Burgin/Cyrus Debate on Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
 Proposition: 
 The Bible teaches that there is a distinction in single people, 
who are divorced, that avoids adultery in a further marriage.

Affirm:  Max Burgin
Deny: Doug Cyrus

I repeat, this debate is NOT about those who are unscripturally 
divorced, but about ALL who are spouseless, having been divorced 
- "put away" from the marriage - because of the sin of adultery – 
according to the exception Jesus gave in Matthew 19:9.

That being the case they are ALL rightly spouseless - both the 
"guilty" AND "innocent", and since no marriage exists, to be 
adulterated, BOTH can marry with EQUAL right, without any further 
regard to the former sin of adultery that led to the earlier 
divorce - which remains, without God's forgiveness, regardless of 
any future marriage.

Marriage is ALWAYS right for ANY adult who is spouseless, 
regardless of the fact they may have been previously married – 
both for saints and sinners.

ANY sin is not a consideration for ANY spouseless person in a 
marriage, even those whom God rejects have His blessing to get 
married if they are spouseless - or do anything else that is 
right.

Scriptural divorce, necessitates that at least one party is 
rejected by God, but it also necessitates both parties are 
EQUALLY spouseless - the ONLY condition God requires to give His 
sanction to marriage - for both saints and sinners, without 
respect of persons.

The popular doctrine that Doug, and many others, espouse, that 
requires celibacy of SOME "guilty sinners" - in SOME 
circumstances [they may remain married] - is totally without 
Scripture, and it is increasingly necessary to test such a 
doctrine [when it strikes close to home], and when found to be 
error, and inadequate, is finally discarded, in favour of truth. 
Doug can quote NO Scripture to say ANY spouseless adult must 
remain celibate because of ANY sin - but that is what he teaches 
- can you support it Doug? That's what this debate is all about.

There is no need for Doug to go to any length to deny this 
proposition, all he needs to do is quote the Scripture - without 
any further comment - that says Jesus was wrong in what He said – 
but that is what he can't and won’t do.

While ever a person has life - saint or sinner - he has God's 
blessings of ALL  the physical things He provides - for 
spouseless people - and marriage is one of them, just like he can 
enjoy the other physical blessings - example: rain, sunshine, 
riches - it's no more a sin for a sinner to be rich, have plenty 
of water, and a healthy suntan, than it is for him to marry. His 
sin, even if it resulted in him being divorced, does not limit 
his ability to enjoy ANY physical blessing - the ending of life 
is the only way to remove such blessings. Doug wants to remove 
just one such blessing, from SOME spouseless people, for just one 
sin - it makes no sense and is not consistent - quite apart from 
the fact that such teaching can nowhere be found in "the doctrine 
of Christ" - it therefore "hath not God" 2John:9.

It is hoped that this debate will cause many people to see the 
stupidity of a doctrine that wants to remove this physical 
blessing - for the sin of adultery - without taking ones life. 
Many want him to live a life where there in "no way of escape" of 
further temptation to perform the same sin.

Doug, and many others, want to teach that a "guilty sinner" who 
is spouseless - being divorced for his adultery - cannot marry 
without "committing adultery". He fails to realize that 
spouseless people find it impossible to "commit adultery", there 
being no marriage involved, to adulterate. So a passage is asked 
for that so teaches. This debate will end without that passage 
ever being supplied - it simply does not exist. Therefore such a 
doctrine "hath not God" 2John:9. To so teach is sin.

Many readers may remember my former debate, on a similar 
proposition, wherein this distinction was not recognized. That is 
the reason for this proposition, it will be interesting to see if 
it is now recognized by Doug. It is plainly not good enough to 
consider all divorced people with equality - not giving any heed 
to the exception given by Jesus.

All I want to say, at this stage, about Doug's first negative 
mainly concerns his answers to my questions, but there is one 
major point that needs to be considered, look at this quote: " 
The problem that I have with what Max has written is that he 
ASSUMES that when God allows a person to divorce their spouse for 
adultery that He releases both parties from the contract or 
agreement. This is not a necessary conclusion and Max has not 
shown any scripture that states nor implies that when one is 
loosed from a marriage contract both are loosed." 

Doug charges me with ASSUMING, but that is exactly what he has 
done, in trying to decide that Scriptural divorce is not equally 
valid for both parties - that only one person is "loosed" from 
the marriage, while the other is still "bound" to it - the only 
conclusion of such poor reasoning is to defend the stupid 
situation of a half marriage - where only one person "commits 
adultery" in a further marriage - after having committed 
adultery, and been divorced for that sin, he is now expected to 
be faithful to a marriage, and wife, he no longer has.

Does Scriptural divorce end the marriage "bond" - "contract" – 
equally for both parties making them BOTH "loosed" - regardless 
of innocence or guilt?

Now to the questions:
2. Does such a distinction mean some are spouseless while others 
are not? 

The Bible does not use the word "spouseless" but I believe you 
mean "loosed" per 1Corinthians 7:27-28. I will assume this is the 
case till you tell me differently. As I explained above only two 
people who have been married are "loosed" as far as I can see. 
These are a person who has a spouse who has died or a person who 
has put their spouse away for fornication.

Doug said, "as far as I can see", he is blind to the clear fact 
that AFTER a Scriptural divorce the "guilty party" is every bit 
as "loosed" from the marriage, and a wife, as the other party is 
"loosed" from him - that is the ONLY reason neither one commits 
adultery" in a remarriage - they are equally spouseless – 
"loosed".

