Burgin/Cyrus Debate on Divorce/Remarriage

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

Affirm: Doug Cyrus
Deny: Max Burgin

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: It is true that it takes at least two parties to make a 
contract but it is also true that one party can be released from 
the contract without the other being released of all obligations 
toward the first party. Question: While it takes two parties to 
make a contract is it possible for one party to be released from 
all obligations to the other party while the other party still 
owes one or more obligations to the first party?  I am asking 
this concerning contracts in general not necessarily a marriage 
contract only.

MAX says: 
“Then on what basis do you argue that one party "commits 
adultery" while the other doesn't? If the "guilty party" 
initiates the divorce, does the "innocent party" become a "put 
away" person?

Answer: Max first ask: “Then on what basis do you argue that one 
party "commits adultery" while the other doesn't?” I have made 
arguments from English and Greek points of view that Max has not 
answered. I will not answer this question again; it has been 
fully discussed.

Max brings up another question I would like to address.  He ask, 
“If the "guilty party" initiates the divorce, does the "innocent 
party" become a "put away" person?” This question is initiated by 
me saying, “I believe from an analysis of the English and Greek 
grammar that Matthew 19:9b does include all who are put away and 
therefore is inclusive of the put away fornicator (see my first 
affirmative for my exact reasoning).” This puts Max’s “put away 
fornicator” in the position of committing adultery along with all 
other people who are “put away” when they try to marry again.  
So, he ask the above question trying to get the innocent party to 
also be a “put away” person.  The answer to Max’s question is 
that if the guilty party puts the innocent party away then the 
innocent party is a “put away” person and falls into the category 
of being a “put away” person per Matthew 19:9b. Let me go on to 
say that what causes one to be the person doing the putting away 
verses the one being put away is not necessarily based on who 
initiated the divorce. God gives only one person the right to put 
away their spouse and that is the innocent party. God does not 
give any other party the right to initiate a divorce. This being 
the case, at any time the innocent party chooses to exorcise 
their God given right to put away their spouse they can do it.

Questions for Max:

1) Does God give the guilty party the right to put the innocent 
party away? Please show scriptures.

2) If the guilty party put the innocent party away would it be a 
scriptural divorce?  Please show scriptures.

3) If you say that the guilty party putting the innocent party 
away is not a scriptural divorce would you then also agree that 
there is a distinction, made by God, between the innocent party 
in Matthew 19:9a and the guilty party in Matthew 19:9b?

I do not know why Max started answering my second negative again. 
You will notice that Max totally ignores, and therefore does not 
answer, the last portion of my second affirmative. I see no need 
to answer anything else in his second denial than the above. His 
argument is, as it has always been, that if one person is 
released from the marriage contract then both parties are equally 
released from the marriage contract.  This is an assumption that 
he makes but does not prove. I will leave it to the readers to 
decide if my affirmation has been proven or not.

God Bless You Max,
Doug Cyrus