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

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 affirm 
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" - are 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. 

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.

In short, we are talking about spouseless people, when we use the word "single" – 
those who can't be "reconciled" - who are genuinely "alone" - as a result of 
Scriptural divorce.

All he has done is cite 3 classes of people who have the "privilege" to marry, 
those never married, those who have lost a spouse in death, and those who have 
"put away" - divorced - a mate for adultery. He fails to realize that in EVERY 
case the "privilege" is granted, entirely because they are single - and for no other 
reason. The very same thing can be said for the "guilty party" AFTER the divorce. 
If one is free, and the other bound, we have the stupid situation of a half marriage 
- there is no such thing. Either NONE "commit adultery" - the divorce being valid 
- OR, they BOTH do. If, like he says, only one does, I would like to know which marriage
is adulterated - the one that has ceased to exist, or, the one that has just 
begun? The only other possibility is that adultery can be committed where no 
marriage exists. Adultery can't be committed by spouseless people where no 
marriage exists, and marriage is ALWAYS right for spouseless adults, and 
AFTER such a divorce - BOTH parties are EQUALLY spouseless - regardless of 
being "guilty" or "innocent". 

The reason I say all this is to point out that, in answering this question, it will do 
no good to use ANY passage that charges THEM with adultery, since they simply 
do not apply - in any way - to spouseless people. There is a need to deal with the 
right people. That one is a guilty sinner who is rejected by God, is not in dispute, 
but a passage that negates the "privilege" to marry to ANY spouseless sinner, is 
what is called for - it can't be found, it simply does not exist. The teaching is 
error. 

It is bad enough that Ethan does not accept the natural, and forced, conclusion of 
the "inference" he willingly admits he made. What makes it worse is that it 
violates his very own charge to me, in saying, "These are only your inferences on 
the text, and not GOSPEL FACT' - EXACTLY THE SAME AS HE DID, the text 
no more said YOUR "inference" than mine - if one is valid, so is the other - we 
both agree - as you concluded, that one can be "legitimately loosed" - and if so 
"they can marry". THOSE are the people this debate is all about. It's just a pity 
that the proceedings have come to a close, without you realizing that you failed to 
deal with the right people.

In view of this clear fact, I will forego any comment on Ethan's irrelevant 
sophistry, and at the risk of being chided for not denying what he said - which 
was not on the people of the proposition - Ethan being the one who wandered 
away - I am happy to let the readers determine the outcome.

I cannot resist on commenting on these statements:

ELDV:   
(or reconcile to her ex-husband). So much for your syllogisms.
    
MAX. This is plainly not true!!!! Since she can be "reconciled" shows that God 
does not accept the divorce, if He did, the husband would be free to marry - AND 
they could not be "reconciled".

ELDV:  
My personal feeling about this is that anyone who violated a marriage covenant is 
deemed unfit for another one and hence the fact that such persons would "commit 
adultery" by entering into another marriage. 
    
MAX. You have finally admitted your "personal feelings" are your standard of 
truth - we are not a scrap interested in your "personal feelings". Nothing but 
humbug and emotion.

ELDV:  
God has bestowed upon one the privilege of marrying another and the other must 
either remain unmarried or reconcile. 
    
MAX. What a stupid thing to say!!!! How can one be "reconciled" to another 
whom God has given the "privilege" to, to remarry? Such a statement charges 
God with being the "author of confusion".

ELDV:  
If this is the case, anyone who is put away-- including anyone put away for 
committing adultery-- cannot remarry without adultery being committed.
    
MAX. Utter humbug and total sophistry!!!! In other words Ethan charges Jesus 
with saying that - though the divorce is valid, and NO marriage exists - ONE 
PARTY "commits adultery" - that's the stupidity of his position.

ELDV:  
A person divorced for adultery does not legitimately loose themselves from their 
marriage-- if you say that, I declare you a false teacher for calling what God has 
deemed sin a "legitimate" thing. 
    
MAX. Now Ethan wants to quibble over his own word "legitimately" - he fails to 
realize that I at no time said, or inferred, that God says ANY sin is a "legitimate 
thing". What I said was, using his word - and because of that sin - he can be 
"legitimately loosed" - the "loosing" is legitimate, not the sin. 

Whether he does it "legitimately" or not, is beside the point - he no longer has a 
spouse, to be "reconciled" to.

ELDV:  
Yet Mr. Burgin states that the exception clause does and must fit the second 
clause! MAX. It will be obvious to all readers that I AT NO TIME said as 
charged.

ELDV:  Mr. Burgin says: Whoever marries a put away woman save for a woman 
put away for adultery commits adultery.
    
MAX. EXACTLY!!!! ONLY in that case is the divorce recognized by God – 
making BOTH parties EQUALLY free of marriage. There being no marriage to 
adulterate in THAT situation.

The very fact that he made an "inference", declaring that there is a difference 
between spouseless people - some are "legitimately loosed" and therefore "they 
can marry", but the others, who are NOT rightly "single" don't have such a 
"privilege". Shows clearly that he has conceded the debate.

Ethan will pretend he has proved the proposition, while not even getting close to 
it.

Max Burgin