Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

McDonald's Final Rebuttal MDR

Expand Messages
  • Jerry McDonald
    McDonald’s Third Rebuttal   Max seems to think that I have somehow missed the bus on this discussion, but I have done nothing of the sort.  I have
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 1 1:09 PM
      McDonald’s Third Rebuttal
       
      Max seems to think that I have somehow missed the bus on this discussion, but I have done nothing of the sort.  I have introduced no red herrings and my introduction of homosexuality was a legitimate part of this debate given the question.  He seems to think that I am foolish for thinking that single people can commit adultery, but even he agrees to this idea (even though he contradicts himself on the matter), notice:
       
      “M.B. THE ISSUE CONCERNS THE OVERT ACT OF ADULTERY, NOW JERRY GOES ON TO TALK OF MENTAL ADULTERY, WHICH DOES NOT APPLY TO THE ISSUE. HOWEVER SINCE HE BROUGHT IT UP, IT ALSO IS SIN THAT NEEDS TO BE AVOIDED, AND IS MORE COMMON THAN OVERT ADULTERY.
       
      Has he never read Mt. 5:28“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Mat 5:28). The word “adultery” in this verse is the word μοιχευω which means:
       
      “To commit adultery. Used in the act. voice (Mat_5:27-28; Mat_19:18;
      Mar_10:19; Luk_16:18; Luk_18:20; Rom_2:22; Rom_13:9; Jam_2:11;
       
      Rev_2:22). In the mid. / pass. voice as a part. moicheuoménee (Joh_8:4),
      "being considered an adulteress" (a.t.).
      Deriv.: moicheía (G3430), adultery.
      Syn.: moicháoo (G3429), to commit adultery; porneúoo (G4203), to
      commit sexual infidelity of any kind, whether involving a married person or not; ekporneúoo (G1608), to give oneself up to fornication, implying
      excessive sexual indulgence” (Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).  M.B. GOING TO THE GREEK - WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE - CHANGES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - IN THIS CASE” (http://www.challenge2.org/bur2reb.pdf).
       
      Now the question that never seems to have sunk into Max is this “If single people can commit the mental act of adultery (as per Mt. 5:28 which he says they can because he says the Greek is not in dispute and he argues that the mental act is what is under consideration and not the overt act) then does it change to something other than adultery if they go ahead and commit the overt act?  You see, the whole point of keeping pure hearts is to keep from committing the overt act.  If it is adultery in the heart, then if it leads to the overt act, it is still adultery, not something else.  So if I have missed the bus on this, then Max has as well.  The difference is that Max contradicts himself because he doesn’t know which side of the issue he wants to stand on. 
       
      He says that I have said that “people who are guilty of fornication” (i.e., adultery) are forbidden to marry.  Then he says “I doubt even Jerry believes that!”  Well, let’s see, that depends on what he is talking about.  If he is saying that all people who have been put away by their spouse because they have committed fornication, then “Yes, I say that they are forbidden to marry.”  However, just because a person has committed fornication does not mean that he/she can never marry.  Max is quite at ease at trying to confuse terms such as the guilty party with sinners so as to make the guilty party in a divorce on par with those who have never obeyed the gospel.  He doesn’t want a clearly defined discussion because he knows that such will destroy his position.
       
      My position has been consistent from beginning to end.  Max has not been able to find one single inconsistency in it let alone a contradiction.  Yet I produced two contradictions in his position in my second rebuttal and he didn’t even try to deny them.  That says volumes about his position!  But he is right about one thing:  God’s truth is clear and simple, but that is something that we have not seen from Max Burgin.
       
      The Bible teaches that the guilty party, following a Scriptural divorce, is rightly spouseless as any other, with a God given right to marry.
       
      (E)very person Scripturally divorced is as free of marriage as it's possible to be, and is in the same state as never married - Scriptural divorce negates the marriage.
       
      Now the first statement is the proposition that he and I agreed that he would affirm when he got into the affirmative position in the debate.  He started out affirming that proposition, but in his second affirmative he says “I am now affirming that…” in other words, “I was affirming The Bible teaches that the guilty party, following a Scriptural divorce, is rightly spouseless as any other, with a God given right to marry, but I am now affirming that every person Scripturally divorced is as free of marriage as it’s possible to be, and is in the same state as never before – Scriptural divorce negates the marriage.”  This is what I was affirming, but this is what I am now affirming!  And Max has the unmitigated gall to say that I can’t read!
       
