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

One might think from some of the things Max says that we are not 
on the greatest of terms but I want you to know that this just is 
not the case. I am talking about when Max says things like:

1) "His answers are humbug and contradictory to his own 
position."

2) "What utter humbug and total sophistry, and completely without 
Scripture."

3)"Doug tries to make both God, and the law, recognize such a 
stupid position."

I want you to know that Max and I are brothers in Christ and I 
know there is nothing I would not do for Max and that there is 
nothing Max would not do for me. This is the reason that for 
years Max and I have been doing absolutely nothing for each 
other. To quote Forest Gump I would just like to say "and that's 
all I have to say about that."

I have the same complaint with Max's second affirmative as I did 
with his first affirmative. He assumes (but does not prove) that 
because God allows a person to put away their spouse for 
committing fornication, both parties are loosed from the 
marriage. He says it this way, 

"Scriptural divorce, (meaning a divorce that involves 
fornication) necessitates that...... both parties are EQUALLY 
spouseless." 

Max has agreed that "spouseless" means "loosed" per 1Corinthians 
7:27-28.

So far Max has used Matthew 19:9, 1Corinthians 6:9-11, 2John 9 
and Gen. 2:18 to support his position that "Scriptural divorce, 
necessitates that...... both parties are EQUALLY spouseless."

Please consider each of these four verses:

1)Mt 19:9 "And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, 
except it be for fornication, and shall marry another, committeth 
adultery: and whoso marrieth her which is put away doth commit 
adultery."

2)1Cor. 6:9-11 "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not 
inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, 
nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of 
themselves with mankind, Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor 
drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the 
kingdom of God. And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but 
ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord 
Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God."

3) 2John 1:9 "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the 
doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine 
of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son."

4) Gen. 2:18 "And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man 
should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him." None of 
these passages prove that "Scriptural divorce, necessitates 
that...... both parties are EQUALLY spouseless."

To prove your position Max you must find a verse saying that a 
person who has been put away for committing fornication can marry 
without sinning. This will prove that they fit into the category 
of being "loosed" (1Corinthians 7:27-28).

Questions:

1) Does 1Cor. 7:27-28, which says "Are you bound to a wife? Do 
not seek to be loosed. Are you loosed from a wife? Do not seek a 
wife. But even if you do marry, you have not sinned....", teach 
that a loosed person can marry without sinning?

2) Can a person who has been put away for committing fornication 
marry again without sinning?  

3) What scriptures prove your answer to question number two 
above?

Max says 
"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."

Answer: I admit it is a possibility that when a person is put 
away for fornication that they fit into the category of being 
"loosed" per 1Corinthians 7:27-28. It is also a possibility that 
when a person is put away for fornication that God has decided 
they should remain bound by the agreement they made and fulfill 
the contract. At this time Max is in the position of being the 
one to affirm and therefore to prove his position. If he does not 
prove his position it will stay in the realm of a possibility and 
something he assumes to be true. God is the one that regulates 
all marriages and He can loose one or both parties from the 
marriage contract. Both situations are a possibility. Max has to 
prove, from the scriptures, that both parties are equally loosed. 
I will prove my position when I am in the affirmative.

Question 4) Can God loose one party from a contract without 
loosing both parties from the contract if He wants to?

Let me give an example of a contractual relationship where one 
party is fully released from the contract but the other party is 
not. A doctor (party number 1)hires another doctor (party number 
2)to work for him and a contract is made. The agreement tells 
both parties what they must do and what they cannot do. In this 
contract there is a clause saying that if party 2 leaves the 
practice he cannot set up another practice within a 25 mile 
radius. It also states that if party 2 does leave and sets up a 
practice within a 25 mile radius that party 2 will be obligated 
to pay party 1 $1,000 each month for five years. Party 1, on the 
other hand, will have no responsibility to party 2 and will be 
able to hire a new doctor. This is an illustration and does not 
prove anything, one way or the other, concerning a marriage 
contract. It only shows that because one party in an agreement is 
released from the contract the other is not necessarily released.

