Burgin/Cyrus Debate on Divorce/Remarriage

 
 
 Proposition: 
 Proposition: The Bible teaches that divorced adulterers may not 
marry.

Affirm: Doug Cyrus
Deny: Max Burgin

You continue to fail to recognize that a "guilty adulterer" may 
continue to be married to an "innocent" person - divorce or 
"putting away" is not required - there is no difference whatever 
between this, and marrying again, after Scriptural divorce. There 
is no adultery in either case. If he can live with one spouse – 
without further adultery - two things i] he remains guilty, and 
ii] he can live with another spouse - after being divorced, for 
adultery, being then spouseless -without further adultery. It 
cannot be argued, in either case, that he is not entitled to a 
spouse. The sin is not in being divorced - "put away" - but in 
adultery, and being refused marriage, for his sin, is not a 
punishment.

The very opening paragraph of my first denial is what has been 
ignored, and will settle the matter, once and for all. But Doug 
wont, and can't, honour his responsibility, instead he will 
revert to lengthy, and irrelevant material, and sophistry - as 
has already seen to be the case.

The proposition that I am denying on this occasion states, "The 
Bible teaches that divorced adulterers may not marry".

All Doug needs to do to prove his affirmative of this 
proposition, is to state a passage that deals with the right 
people - one who is spouseless, having been Scripturally divorced 
because of his adultery - but of course that is what he can't, 
and wont, do. He failed to do so while in the denial, and now he 
will also fail while in the affirmative. The passage he needs 
simply does not exist.

His task is simple, but impossible.

He has used passages that refer to people who "commit adultery" 
when they marry - showing clearly that a marriage exists - the 
divorce is not Scriptural, or accepted by God, for it was NOT for 
the sin of adultery, thus the marriage still exists, in God's 
eyes, in spite of a legal divorce. BUT when people ARE divorced 
because of adultery, they are as spouseless as they ever were, in 
God's eyes, and therefore don't "commit adultery" - there is no 
marriage to adulterate. The passages that charge with adultery 
simply do not apply, to spouseless people - whether they are 
"guilty" or "innocent" - they are dealing with the wrong people.

The Bible nowhere teaches that spouseless adults may not marry, 
even if they are "guilty sinners" whom God rejects as His 
children.

Doug has failed to make the Scriptural distinction in divorced 
people. Even a "guilty sinner" can be Scripturally divorced, and 
thus be rightly spouseless, and thus marry again without 
adultery. That does not justify his earlier sin, or make him 
right with God. All I am denying is that he, as being rightly 
spouseless, "commits adultery" if he marries again - no marriage 
is involved. That is the point of Doug's affirmation, which he 
needs to supply Scripture to support. He can't do it!!!!

It's very easy to deny a position that the Bible is silent about.

The sin of Doug's position is exactly the same as Nadab and 
Abihu, in acting where "God commanded not" - he has taken license 
where the Bible is silent. The Bible NOWHERE says that ANY adult, 
who is spouseless - for ANY sin whatsoever - must remain single – 
is "forbidden" a marriage "contract". Yet he will condemn those 
who teach infant baptism, and denominationalism, subjects the 
Bible is also silent about - they ALL stand, or fall, together.

If the divorced "innocent party" may remarry without adultery, 
but the divorced "guilty party" can't, we have the stupid 
position of a half marriage - but of course such does not exist. 
Either the divorce is Scriptural, and valid, or it is not. Thus a 
distinction in divorced people is necessary. The REASON for the 
divorce is the ONLY consideration, NOT "guilt" or "innocence".

The issue is simplicity itself: If the divorce IS Scriptural, and 
valid, BOTH parties are equally spouseless, and can remarry 
without adultery being present. If the divorce is NOT Scriptural, 
and valid, BOTH parties are guilty of adultery in a further 
marriage - THEY are not rightly spouseless.

"Guilt" or "innocence" is NOT a consideration for a marriage of 
spouseless people - only for the divorce - that makes them BOTH 
equally spouseless, regardless of "guilt" or "innocence".

There has been a lot of talk about "put away" being different 
than divorced - they are synonyms, and can be used 
interchangeably, if one is divorced, he is "put away" from the 
marriage. The term does not refer to any person - and exclude the 
other - but to the reason for being divorced, or "put away" from 
the marriage. It only refers to the one who did not instigate the 
divorce, when used in reference to a person.