      He talks about my long delay.  Hmph…He had my first rebuttal on May 15th and it was July 10th before I got his 2nd affirmative.  He received my 2nd rebuttal on September 1st.   Unless it takes him until after October 15th to get his summary in we will finish this debate long before the due date.  The dates on the debate were from March 15th to October 15th.  I don’t know what he is so upset about, most of my debates don’t meet the deadline; they have to go over.  This one should finish on time, that should make him happy.  Now to answer his final affirmative:
       
      “McDonald

        I am not the one who was dishonorable.  I have been willing to answer any and everything that Max has submitted, but Max has repeatedly refused to deal with my material.  He simply blew off my first rebuttal as though I hadn’t even written it.  I asked him 10 questions that he refused to even mention, so I’ll ask them again:  M.B. THE REASON THEY WERE IGNORED IS THAT THEY ARE IRRELEVANT TO THE ISSUE. BUT FOR SOME REASON JERRY THINKS THEY ARE IMOPORTANT, SO HERE GOES.



          1.. If Bob marries Ann and meets Becky and commits adultery with Becky does Mt. 19:9 give Bob the right to marry Becky if Ann puts Bob away on the grounds that he committed fornication?  M.B. YES.
          2.. If June is married to Hank, and Hank is beating June mercilessly, but Hank has not cheated on June, if June goes out and commits fornication with Rick and Hank puts her away, then does June have a right to divorce Hank if she stays single? M.B. A GARBLED QUESTION!!!! WHO DIVORCED WHO, AND FOR WHAT REASON?
       
      McDonald:  June has been beaten by Hank and June goes out and commits fornication with Rick and Hank puts her away, does she have a right to divorce Hank (divorce is a two way street) if she stays single?

          3.. If Johnny and Susan divorce for incompatibility are they still married in God’s eyes? M.B. YES, EVEN IF SEPARATED.
       
      McDonald:  Then according to 1 Corinthians 7:1-4 they must be reunited because if they are married, then they are to render due benevolence to the other.

          4.. If Johnny and Susan are still married in God do eyes and Susan sleeps with Andy, May Johnny then remarry? M.B. NO, BUT HE MAY DIVORCE.THEN HE MAY REMARRY.
       
      McDonald:  Here is the problem, they are already divorced in the eyes of the law of the land.  How can they get divorced again?  The law won’t allow a divorce for a divorced couple.  If they are still married, they have to be re-married (according to the law), but how can they be remarried if they are already married?  What preacher is going to remarry a couplethat is already married?  In Austraila it may be such a simple thing as going down to the registers office, but in Americait isn’t quite that simple.

          5.. Did the Pharisees understand that the marriage bond could be broken for reasons other than fornication?  M.B. WHAT THE PHARISEES UNDERSTOOD IS NOT RELEVANT TO THE ISSUE.
       
      McDonald:  What the Pharisees understood is totally relevant to the issue since Mt. 19:9 is in the context of what the Pharisees understood.  You cannot take Mt. 19:9 out of its context.  This is why you are making false doctrines out of it, because you are taking it out of its context.

          6.. When Jesus said “Let not man put asunder” did he mean that man was not to put the marriage bond asunder?  M.B. EXACTLY, EXCEPT  FOR FORNICATION.
       
      McDonald:  Now watch what he says in the next question.  I don’t usually ask questions like this for no reason.  When I ask “almost” identical questions like this, there is usually a trap, and Max fell into it.

          7.. When Jesus said “Let not man put asunder” did he mean that man could not put the marriage bond asunder?  M.B. EXACTLY, EXCEPT FOR FORNICATION.
       
      McDonald:  In question 6 I asked “When Jesus said ‘Let not man put asunder’ did he mean that man was not to put the marriage bond asunder?”  Max’s answer was “Exactly, Except for fornication.  Then In question 7, I asked “When Jesus said ‘Let not man put asunder’ did he mean that man could not put the marriage bond asunder?”  Max’s answer:  “Exactly, Except for Fornication.”  Now here is the problem!  One question shows that cannot put the marriage bond asunder while the other shows that can but cannot put the marriage bond asunder.  And so Max is trying to have it both ways.  He is arguing that man can and cannot put the marriage bond asunder except it be for fornication which puts him in self-contradiction.  If his position is in self-contradiction his position is false.  The late Thomas Warren wrote:
       
      “The law of contradiction for propositions is:  no proposition can be both true and false, in the same respects.  It is false to say that John is the son of Jim and to say that John is not to the son of Jim, in the same respects.  If one affirms both the proposition, ‘All apples are red,’ and the proposition, ‘Some apples are red,he has affirmed a logical contradiction.  Every logical contradiction is FALSE (EMPHASIS ADDED JDM) (Logic and the Bible, p. 23).
      Thus we see that Max’s position is a logical contradiction because he says that man can put the asunder except it be for fornication, but at the same time he affirms that man cannot put the marriage bond asunder except it be for fornication.  He has affirmed a logical contradiction here, thus his position is false.

