Second Denial - Cripps/Burgin Debate
Brother Burgin, at the beginning of our arrangements to debate this important subject, you and I both agreed to open the word of God and study to "show ourselves approved before God."(2 Tim. 2:15). The question that I ask is, "How can you truthfully say you are willing to 'show yourself approved before God', when you spend very little time studying what I had to say." Your second affirmation of the proposition was returned within a twenty eight hour period. It said very little in way of rebuttal to what I had written. In fact, you have once again insisted that I write a syllogism to affirm my position. Let me state, as I did in my first reply, that I am in the denial of your affirmative and not in the affirmative. Furthermore, the propositions that we agreed to sign in no way included a debate of men's irrational syllogisms.
Max, what you must do, which you have not yet done, is prove from the Bible/Scriptures, not by some irrational syllogism, that a person who is guilty of the very act of adultery has the lawful (approved by God) right to marry whomever he/she wishes as many times as he/she deems fit. Your syllogism does not prove anything other than an irrational, emotional, and unscriptural position. The Bible does teach that "it is not good for a man to be alone" but does that prove that a person guilty of adultery, who has willfully and willingly abandoned his responsibilities to God and his family, has the right to be remarried and leave in his wake the destruction of untold wives and children? The answer is "No," because Christ clearly said that what "God has joined together, let NOT MAN PUT ASUNDER." (Matthew 19:6).
Max, how can you say that God has authorized the very act of adultery to dissolve the marriage bond when He says it is "NOT GOOD" to be separated/divorced? How can you say that God "Hates divorce" yet approves of divorce and remarriage when a person guilty of adultery seeks to be loosed or freed from his wife and family? Your teaching advocates the theology that God is the author of "willful, deliberate sin" when it comes to marriage, but hates all other sin and will punish these sins in eternal condemnation, and reward the adulterer with eternal life. Max, you need to examine your teachings and your reasons for unwillingness to adhere to the word of God. Why don't you return to your prior belief that "we speak where God speaks and keep silent where God is silent"?
Now, let us further examine your teaching and see if it is what God's word says. The next graphic asks a simple question of you, Max. Please try and deal with it in your final affirmative.
Max, I believe you may say that this new couple (John and Kate) are unscripturally married. The question I ask is, "What scripture will you use to justify such, since, as you have repeatedly stated, 'it is not good for a man/woman to be alone'." You argue that each man/woman needs to have their own spouse; however, which syllogism, Max, will you draw to condone or condemn John and Kate's new marriage?
In the second graphic please note the question: Which one of the two are scripturally married, John or Kate? Please provide book, chapter and verse for your argument. Also, please let us know
how you would disqualify Kate if she, in your opinion, is unscripturally married to Terry, since, once again, by your own argument "it is not good for a man/woman to be alone." Max, please answer the question and show us your rational, and stop trying to argue that I am not dealing with the subject. I am dealing with the logical conclusion of your teachings. You teach that the one guilty of adultery may remarry with God's approval. At the same time, you teach that the one who commits no sin and simply falls out of love cannot remarry with God's approval. Your teaching makes no sense. The problem you have to deal with is -- "If Kate in your mind is unscripturally married, why would her marriage to Terry not be adultery, and thus free her from her first mate Tim." If you agree that she is freed by her marriage to Terry, we ask, "Who is in an adulterous marriage?" In other words, it matters not whether one commits adultery or not. Your position states that ALL remarried persons are in a right relationship with God. Max, you are at odds with Christ and His teaching in Matthew 19:1-9 and Matthew 5:32. Why don't you explain to us who is guilty of an adulterous marriage and what it would take to make it a right marriage in the sight of God.
Max, I know you have written your affirmatives already, even before and without considering my replies, but the very argument you have made thus far, frees all men/women regardless of what they have done. You must argue that Kate is still bound to Tim and her marriage to Terry is adulterous. However, according to your teaching, her marriage to Tim would mean that she is an adulterer and thus as free as John in couple # 1. The human logic of your argument is flawed from the very outset. Just because God said, "it is not good for man to be alone" does not mean that all men are free to marry. The very context of Matthew 19 shows that some are not free to marry because of the kingdom's sake. The very context of Deut. 24 shows that even under the Law of Moses, there were restrictions on re-marriage, especially if the "one put away" was thinking or attempting to be reconciled to their original spouse. Max, the text that you have repeatedly used, has in no way proved that God approves of the sin of adultery which brought an end to a marriage and gave the sinner a right to remarry.
Max, deal with the proposition that says, "The scriptures teach....." not "my syllogism teaches." Write down each of the verses you have used and show how they reveal that a person who has been married and divorced for adultery is free to re-marry. That is what you should have been proving - not your syllogism. Once again, here is the example that I gave you in my first denial. Please deal with it, and give book chapter and verse to substantiate your doctrine, for if it is not the doctrine of Christ, it must be the doctrine of men.
"Why couldn't someone, according to your teaching deliberately commit adultery for the express purpose of freeing himself to marry someone else?" "Why couldn't he free himself as many as a thousand times during his lifetime, leaving behind 1000 wives and hundreds of children without having been involved in a single unscriptural marriage?" (From my first denial)
I know that you understand "necessary inference" as a means of establishing authority since you used it to dismiss my statement about homosexuality. I ask, "Why don't you apply the same reasoning to the passages that deal with the subject of marriage?" Please carefully examine Matthew 19:9; 5:32; Luke 16:18; and Romans 7:3. All passages which state that those who are guilty of adultery and are put away for that cause, by necessary inference, establish that if they remarry, they continue to commit adultery. Max, surely you can see this.
In closing, I beg and plead with you to carefully and honestly consider the scriptures that I have given. I wish God's blessings on you, as well as me, in the study and application of His Word.