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

There is much that I want to say about Doug's negatives, however 
I will leave it till I'm in the denial. For now I want to affirm 
that the Scriptures clearly teach the proposition: The Bible 
teaches that there is a distinction in single people, who are 
divorced, that avoids adultery in a further marriage.

I will, however, answer his 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?

YES that is exactly, and precisely, what it clearly says. It is 
Scripture that clearly says a "loosed" person is no longer under 
the "bond" of the "contract" - more than that, it was written to 
those who HAD BEEN GUILTY OF ADULTERY - a "guilty party" - who no 
longer has a spouse.

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

OF COURSE they are "loosed" from a spouse - the ONLY reason that 
makes a divorce Scriptural. They are no longer "bound" by 
"contract" to a spouse.

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

Matt.19:9, 1Cor.7:2 & 27-28, Gen.2:18 we are simple talking about 
single - spouseless - people , who are "alone", that they are 
"guilty sinners" who are rejected by God - but that changes 
nothing in their marital status, and they can enjoy every 
blessing - from God - as ANY other "loosed" person.

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

NO, in spite of all the waffle you carried on with, your position 
NECITATES a half marriage - if one person is "loosed", there is 
NOTHING to "bind" the other - even God does not recognize that a 
person "alone" - either saint or sinner - is "bound" in ANY 
marriage "contract".  

(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)?

WE CAN'T, no argument can be made from silence, and God is not 
silent about those to whom Paul wrote - who had been guilty of 
adultery - and said to THEM they had "not sinned".

Even you have allowed for the "possibility" that being spouseless 
- as a result of Scriptural divorce - they have the right to 
marry. As such you have completely undone your case.

Are they spouseless - "loosed" - or half married?

Why does the "innocent party" not "commit adultery", if the 
reason is NOT that they are spouseless?

Guilt or innocence have no bearing on the subject of ANY marriage of spouseless people.

You are asked to note that Paul wrote to the church at Corinth, 
which included some who had been guilty of adultery 1Cor.6:9-11, 
who obviously were included in those who had been "loosed" from a 
spouse through Scriptural divorce - if they were not they were if 
fact still "bound" by marriage - and therefore are not the people 
of this debate. Paul said to THEM, if they were "loosed" they had 
"not sinned" in marrying. To make it even clearer he said in 
verse 2 of chapter 7, which included them, "Let EVERY [emphasis 
mine] man have his own wife", they were in no way singled out – 
OR EXCLUDED.

The simplicity of the truth is that Scriptural divorce results in 
BOTH parties in any marriage, being "loosed" from a spouse, and 
marriage, every bit as much as death. In either case the "bond" 
of marriage is broken - and it can result in no other way. That 
is what the exception Jesus gave is all about. This is true 
regardless of any sin involved - even when both parties are still 
alive. Where the "bond" of marriage no longer exists, neither 
party - "innocent" saint, or "guilty" sinner - is guilty of 
adultery in a further marriage. NO passage refers to a woman in 
this position as an adulteress. AND  a woman is NOT "bound by the 
law of her husband" if she is "loosed",  and therefore no longer 
has one. That is true whether he is alive or dead.

Since there is no such concept as a half marriage, one must 
conclude that EVERY person is either married - has a spouse -  or 
being "loosed" - has no spouse - and that EVERY adult is entitled 
to "his own spouse" - even those who had been guilty of adultery, 
but have been "loosed" from a spouse.

That is Scripture that clearly teaches the proposition, Scripture 
that Doug must deny if he remains true to his position. Paul was 
in no disagreement with Jesus, but he gave a forced conclusion 
regarding those who had been "loosed", according to the exception 
He gave. Doug is in error to deny what Paul said. THAT is the 
distinction that is here considered. And it deals ONLY with those 
who have been Scripturally divorced.

Doug will use a lot of opinion and sophistry, but one thing he 
can't do, is quote any Scripture that says ANY spouseless – 
"loosed" - adult, who is guilty of ANY sin may not marry. This 
debate will close without him ever producing the very thing he 
needs.

Doug is fighting a lost cause. To teach as he does is sin, and I 
call upon him to repent. He is in the awkward position of being 
unable to quote ANY Scripture that teaches ANY spouseless person 
- for whatever reason, whether saint or sinner, previously 
married or not - "commits adultery" in a further marriage. He CAN 
quote Scripture that teaches that those unscripturally divorced 
are guilty of adultery in a further marriage - but this debate is 
not about them.

The distinction is clear, and the proposition proved.

Will he finally admit to the truth - even when it is unpopular?

Brotherly,
Max Burgin.