          8.. Wouldn’t you say that the sin, according to Mt. 19:9, is in the act of the divorce and has nothing to do with the remarriage? M.B. NO. THE SIN IS NEITHER IN THE DIVORCE, NOR THE REMARRIAGE, BUT IN ADULTERY, WHICH VALIDATES THE DIVORCE.
       
      McDonald:  So if the sin is not in the divorce or the remarriage, but in the adultery, then Jesus’ words mean nothing when he said “and he that marrieth her which is put away, committeth adultery.”

          9.. If June is married to Hank, and Hank is beating June mercilessly, but Hank has not cheated on June, if June divorces Hank on the grounds of physical cruelty does she have a right to divorce if she stays single?  M.B. NO, BUT THOUGH SHE SEPARATES, THEY ARE STILL MARRIED.
       
       

          10.. In the case of Hank and June, wouldn’t you say that it is best for June to go out and commit fornication so that she can get out of her marriage; that way she can scripturally be divorced from her abusive husband? M.B. IF SHE COUNTS  LOSING HER SOUL WORTH IT!!!!


      McDonald:  Well, can’t she simply go forward and repent, or if she isn’t a Christian go and become a Christian?  Wouldn’t Max say that she could then be scripturally divorced and even free to remarry someone else?  If not, why not?

        He asked me 10 questions in his first affirmative, and I answered them, and he refused to deal with my answers, so I’ll present them again:



        QUESTIONS



        1.      Is marriage always right for spouseless people of marriageable age? No. M.B. PASSAGE THAT SO TEACHES PLEASE.
      McDonald:  1 Cor. Chapter 7.

        2.      Are both parties after a Scriptural divorce rightly spouseless people? Yes.  M.B. PASSAGE THAT SO TEACHES PLEASE.
      McDonald:    Mt. 19:9
        3.      is spouseless ness the basis of decision with regard to a further marriage? No. M.B. THEN NAME SOMETHING ELSE!
      McDonald:  Innocence in the divorce.
        4.      Can spouseless “guilty sinners” marry with God’s sanction?  That depends on your definition of “guilty sinners.”  If by “guilty sinners” you mean the “guilty party” in a divorce who has been put away by his/her spouse because he/she committed fornication then the answer is NO. M.B. GIVE THE PASSAGE THAT SAYS SO PLEASE.
      McDonald:  Mt. 19:9
        5.      Does Scriptural divorce result in a half marriage, where only the “guilty” can go on to commit adultery, and then only if he remarries a spouseless person? But the “innocent” can’t?  NO, scriptural divorce does not result in half a marriage, but the guilty party still has no authority to remarry.  M.B. WHAT AUTHORITY, OTHER THAN BEING SOPOUSELESS, DOES HE NEED? DOES HE HAVE GOD'S AUTHORITY TO BECOME SPOUSELESS, THUS AVOIDING ADULTERY?
      McDonald:  He does not have God’s authority to remarry.  God expects people to honor their wedding vows the first time around.  If they can’t do that, then he doesn’t give them a second chance.


        6.      If after a Scriptural divorce adultery can take place, with spouseless people, which marriage is adulterated? The “guilty party.” M.B. THAT SAYS NOTHING!
      McDonald:  I don’t know how much clearer I can be.
        7.      Can fornication after Scriptural divorce be adultery? Yes.  M.B. STATE HOW!
      McDonald:  If the guilty party is the subject, then the guilty party commits fornication if he/she remarries or has sex.

        8.      Do you agree where no marriage is involved, there is no adultery?  No.  M.B. SO YOU DON'T AGREE THAT ADULTERY IS FORNICATION INVOLVING ONLY A MARRIED PERSON ?!
      McDonald:  Unmarried people can commit adultery (Mt. 5:28).  How many ways do you want me to say this.  Max, I spent 11 years in law enforcement doing this type of interrogation.  You won’t trap me doing this.  My answer is the same.  Unmarried people can commit adultery.  Your effort is wasted.

        9.      Do you accept that adultery necessarily infers a marriage?  No.    M.B. APART FROM MENTAL ADULTERY - WHICH IS NOT THE ISSUE - GIVE THE PASSAGE.
      McDonald:  Mt. 5:28  Adultery is adultery whether it is mental or physical.  Adultery starts in the mind and then is committed by the body.