In a marriage contract both parties have signed on for life. God 
has seen fit to allow one party to divorce the other party if the 
other party has committed fornication (Matt 19:9). The Bible 
plainly implies that the party doing the putting away can marry 
again without committing adultery. The question is, Can the 
person who is being put away for committing fornication marry 
again without committing adultery? Has God released the party who 
committed adultery from the contract? I know that the party doing 
the putting away can marry again without committing adultery 
because God tells me that this is the case (Matt. 19:9). Max says 
that the put away party can marry without committing adultery but 
gives nothing to base his conclusion on. He gives no scriptures 
to prove his point.

For us to act we must have authority (Col 3:17 "And whatever you 
do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving 
thanks to God the Father through Him."). If God elects not to 
tell us that a person who has been put away for fornication can 
marry without sinning then do we have the right to marry anyway? 
I believe we do not based on Col.3:17.

Question (5) How can we tell if a person is loosed if God does 
not tell us that they can marry without sinning (1Cor 7:27-
28)?Interesting point: There is no scripture in the Bible where 
God literally says that this or that person has the right to 
marry again or does not have the right to marry again. The only 
way we know if a person has the right to marry again is when God, 
through His word, tells us that if a person marries they do not 
commit adultery. On the other hand, we know a person does not 
have the right to marry when we are told, that if they marry they 
commit adultery. In 1Corinthians 7:27-28 God lets us know the 
reason why a person can marry. It is because they are loosed. 
Loosed people do not sin when they marry. On the other hand, 
bound people do sin when they marry and the sin they commit is 
adultery against their first spouse. In every situation a person 
can find themselves in the Bible will say if they commit 
adultery, or not, when they marry.

It is obvious from the two examples that I have previously given 
that God does tell us who can marry without sinning. Again, I 
will include two examples that plainly shows who God considers to 
be loosed and therefore has the right to marry. Please consider 
the below examples:

Let's ask the question "Can a man who puts his wife away for 
fornication marry again?" Matthew 19:9 says, "And I say unto you, 
Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication, 
and shall marry another, committeth adultery:......" If we 
exercise the exception rule stated in this verse the Bible 
implies that "whoever puts away his wife, for fornication, and 
marries another, does not committeth adultery." God plainly 
implies that this person can marry without sinning.

Let's ask the question: Can a person whose spouse has died marry 
again? Romans 7:3 answers this when it says "So then if, while 
her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be 
called an adulteress: but if her husband be dead, she is free 
from that law; so that she is no adulteress, though she be 
married to another man." The Bible plainly states that this 
person does not sin by marrying again.

I can know, without a doubt, that any person described in the two 
examples above have a scriptural right to marry.  I cannot know 
if a person who has been put away for fornication has a 
scriptural right to marry because the Bible does not say that 
they can marry without committing adultery. 

Max says 
"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"."

Answer: I believe my illustration above does show that one party 
to a contract can be released from the contract while the other 
remains under obligation to the other party. Again, I say that it 
does not prove that this is the situation in the case with a 
person who has been put away for fornication but it does show 
that it is a possibility. We have to look to God's word to know 
what God says concerning this situation and Max is in the 
position now to prove his side of the coin.

Max says 
"8. Which marriage is adulterated? My answer was: I am sorry but 
I am not sure what you are asking with this question. Max then 
says: "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?"

Answer: You assume no other is involved Max. Where is your proof? 
I agree that a person who is loosed can marry again without 
sinning (1Cor. 7:27-28). I agree that adultery is not possible 
where there is no marriage. When I say "no marriage" I am saying 
that neither party owes a duty to the other party because both parties have been released from the contract.

All the things that you say Max are based on this one assumption 
"Scriptural divorce, (meaning a divorce that involves 
fornication) necessitates that...... both parties are EQUALLY 
spouseless."

Prove it!!!

Yours in Christ,
Doug Cyrus