Please continue to "assume" that "spouseless" means exactly 
"loosed", nothing more, nothing less, and nothing different.

3. Is it possible for spouseless people to "commit adultery" in 
marrying? 

No, if you mean loosed.

Doug has undone his case, since he is spouseless - being "loosed" 
- he "assumes" it is the same thing. Even Doug agrees that such 
people DON'T "commit adultery" THAT is the distinction.

4. Can a person who is spouseless, but "guilty" of sin get 
married? 

Yes, if you mean loosed.

What further proof is needed?!?   Even if the sin is adultery, 
being the cause of the divorce.

5. Can the "innocent" marry for any other reason than being 
spouseless? 

The person who has put their spouse away for fornication 
(innocent party) has a right to marry because they are loosed 
just like any other person who is loosed.

Exactly the point - it's impossible for one to be "loosed" 
without loosing the other - that's what divorce IS.

6. How can just one party AFTER a Scriptural divorce "commit 
adultery" by marrying again? 

As I explained above, marriage is a contract that is regulated by 
God. God can release one party from the contract without 
releasing the other. One person can still be bound by law to 
fulfill the contract and therefore still be obligated to the 
other party in the contract.

What utter humbug and total sophistry, and completely without 
Scripture. THAT necessitates a half marriage - and Doug tries to 
make both God, and the law, recognize such a stupid position.

What responsibility, or obligation, does a person continue to 
have to a spouse he no longer has?

6. How can just one party AFTER a Scriptural divorce "commit 
adultery" by marrying again? 

As I explained above, marriage is a contract that is regulated by 
God. God can release one party from the contract without 
releasing the other. One person can still be bound by law to 
fulfill the contract and therefore still be obligated to the 
other party in the contract.

Doug makes the wrong claim that, "God can release one party from 
the contract without releasing the other." He fails to realize 
that one person can't be in contract by himself, a contract 
REQUIRES at least two - a man and a woman, even God does not 
recognize a "contract" that involves either MORE or LESS. If the 
"contract" is negated by divorce BOTH parties are "loosed" from 
the earlier "bond" - or "contract". 

The very verses that Paul wrote to them about being "loosed" 
included those who had been guilty of adultery 1Cor.6:9-11. Thus 
the case is established.

8. Which marriage is adulterated? 

I am sorry but I am not sure what you are asking with this 
question.

Doug the question is simple enough, you have a problem with your 
idea that he is still married - with no other being involved – 
who does he "commit adultery" against, the wife he no longer has, 
OR the new wife he marries as a spouseless - "loosed" person? Is 
adultery possible where there is no marriage?

9. Is there any difference between a marriage and a REmarriage of spouseless people? 

If a person is "loosed" it does not matter whether they are 
getting married the first or second time. Loosed people can marry 
without sinning.

That says it all, and that very clearly.

9. Is there any difference between a marriage and a REmarriage of spouseless people? 

If a person is "loosed" it does not matter whether they are 
getting married the first or second time. Loosed people can marry 
without sinning.

Yes He did, He said the man she now has is not "your husband", 
when he should have been, such a condemnation is very clear.

11. Why does the sin of adultery preclude a spouseless person the 
right to marry? 

The sin of adultery does not preclude a "loosed" person from 
marrying. The Bible plainly says that a "loosed" person can marry 
without sinning. This is how we can know a person is really 
loosed. A person who is loosed is not bound by a contract 
(binding agreement) and therefore has no one to commit adultery 
against (Mark 10:11 And he saith unto them, Whosoever shall put 
away his wife, and marry another, committeth adultery against   her).

Again that says it all, ALL those Scripturally divorced are 
"loosed" from a spouse. Neither "guilt" or "innocence" make ANY 
changes to their marital status.

12. Is the woman who can be "reconciled to her husband", married 
or spouseless? 

I believe you are talking about the woman in 1Corinthians 7:11   
Which says "But and if she depart, let her remain unmarried, or 
be reconciled to her husband: and let not the husband put away 
his wife." This woman has been put away from her husband by civil 
law but without the permission of God. She still has a husband to 
be reconciled to therefore she is still in a contractual 
relationship and bound by law to her husband. She is a married 
woman.

Though she is said to be "unmarried", even you agree that it is 
used accommadatively, to refer to the state she is to remain in, 
rather than to her marital status. It therefore is not relevant 
to the proposition.

Doug has demonstrated that he can't handle these questions, which 
are provoked by his position. His answers are humbug and 
contradictory to his own position.

One more thing, Doug mentioned a book by Donnie Rader, I had a 
debate with him, on this subject, several years ago, recorded in 
Gospel Guardian, he failed to quote any Scripture that precludes 
ANY spouseless - "loosed" - person the right to marry, Doug, can 
you do so now? Only when, and if, you can, have you supported 
your case.

You fail to realize that, "Forbidding to marry" is the mark of a 
false religion. And you forbid marriage to SOME spouseless people 
who have been "loosed". You do so for a wrong reason.

The distinction that you need to face is NOT in those 
Scripturally divorced - WHO ARE SPOUSELESS - "LOOSED", but 
between THEM and those divorced for any other reason, who might  
be "unmarried", but are not "loosed". We are only talking about 
those who ARE unmarried because they have been Scripturally 
"loosed". ANY sin is NOT a consideration in this issue.

Deal with the right people. You have one last chance to deny the 
truth - that Scriptural divorce makes one "loosed", and that on 
that basis they can remarry "without sin".

The issue is just that simple.

Brotherly,
Max Burgin.