        10.  Do you accept there can be fornication without adultery, but no adultery without fornication?  Yes, Example:  Homosexuality.  M.B. FOR CRYING OUT LOUD, STAY WITH THE ISSUE, AND DON'T BE EVASIVE WITH RED HERRINGS!
      McDonald:  It is not a red herring.  You asked if there can be fornication without adultery and I said yes.  Homosexuality.  You can have beastiality.  You are wanting me to say sex between a man and a woman, no.  It can’t happen.  Your weak efforts to trip me up have failed.  My position is solid, while yours is self-contradictory.  My position is true while yours is false.


        Maybe he will take the time to deal with them this time.  If he is honorable he will at least attempt to do that. M.B. I DID, BUT IT WAS A WASTE OF TIME!



        Burgin

        You have stated, "single people can commit adultery", and when asked for Scripture that so teaches, you flew to Matthew 5:28 - two things wrong: 1. You assume they are single, even though the word "adultery" is used - which necessitates a marriage is involved - it's impossible for spouseless people to "commit adultery". 2. Mental adultery is not considered in the issue. What is more, since the word "adultery" is used, they are therefore subject to the exception for divorce Jesus gave. Will you please explain how and why they can be divorced from a spouse that never existed???? If they can "commit adultery", they have a spouse, or are involved with the spouse of an other. You think you know the situation, please explain it!!!!



        McDonald

        1. If Mt. 5:28necessitates a marriage then it does not apply to single people, and a single man may look at a single woman lust in his heart without sin.  Cecil Hook took this position a number of years ago after taking Max’s position that Mt. 5:28 applied only to married people, and actually said that it was no more wrong for a single man to lust after a single woman than it was to desire a piece of apple pie.  Will Max take the same position?  M.B. AND I WONT BE FORCED INTO THE MOULD OF ANOTHER, NEITHER WILL I BE FORCED INTO SAYING IT DOES NO INCLUDE SINGLE PEOPLE.

      McDonald You are already in the mold, Max.  You put yourself into that mold when you took this position.  I am not forcing you into anything.  You are the one who has placed yourself into that mold.

        No, Mt. 5:28 applies to any man lusting after any woman.  Max would be hard pressed to prove that this passage applies only to the married. M.B. I NOWHERE TRIED THAT TACK, WHAT I SAID WAS, "ADULTERY NECESSARILY INFERS MARRRIAGE", WHETHER IT BE MENTAL, OR OVERT.


      McDonald:  Another self-contradiction.  He earlier admitted that Mt. 5:28has reference to adultery referencing the unmarried.  Notice:
       
      “Has he never read Mt. 5:28“But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart” (Mat 5:28). The word “adultery” in this verse is the word μοιχευω which means:
       
      “To commit adultery. Used in the act. voice (Mat_5:27-28; Mat_19:18;
      Mar_10:19; Luk_16:18; Luk_18:20; Rom_2:22; Rom_13:9; Jam_2:11;
       
      Rev_2:22). In the mid. / pass. voice as a part. moicheuoménee (Joh_8:4),
      "being considered an adulteress" (a.t.).
      Deriv.: moicheía (G3430), adultery.
      Syn.: moicháoo (G3429), to commit adultery; porneúoo (G4203), to
      commit sexual infidelity of any kind, whether involving a married person or not; ekporneúoo (G1608), to give oneself up to fornication, implying
      excessive sexual indulgence” (Word Study Dictionary, e-Sword).  M.B. GOING TO THE GREEK - WHICH IS NOT IN DISPUTE - CHANGES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING - IN THIS CASE” (http://www.challenge2.org/bur2reb.pdf).”
       
      The words in red belong to Max, not me.  So Max is agreeing that the word adultery means to commit sexual infidelity of any kind “whether involving a married person or not” when it comes to Mt. 5:28.  But here he says that this is mental adultery.  However, as I have pointed out time and again that all adultery starts out as mental adultery.  Now he states:  “M.B. Y OU HAVE AGREED, “I am not saying that the act is committed by thinking about it,” THEN GO ON TO SAY SINGLE PEOPLE HAVING “illicit sexual intercourse” IS ADULTERY, HOW AND GIVE THE PASSAGE THAT SAYS SO!”  So what this tells us is that once again he has contradicted himself.  In one place he recognizes that Mt. 5:28does allow for single people to commit adultery in their hearts while in this place he does not allow for Mt. 5:28to commit adultery in their hearts.  His position is full of self-contradiction.  Just one self-contradiction makes his entire position false,
      but here we find more than one.

        2.It doesn’t make any difference if it is mental adultery or not.  It being mental adultery does not keep it from being between a man and a woman.  I am not saying that the act is committed by thinking about it, but the fact remains, adultery is still between a man and a woman whether a marriage is involved or not.  M.B. Y OU HAVE AGREED, “I am not saying that the act is committed by thinking about it,” THEN GO ON TO SAY SINGLE PEOPLE HAVING “illicit sexual intercourse” IS ADULTERY, HOW AND GIVE THE PASSAGE THAT SAYS SO!


