" and the "innocent". AND since THEY are 
"LIGITAMETLY" "LOOSED" 'THEY MAY MARRY" - YOUR VERY OWN 
WORDS.

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.

You are not faithful to your very own charge.

Now to Ethan's second affirmative, which is nothing more than evasive, and 
confusing sophistry - which contradicts his earlier "inference". He STILL has not 
provided the passage which says that one divorced for his adultery, does not have 
- as a "legitimately" "loosed" person - the "privilege" to marry. He has one more 
chance - but he wont do it. As I said, this debate will close without it being done.

You are reminded, Ethan, of the question which led to this debate, it's another 
way of asking the same thing, it says: Where does the Bible teach that a person 
Scripturally divorced, who is guilty of adultery, must remain single? You failed to 
answer it in private, now it is asked in public. Will you continue to run away from 
it, OR, simple give more sophistry?

Not only do you continue with your hang-up over the word "single", you have 
extended it to include the word "unmarried" - you don't seem to be able to 
recognize that Paul's use of this word is accommodative - which necessarily refers 
to the STATE she was in, and was required to remain in - rather than the fact she 
was "unmarried", in the sense she was single - without a spouse. This truth is 
obvious from the fact she could be "reconciled" - whereas if she was divorced, 
"unmarried" in the sense of being single - she couldn't. Face the truth!

You said, early in the piece, "anyone who marries a divorced person, "commits 
adultery". WRONG on two counts!!!!

1. When the situation involves people where no marriage exists - in any 
remarriage - it's impossible for spouseless people to "commit adultery".

2. When the "innocent party", who is divorced - "put away" from the marriage, 
and a spouse - even you are prepared to contradict yourself, and say she does 
NOT "commit adultery", yet she is divorced - and marries another.

The very fact that she can marry, without adultery, makes it abundantly clear that 
there is no marriage to adulterate - therefore the same thing applies to the other 
party - otherwise, as I said earlier, you have the stupid situation of a half marriage.

If only one party "commits adultery", which marriage is adulterated - the one 
which has ceased to exist by the earlier divorce, or the one which has just begun? 
Or is it possible to "commit adultery" where no marriage exists? 

More than that, and to make matters worse, you made this affirmation without 
giving any Scripture. Are we expected to believe it simply because you said it?

You then went to the Greek and gave a lengthy explanation, which is not 
necessary to know, and understand, the truth of ANYTHING that was said - and 
shed no light at all on a subject that is very plain, and simple. One does not need 
to be a Greek scholar to know the truth.

ELDV: 
Now, I am sure that Mr. Burgin will argue that the "exception clause" of the first 
statement will stand for the second statement also. Yet the "exception clause" is 
very easily understood in context:
    
MAX. WRONG!!!! Divorce and marriage are separate issues - and therefore 
require separate Scripture - what is being discussed here is divorce - I am simple 
affirming that, the exception, when followed, results in BOTH parties being 
genuinely single, unmarried, spouseless - whether saint or sinner, and as a result 
of that FACT can THEN marry without adultery. EVEN you HAVE MADE AN 
"INFERENCE" STATING THAT ONE CAN BE "LEGITIMATELY LOOSED", 
AND THAT "THEY MAY MARRY". YOU CAN'T WORM YOUR WAY OUT 
OF WHAT YOU CLEARLY SAID. You may try to deny that it refers to those 
Scripturally divorced - "legitimately loosed" - as to the others divorced for ANY 
other reason, who are NOT "legitimately loosed" - and contradict yourself, 
and Scripture.

ELDV: 
3. One who marries one who has been put away-- for any reason-- commits 
adultery.
    
MAX. This is the crux of the matter. Pure supposition!!!! Who does he "commit 
adultery" against in a situation where no marriage exists?"??? I notice that 
AGAIN no Scripture is given to support such nonsense.

ELDV:  
Therefore, the conclusion is inescapable: the person put away for adultery has not 
been given the privilege of remarriage by Jesus in Matthew 5:32
    
MAX. You fail to realize that NOBODY is given such a "privilege" in this verse. 
Another passage is needed.

ELDV:  
And in Matthew 5:32, when Jesus declares that "whoever marries a divorced 
woman commits adultery," He declares that those put away for adultery do not 
have the privilege of marriage to another, for He declares that no one who is put 
away has the privilege of marriage to another.
    
MAX. Jesus made no such declaration at all!!!! What He said was, "That 
whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth 
her to commit adultery", in other words He declared that if he DID put her away 
for the cause stated, he did not cause her to commit adultery. AND who ever 
marries her that is put away - for any other cause than stated - SHALL indeed 
commit adultery. But God will accept her divorce if she is "legitimately" put away 
- "loosed" from a spouse.

The proposition is not proved at all - no Scripture is given to support several 
points at the crux of the issue. AND until such time as Ethan produces one - he 
has one last chance - but of course it wont happen, he will produce plenty of 
confusing sophistry, and continue with red herrings, and deal with those that are 
not in the proposition - and kid himself that he has proved his case, but the readers 
will know better.

By now it is very obvious to all that the very passage Ethan needs simply does not 
exist, otherwise he would have used it, one that says a person who is "legitimately 
loosed" is forbidden the privilege of marriage, one that says any person, saint or 
sinner, who is single, being divorced from a spouse, because of adultery, does not 
have the right to marry.

The three classes of people he mentioned who may marry, may do so ONLY for 
the reason of being single, "alone", free of marriage, without a spouse - regardless 
of what led to it.

Ethan, you have contradicted yourself and made a real hash of you position.

Max Burgin