You have not denied the proposition, instead you have talked about other issues, you are thinking about the wrong people, you, therefore, have used passages that do not apply. Get back to the proposition, and deny what it says - if you can.

1. You have not quoted any Scripture that says any single person may not marry. 2. You cannot quote any Scripture that says any person who is divorced, because of the exception, is still "bound", and therefore "commits adultery". Of course you can't do either, but both are necessary to your position!

I appeal to you to pay particular attention to my opening statements, about the worth of this debate, and ask that you get about your real task of denying the proposition.

There is only one thing that needs to be said, and that is that every person who is Scripturally divorced, is single, and therefore it is impossible for THEM to "commit adultery" in a further marriage. Regardless of which party they are.

When a man who is divorced because of his adultery - he becomes as "loosed from a wife", as the "innocent party" is "loosed" from her husband - there is no such thing as a half marriage, and both can, as a result, marry and have "not sinned" 1Cor.7:27-28. Further they are among "every" person entitled to "his own" spouse 1Cor.7:2. Who are they, when no marriage is involved? Unless a man is married, he does not have "his own wife"! Paul is writing to those who had been guilty of adultery 1Cor.6:9-11.

There is Scripture that clearly says those mentioned in the proposition may marry.

This is the very thing that you must deny. Are you willing to do that?

The issue is clear and simple, there is Scripture to say THEY can marry, and you will NEVER find, or produce, any to say otherwise. All you can do is quote Scripture that says a person can not marry without adultery. This debate is NOT ABOUT those who only "commit adultery" when they marry - but IS about those who are already guilty, whether, or not, they marry - being divorced for that reason.

If they are divorced - "put away" from the marriage, because of adultery, God accepts the situation Matt.19:9 - THEY are single - THAT is what gives them the right to marry, whether they are "innocent" or " guilty". If one can marry without adultery, so can the other. Remarriage, of any single person, is not a sin, and neither does it negate any sin. Marriage and salvation are separate issues, and not to be mixed up.

I hope you will do better when you are in the affirmative, and show that, though they are single, they must remain that way - you are unable to deny they can marry, nor can you prove they can't. There is no case for your position, whether you affirm or deny the issue - you are unable to quote Scripture that says so. It is purely a matter of imagination.

Recognise the point, and debate it!

I notice you have not drawn up a syllogism, that is right, that says what you teach. Others have tried, but only drawn up one that teaches error - and you are no different.

You must also show that "put away" means, more, less, or something different, than "divorced" - and that it only deals with ONE person who is "divorced" - "put away" from the marriage. Both are equally single.

1. What passage of Scripture forbids marriage to any person, for any reason, who is single?

2. Is every person who is divorced because of adultery, single?

3. Is it possible for any person, who is single, to sin in marrying?

4. Is it possible for single people to "commit adultery" when they marry?

5. Is it possible for a person to be single and "bound" at the same time?

6. What earthly purpose does binding celibacy achieve? What Scripture do you use?

The Bible clearly teaches that it is "not good for man to be alone" Gen.2:18, and "let every man have his own wife" 1Cor.7:2, this is the very thing you want to deny, and that if people have been "loosed" they have "not sinned" in marrying 1Cor.7:27-28.

In spite of this clarity, you want to forbid it!!

I am very tempted to deal with much of what you said, but will confine myself to the proposition - I trust you will do the same in the future. Anyone in your position needs to evade the issue, to beat around the bush, and talk about other matters, because there is no such thing as Scripture that says any "guilty sinner" who is single, may not marry.

You are in the impossible situation of having to prove that SOME people, in a Scriptural divorce, are not "loosed", while OTHERS are. What can ONE be "bound" to, while the OTHER is "loosed"? I will be very interested to see you try! To be consistent you must EITHER forbid them both to marry, OR, allow them both to marry - since they both are in the identical circumstance - single.

This debate will end and you will not have proved your case.

In a recent E-mail advising on an upgrade of the web site of the Spruce Pine church, you have printed the slogan, "Speaking where God has spoken, and being silent where God is silent". What has God said about the marriage of either party in a Scriptural divorce - apart from the fact that they are single? For you to be true to this claim, you must either quote what He said, OR, be silent yourself. Where does God's word say they must remain single?

Now to deal with what you wrote.