      McDonald:  Mt. 5:28.  See above.

        Adultery is committed when a single man and a single woman have illicit sexual intercourse.  3. All adultery is fornication, but not all fornication is adultery because some fornication is homosexuality, etc. M.B. A DESPERATE RED HERRING, THAT HAS NO BEARING ON THE ISSUE.


      McDonald:  Again, it is not a red herring.  See above.

          Fornication is the General name for unlawful sexual activity, and adultery is the specific name for unlawful sexual activity between a man and a woman whether a marriage is involved or not. M.B. A WORTHLESS OPINION THAT IS COMPLETLY WITHOUGT SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT!


      McDonald:  It is not an opinion.  See above.



        Burgin

        I am now affirming that every person Scripturally divorced is as free of marriage as it’s possible to be, and is in the same state as never married – Scriptural divorce negates the marriage. Both are equally no longer bound, they become “loosed”. And then if they remarry, do so “without sin” 1Corinthians 7:27-28. Now answer the question.



        Now you have the task to show me wrong – you can’t do it.



        God does not accept divorce “except it be for fornication” – which is adultery – it’s just that simple.



        McDonald

        You have changed what you are now affirming, but you can’t just change your proposition in the middle of the debate.  M.B. I HAVE MADE NO CHANGE WHATSOEVER TO WHAT I AM AFFIRMING – JUST GIVEN MORE DETAIL.
       
      McDonald:  There is more than just detail.  You have changed your entire proposition.  Anyone who can read can tell that what you are now wanting to affirm is not what you agreed to affirm when this debate started.


          You are still obligated to defend the proposition that we agreed upon when we negotiated this debate.  M.B. HAVE DONE THAT VERY WELL, NOW TRY TO DENY IT – WITHOUT EVASION, OR RED HERRINGS.

        What you are now attempting to affirm will not be allowed because it does not specify the guilty party which your original proposition does specify that you prove does have a right to remarry.  M.B. I DON’T KNOW HOW IT CAN BE SAID CLEARER, EVERY SPOUSELESS PERSON, WHO IS CAPABLE AND DESIRES MARRIAGE – GUILTY SINNER OR OTHERWISE – HAS GOD’S BLESSING TO IT, AND SCRIPTURAL DIVORCE HAS NO OTHER  RESULT  THAN MAKING BOTH  PARTIES RIGHTLY, AND EQUALLY SPOUSELESS IN GOD’S EYES.


      McDonald:  Not every person has a right to marry.  Those who have committed adultery against their spouse do not have a right to marry again.  Mt. 19:9

        No, you have no right to affirm this position now.  You have to affirm that the guilty party has the right to remarry. M.B. CAN’T YOU READ SIMPLE WORDS THAT ADDRESS THE PROPOSITION????!!!!


       
      McDonald:  I can read just fine.  The two propositions don’t say anything akin to each other.  You’re stating that they do won’t make them say the same thing.

        You can’t just change terminology around to suit yourself and go on your merry way.  I don’t have the task of proving your new position wrong at all, because I never agreed to deny that position.  M.B. YOU WERE NEVER EXPECTED TO,  TRY DENYING THE PROPOSITION AS IT STANDS!!


       
      McDonald:  I have already denied your proposition as it stands.  You have been caught in self-contradiction:  twice.  That places it as false doctrine.

          That position is too vague and too generalized.  It could be understood to be speaking of the innocent party in the divorce, leaving the guilty party out.  No, Max, you have to affirm the proposition that you and I agreed upon when we negotiated this debate late last year.  Now you were the one who pushed for this debate, and you were the one who wanted that proposition, so now you are stuck with it. M.B. AND HAPPY WITH IT.


      McDonald:  Well, I am glad that you are happy with it, so am I.

        You cannot come back now and change propositions in the middle of the debate, I won’t allow that. M.B. I HAVE’NT EVEN TRIED!


       
      McDonald:  Yes, you have, but I am not going to allow it to stand.
       
      This is my final statement in this debate.  Max will have a short summary of the proposition and then the debate will be forever closed.  You, the reader, are the one to decide who has the truth on this matter.  I urge you to closely read the arguments again.  Your soul salvation is at stake.  Whatever position you decide to take, I want you to know that I have done the best I know how to do to present you with the truth as I know it.  So I take the burden off of my shoulders and place it on yours (as the late Guy N. Woods used to say).
       
      In Christ Jesus
      Jerry McDonald

      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.