Doug has reverted to defending a half marriage, where only one 
person is "loosed" while the other is still "bound" - where he is 
in "contract" by himself - but the other is "loosed". This 
ludicrous position makes God "a respecter of persons", and even 
worse than that, He does so by virtue of sin that causes Him to 
reject them as His children. A "guilty fornicator" who is 
Scripturally divorced, is "loosed" from God, AND a marriage - he 
is a lost cause to both - what can he possibly be still bound" 
to? It can't be to ANY marriage - Scriptural divorce is valid – 
making him "loosed". Among those Paul wrote to - whom he said had 
"not sinned" in marrying - but Doug says they do - what a front – 
and completely without Scripture. Doug, we are still waiting to 
see Scripture, that says your position. But this debate will 
close without you EVER supplying it. Even you can't invent what 
you need.

I have no intention of chasing you all over the barn, but will 
try to hold, and limit, you to your responsibility of supplying 
that Scripture. Which of course you can't do. It will be 
interesting to observe if you are honourable enough to admit your 
failings.

You talked about "possibilities", but I remind you that we are 
not debating a doubtful situation - that the Bible is silent 
about - but the right to marry of ANY spouseless adult - ANY SIN 
NOTWITHSTANDING.

The simple fact is, ANY person Scripturally divorced, is "loosed" 
from a spouse - and from marriage, and God, if he is the "guilty 
party".

The whole problem is that you have a hang-up, over the right to 
marry, of a guilty sinner - and that for only one sin - when even 
you admit he is spouseless - "loosed" from a spouse and marriage 
through Scriptural divorce. And there is NOTHING else that gives 
the right to marry.

You have asked, 
"How can we determine if one is loosed?" there are only two , 
possibilities, i] death of a spouse, or ii] Scriptural divorce. 
In either case, every person - dead or alive - is "loosed" – 
whether saint of sinner. If a person does not meet EITHER of 
these qualifications, he is guilty of adultery - but if he meets 
either one, he is not an adulterer - even though he may be a 
sinner.

Doug, you are reminded of the proposition you agreed to affirm, 
the ONLY way you can do that is to provide Scripture that says a 
guilty adulterer, who is divorced, can't remarry. That is a 
simple task - one that you can't honour. You will beat around the 
bush, use a lot of sophistry, and human wisdom, talk about the 
wrong people, quibble about red herrings, as you have done, 
ANYTHING but cite Scripture that teaches the proposition.

The issue is plain and utter simplicity, can you handle it 
without muddying the water? God has just ONE reason for divorce – 
adultery. God has just ONE reason for marriage - being 
spouseless.

In his third speech Doug waffled on, at length, that a person who 
has been Scripturally divorced - who is a "guilty party" - is not 
as equally "loosed" and no longer "bound" to ANY marriage 
"contract". He fails to realize that's what Scriptural divorce 
results in!!!! Doug, when a man is released from a marriage 
contract - either by death of a spouse, or Scriptural divorce, is 
he a "loosed" person - even if he is a "guilty party"? How can 
you decide he is not included in those who are "loosed"? Is he in 
"contract" with another who is "loosed"? Can a person be in 
"contract" by himself when no other is involved? Even God can't 
bring that about!!!! But you think you are more powerful than 
God. I make the charge that your position necessitates a half 
marriage, but even you deny that such exists. I am not interested 
in pursuing such foolishness. I am glad I don't have a "mind set" 
on such stupidity. You have relied WHOLLY on human reasoning, and 
ignored plain Scriptural teaching. I hope you will do better, and 
stay with the point of this proposition.

Look at the humbug Doug has carried on with: 
"I would like to analyze Max's ideas to see if they scripturally 
prove that a put away fornicator is loosed and can therefore 
marry without sinning."

There is Scripture that says a person "put away" for adultery 
Matt.19:9 is "loosed from a spouse" - being no longer in 
"contract" with one - and therefore has "not sinned" - or 
committed adultery - in a further marriage. The problem Doug 
faces is that he does not accept plain and simple Scripture.

I readily admit to having a "mind set" when it comes to revealed 
truth, and am very proud of it. I will not budge from what is 
written. Doug has tried to draw me away, but I refuse to follow. 
It hurts him that I keep bringing up the same point - that he has 
yet to deal with.

I am surprised you don't see and teach the truth.

You are unable to affirm the proposition.

To use your own words, PROVE IT! We are all waiting.

Brotherly,
Max Burgin.