Burgin/Cyrus Debate on Divorce/Remarriage

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

Affirm: Doug Cyrus
Deny: Max Burgin

I ask Doug, where and why, does the Bible so state? Either he 
will yet do what he has failed to do, or he will continue to 
teach a doctrine of imagination. The subject he has agreed to 
affirm, has no more validity, or Scripture, than infant baptism, 
or denominationalism, though all are very popular, they are not 
in "the doctrine of Christ" and therefore "hath not God" 2John:9, 
but are sinful doctrines of popular imagination, and hopefulness. 
It is necessary to step into the silence of Scripture to 
"support[?]"  either one. It is amazing that he condemns some and 
not the other.

The challenge remains open to you, or anyone else, to provide the 
passage needed. No one is up to that task.

As this debate is coming to a close, Doug has one last chance to 
honour his task, to provide Scripture  that teaches the 
proposition. We agree they are sinners who are rejected by God, 
but that is not the point of this debate. Even sinners, who will 
"not inherit the kingdom of God", can enjoy ALL His physical 
blessings, which include marriage, health, riches, etc. while 
ever they have life. Doug's doctrine of imagination wants to 
remove just one blessing - and that by virtue of just one sin - a 
person may be guilty of a worse sin, like murder, and not even 
Doug would preclude him marriage if he is spouseless.

People divorced for ANY other reason cannot remarry without the 
sin of adultery, because THAT divorce is not valid in heaven's 
sight - they are still married - while ever the other is alive. 
Doug will spend time, and use passages that refer to them, but 
they are NOT the people of this debate. We are simple talking 
about those who ARE Scripturally divorced - who therefore no 
longer have a spouse - who are "loosed" from a marriage and a 
spouse. Since there is no marriage to adulterate, adultery does 
not apply to that situation. Not even to the "guilty party" – 
being rejected by God - and who no longer has a spouse.

Address only THAT situation Doug. All other talk is irrelevant. 
So far you have failed to recognize there IS a distinction in 
divorced people - and it is NOT where you want to place it – 
between the "guilty and "innocent" party"  - but between the 
REASONS for the divorce. Without ANY consideration to the 
spiritual condition of the people involved. BOTH may be lost – 
and not God's children - but that does not mean the divorce is 
not Scriptural - if it is for adultery. Both Scriptural marriage, 
and divorce, is for all people - saints and sinners. God's law, 
for both, is the same without "respect of persons".

I fail to understand why Doug does not realize that spouseless 
people CAN'T "commit adultery" - no marriage is involved. ONLY 
marriage can make fornication, adultery - where there is no 
marriage there is no adultery. I appeal again to Doug to repent 
of his sinful doctrine of imagination, in favour of the 
simplicity of the truth, even when it is unpopular. Doug has one 
last chance to embrace the truth. If Doug persists with this 
false doctrine, he is a "false teacher". There is only one way to 
prove it a false statement, and that is to produce the Scripture 
which supports his claim. But he can't, and wont, do it.

What will it take to get you to see the point?

To save taking advantage of Doug, in the last speech when he 
can't respond, I want to say now that he has failed in both 
propositions of this debate. In the first he talked about the 
wrong people, and failed to make the distinction between them and 
the right people. Do you admit Doug, that where there is no 
marriage, there is no adultery? To admit that is to undo your 
case in the first proposition. In the second he failed to supply 
the very passage he needs. Thus he has made a real hash of his 
responsibility.

I have affirmed throughout this debate that EVERY spouseless 
adult - whether saint or sinner - has God's right to marry. AND 
that EVERY person Scripturally divorced, because of the exception 
- whether saint or sinner - is a spouseless adult. THEY are 
"loosed", and as such can marry without adultery. And nothing 
Doug has said changes or negates this conviction.

Does Scriptural divorce result in there being no marriage - even 
for the "guilty party"? Or is there a half marriage?

I have no intention of wasting, my time, or that of the readers, 
by chasing you all round the barn, as you deal with matters that 
don't concern the proposition. I hope you will do better in your 
final attempt.

The point is clear and simple, can you stay with it - and meet it 
in your last chance? 

Brotherly,
Max Burgin.