I confirm what I said, that by defining the proposition I have proved the case, and you have not denied it. You have introduced situations that have no bearing on the matter, eg - the marriage[?] of two men, or two women, this debate is not about them - that would be an unscriptural marriage. You completely missed the bus!! They dion't have the right to be married to each other, but they have the right to be Scripturally maried. That does not give Scripture that says a single person can not marry.

You also missed the bus by trying to misrepresent what I said, I at no time said, or even hinted, that there are no reprecusions to the sin of the "guilty party", all I said is that they are single, and that is what gives them the right to marry.

The reaon I ignored "the guilty" and "the not guilty" is because it changes nothing to their single status after the divorce - they are equally single. The reason that what I said makes little sense to you, is because you will not deal with the point.

You ask "Do you really believe that, Max?" YES!! they are single, the fact that one [at least] is a siner, changes nothing. I was referring to their MARITAL status, not their spiritual status - can't you see the difference?

At least you agree that they are single! And the Scriptures teach that it is "not good" to remain this way Gen.2:18 - do you agree with that? Name a single person that God does not give His approval, to marry, to.

I am not interested in "your application of its teaching" [my syllogism], unless you too can quote Scripture that says so. I notice you made no attempt to draw up one that is right.

You state, "The only thing your syllogism proves is the fact that the marriage is terminated and they are single." EXACTLY!! That is the entire point, as opposed to those who are unscripturally divorced - who "commit adultery" in a further marriage. You rightly answered "NO" to the question as to whether they are free from spiritual and civil responsibilities - this has nothing to do with any right to marry - you must show that they can only be faced by the "guilty party" who remains single!!! Does the "innocent party" have the same responsibilities? How come THEY can marry?

Your answer to my second syllogism has introduced a new party, and made a conclusion accordingly, that is not included in my syllogism - just leave it the way I wrote it, and deal with it - if you can. You call it a "strawman syllogism", but you can’t answer it without completely changing it.

You ask, "What Scripture would you use to forbid our two RIGHTLY SINGLE MEN from marrying each other with God"s approval?" Every passage that deals with the nature of marriage - that it is between a man and a woman. That two men may not marry each other, does not change the fact that they can marry - stay with the point.

You ask, "What about the 30 year old male and the 11 year old girl who are rightly single, would you forbid marriage to them?" NO!! Do you presupose that they marry each other? That is entirely another matter, and we are not talking about them.

None of my syllogisms justify any violation of God's word, you did not prove any of them wrong, or show that the "guilty party" is not as single as the "innocent party" - or that that is not the only reason they can marry. You must show that a person, who is single, and violated God's word - the "guilty party", cannot marry.

Now to your questions: 1. "Why couldn't someone, according to your teaching deliberately commit adultery for the purpose of freeing himself to marry someone else?" He is not free because he committed adultery, but rather because that is the reason he was divorced. He is a guilty sinner, condemned to Hell - whether, or not, he gets married. But if he is divorced, he is single - God accepts that fact - every bit as much for a sinner, as for a saint

2. "Why couldn't he free himself as many as a thousand times during his lifetime...without being involved in a single unscriptural marriage?" If that is the reason for the divorce in each case, he is single - and single people can't "commit adultery". Are the thousand "innocent" wives entitled to be married - though they married a "guilty sinner? 3. John and Sue. "Can these persons engage in a weekend of spouse swapping and divorce based on the adultery and then remarry with God's approval?" YES!! But God does not approve of the people! You are confused with God's approval of a situation, while not approving of those involved - eg Hell.

YES, I would teach this to my wife and children, but I would also teach them that no one in this sin will enter heaven. You ask, "But ,Max, how can you separate wilful deliberate sin from your teaching on the "guilty party remarriage" issue?" I don't try!! Sin is sin, whether it is delibrate, or not - and will reap the same results.

You conclude by saying two false things: 1. "Thus the one who has committed adultery and re-marries another continues to live in adultery." Therefore he is married, Matt.19:9b does not apply - no mariage is involved. What passage says so? 2. "It is now up to you to prove by the Scriptures that the guilty party has God's approval to continue to commit adultery." You missed the bus again!!

When a person is Scripturally divorced - no marriage is involved. That is not so in an unscriptural divorce. No one is justifying him living in adultery, but that is very different from saying he must remain single.

In short, you have talked about people who are not involved in the proposition - get back to the point and debate that the "guilty party" in a Scriptural divorce may not marry. Don't talk about anyone else.

Deny what the prorosition says.