"The Bible teaches that all, (both the guilty and the not guilty), persons Scripturally Divorced have God's right to marry."

Max Burgin will affirm

John Cripps will deny

Third affirmative.

You have one last chance to deny the proposition, which you can't do. You also can't introduce any new material in the last speech - not that there is any! You have conceded the debate.

All single people can marry. And every person divorced because of adultery, is single - as single as it's possible to be - he is as free of marriage as he has ever been - "loosed from a wife" 1Cor.7:27-28. And "forbidding to marry" 1Tim.4:3 is the mark of false teaching.

The only passages that you can use are those that either enforce marriage, or state that a person "commits adultery" by marrying again - which simply do not apply.

I am eager to be in the denial, so that I can get my teeth into what you teach, to show that it is error. It is one thing to support the truth, and it is entirely another to expose error. I intend to do both. A person does not "commit adultery" where no marriage exists.

You made no attempt to answer my questions which accompanied my first affirmative - will you do so now?

The conclusion of the book is as follows: "The plain and simple truth is, every adult who is single may marry - regardless of being guilty of any sin - that right is granted, by God, purely on the basis of being single. And every person who is Scripturally divorced - "put away", is single, it makes no difference whether he is guilty or innocent, they are both equally "put away" from the marriage - divorced.

All who espouse the doctrine, without exception, accept error, and are unable to quote any Scripture to support it.

It goes without saying that if any can show this conclusion to be wrong, both the truth and I will be done a great favour."

Will you be the first who is able to do so? Can you stay with the point?

You now have that chance, being in the affirmative.

You chided me for answering quickly, I just want to say this: I am in the affirmative my duty is not to deny what you say, but to affirm the truth. I will be very happy when in the denial, to fully rebut what you say.

I am not a scrap interested in your graphics, as they do not deal with the person divorced - "put away", because of his adultery - you must show that he is not single - and on that basis has the right to marry - in his case there is no such thing as an "adulterous marriage", either it is adultery [in which case he is still married], or it is a marriage - since he was single - being divorced, or "put away" because of his adultery.

I at no time said that "ALL people can marry" , what I said was ALL people, who are single - "alone" can marry. Stay with the point!

The reason that I "spent very little time" considering what you wrote is two-fold: 1.What you say is not the standard, or the basis of decision. 2. Much of what you said was not concerning those of the proposition - as is the case here!

I made the appeal to you to think about the right people, but in spite of this, you have debated with the wrong people in mind - we are not talking about THOSE whose divorce God DOES NOT accept, but those who are divorced according to the exception Jesus gave - it's as simple as that! You have introduced the wrong people, and gone on at length about them - as if that solves anything! Get bach to the point, and deal with the right people.

In all your talk about "emotionialism", you are the one who wants to decide for entirely the wrong reasion - either they are single, or still married - either that is the reason they can mary, or there is another!

You have said my syllogism is "irrational", but you have not shown that it violates logic, or Scripture. How can you conclude that it is "irrational"? Unless you are able to draw up one that is right!! When it suits you, you state that the reason you have not done so, is because you are in the denial, while at the same time you are willing to chide me for not being in the denial, when I am in the affirmative - please allow me the same privilege you demand for yourself! I am really looking forward to being in the denial, at which time I will deal more fully with the error of your position. Let me just say, for now, you have waffled on at length with the wrong people in mind - not with people who are no

longer married. EXAMPLE: you quoted Matt.19:9 and 5:32, Luke 16:18, Rom.7:3 and said, "All passages which state that those guilty of adultery and put away for that cause, by necessary inference, establish that if they remarry, they continue to commit adultery." What utter nonsense!! The only thing that is infered is that they are single - not married, "alone" - it makes no difference which party they are - God accepts that they are single, and on that basis accepts any future marriage - without necessarily accepting the fact that the person has any relationship with Him.

If you are genuinely interested in the truth, as you claim, you will always be ready to draw up a syllogism that so teaches.

You went to a lot of trouble quoting Matt.19:6 "let not man put assunder:" This completely ignores the exception Jesus gave in verse 19 - when it is followed the marriage is "put assunder - they are again single. That is exactly the point - which you have ignored! If they are divorced - "put away", "put assunder", for any other reason, God does not accept it - it is of no use talking about THEM, as you have done! At great length! The proposition is NOT about THEM!!

I hope that you will finally stay with the point.

Max Burgin

330 Dorset Road

Croydon, Victoria, 3136 Australia.

All Max Burgin's Documents Have Only Been Formatted for the Internet - Nothing else has been Changed - JC