Burgin/Cyrus Debate on Divorce/Remarriage

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

Affirm: Doug Cyrus
Deny: Max Burgin

Doug has used a lot of emotion, and human wisdom, in a vain 
effort to try and affirm this proposition, but as predicted, he 
has failed to cite any Scripture that says so. The only passages 
he used speak of those, "On the other hand" who "commit 
adultery", or those with a spouse, showing that a marriage 
exists, but this debate is about those who have no spouse, where 
no marriage exists - spouseless people - those who have been 
divorced because of adultery. The Scripture he used is therefore 
not relevant to the people of this debate.

I have pointed out that it is impossible for spouseless people to 
"commit adultery", and Doug has agreed - even guilty sinners – 
and that the truth is so simple that God has only ONE reason for 
divorce, and only ONE reason to give His sanction to marriage, 
that is being spouseless - whether or not a person is right with 
God, is absolutely of no consideration.

Doug has cried at length about me repeating myself many times, 
that might lead the discerning reader to wonder why he did not 
deal with it. There can be little doubt that he will continue to 
do so, and will continue to be evasive and talk about the wrong 
people.

There is only one passage that mentions "forbidding to marry" 
1Tim.4:2-3, and it says those who so teach have their "conscience 
seared", it is a mark of a false religion. But that is what Doug 
teaches. It's a pity he, and others, do not accept the Bible 
truth. Why they teach a doctrine of emotion, speculation and 
imagination, is not known. There is certainly NO Scriptural 
backup to support such a doctrine. As has already been said, and 
it ought to cause him to think very seriously: If Doug persists 
with this false doctrine, he is a "false teacher".  Please 
observe the validity of his "truth"[?], since it hangs entirely 
on Scripture, which Doug cannot find.

The Bible nowhere teaches that divorced adulterers may not 
remarry. Indeed it teaches that ANY adult, who is spouseless – 
for any reason whatsoever -  saint or guilty sinner - has God's 
right to get married. Just like he has the right to enjoy any 
other physical blessing that originates with God - and He gives 
ALL such blessings to ALL people, without "respect of persons". 
That, in  no way, is to be confused with salvation - or that God 
accepts them as a person. I am simply denying that the Bible 
teaches that a divorced adulterer - who is therefore rightly 
spouseless - may not remarry - I am saying that he does not 
"commit adultery" since no marriage  now exists, he is as free of 
marriage, and a spouse, as he ever was - just like the "innocent 
party". They are alike, and equal in this regard - in marital 
status - BOTH being "loosed" - the "contract" has ceased to exist 
- BOTH are "put away" from the marriage, or EQUALLY divorced – 
the difference between them is in reference to guilt and 
innocence.

Doug missed the bus completely, the only passages he used speak 
of those who "commit adultery", showing a marriage is involved, 
but this debate is not about THEM, he has the wrong people in 
mind. ALL who are Scripturally divorced are spouseless - EQUALLY 
free of marriage - even if they are "guilty sinners", who are 
rejected by God. THEY are the people of this debate.

Matt.19:9. The whole issue is summed up in this verse, but Doug, 
and many others, try in vain, to divide it up into what is 
falsely called "part a" and "part b". Out of one side of their 
mouth they claim them to be not related to the other, while out 
of the other side they claim them to refer to the parties of the 
same divorce. Hence all  they do is muddy the water, and cause 
much confusion and division.

All that the verse teaches is that unless the divorce - or 
"putting away" from the marriage - is in accordance with the ONE 
reason given in the exception, it is not valid in God's sight and 
ANY future marriage - of EITHER party - involves adultery, which 
is NOT the case if the exception applies. "Guilt" and "innocence" 
is NOT a consideration. The question asked earlier in the context 
concerned itself with DIVORCE not MARRIAGE, and THAT is what 
Jesus was talking about.

The verse is NOT concerned with the REmarriage of ANY person, it 
simply states the ONLY reason for DIVORCE that God will accept. 
AND if God accepts them as divorced, they become spouseless 
again, so that no adultery takes place in a further marriage. But 
it DOES if the divorce is for ANY other reason. That's the ONLY 
distinction we need to keep in mind.

A big play on words is made between "divorced" and "put away" 
while they are synonyms and can be used interchangeably, example: 
the "innocent" party, when "divorced" is every bit as much "put 
away" from the marriage, as the "guilty" party - for the exact 
same reason - the marriage has been adulterated - and the divorce 
causes it to cease to exist - as much for one party as the other. 
She is therefore a "divorced", or "put away" from the marriage 
woman, but no one claims she is guilty of adultery. The exact 
same thing applies to the other party in the same divorce - or 
"putting away".

The matter is simplicity itself, if one will only accept the 
verse as it is written, without trying to divide it up into 
various parts, and then to claim them to be non related. Many try 
to make the exception only apply to one party in a Scriptural 
divorce, rather than to the divorce itself. Thus they are as 
guilty as Doug in believing in a half marriage, when there is no 
such thing. Such a conclusion is utter stupidity - to say nothing 
of it being a perversion of Scripture.

What is needed are passages that teach what makes a MARRIAGE 
Scriptural - one where no adultery takes place - NOT one that 
teaches what makes DIVORCE Scriptural. It will be noted that ALL 
of God's requirements for Him to recognize, and sanction, 
marriage, can be summed up in one word - being SPOUSELESS – 
"alone". One does not need to be a Christian to have His blessing 
to EITHER be Scripturally married, or Scripturally divorced – 
thus made spouseless - and therefore fulfilling ALL of God's 
requirements to be Scripturally married.

ANY person who has been Scripturally divorced, can then be 
Scripturally married - even divorced adulterers. 

If the "guilty" party is "forbidden to marry", after a Scriptural 
divorce - being then spouseless - so is the "innocent" party – 
for exactly the same reason. It's a case of NEITHER or EITHER. 
ANY right granted, by virtue of being spouseless, applies EQUALLY 
to them both. Their spiritual state is not a consideration.

Now to Doug's third affirmative. 

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.

MAX. 
Not in the marriage it doesn't - Scriptural divorce fully negates 
the contract EQUALLY to BOTH parties. 

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.


Not in the marriage contract - otherwise it is a half marriage – 
and we are not interested in, or discussing, "contracts in 
general".

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.


Doug has failed to realize that spouseless people CAN'T "commit 
adultery", not even if they are "guilty sinners" - and this 
includes divorced adulterers. Doug has run away to hide.

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.


What a lot of double talk!!!! Doug has finally agreed that a "put 
away" person is nothing more, less, or different, than a 
"divorced" person - and refers EQUALLY to the BOTH parties.

God gives only one person the right to put away their spouse and 
that is the innocent party.


That proves that "put away" simply means divorced.

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.


Very true, that is the distinction in a divorce that is 
Scriptural.

Questions for Max:

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


NO.

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

NO.

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?

There is NO distinction made in this verse between the "guilty" 
and "innocent", who are divorced -but rather in the REASON for 
the divorce. 

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.  

The reason being that's what divorce IS. WHY DID YOU NOT ANSWER 
IT?

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. 

Fortunately the readers can see that you have failed. The debate 
has closed and you have NEVER quoted ANY Scripture that says 
divorced adulterers may not marry. Yours was an effort in 
futility.

God Bless You Max,
Doug Cyrus

My prayer is that you will yet come to know the truth, and it is 
hoped that this debate will help you, and many others, to that 
end.

Brotherly,
Max Burgin.