"I Kissed Dating Goodbye" Author Changes His Mind (as do many others)

essentialsaltes said:

Further update:

Joshua Harris now says “I Am Not a Christian”

My heart is full of gratitude. I wish you could see all the messages people sent me after the announcement of my divorce. They are expressions of love though they are saddened or even strongly disapprove of the decision.⁣⁣
⁣⁣
I am learning that no group has the market cornered on grace. This week I’ve received grace from Christians, atheists, evangelicals, exvangelicals, straight people, LGBTQ people, and everyone in-between. Of course there have also been strong words of rebuke from religious people. While not always pleasant, I know they are seeking to love me. (There have also been spiteful, hateful comments that angered and hurt me.)⁣⁣
⁣⁣
The information that was left out of our announcement is that I have undergone a massive shift in regard to my faith in Jesus. The popular phrase for this is “deconstruction,” the biblical phrase is “falling away.” By all the measurements that I have for defining a Christian, I am not a Christian. Many people tell me that there is a different way to practice faith and I want to remain open to this, but I’m not there now.⁣⁣

Click to expand...

This is literally a dangerous development for not just him and his family, but the church as a whole. He was right to repent of his dating/courting views. He saw the damage they were doing, and he may have acknowledged that couples who followed them are no less likely to divorce. The people who bought into his old views the most who are still in the church need to face that, but his public renunciation of his faith gives them an easy way out of acknowledging the real problems with those views, and how problematic the lack of vetting for his early books was. Rather than acknowledge those issues, they can simply chalk it up to his walking away from the faith instead. Because they don't want to walk away themselves, and they were convinced that courtship was the Godly way to get together, they may hold onto his old, harmful views in spite of their problems. Without him leaving the faith, they don't have that excuse.

RayJeena said:

Interesting!

Often, I think that our respective religions / belief systems are just rungs on a ladder, or steps on a staircase, leading onward to something far greater that we can't even comprehend right now. They have value, of course, if only for a season.

Click to expand...

It is unfortunate given his former position. But I don’t think he’s alone.

I needed to be in a different environment. I can’t deal with the group think. I have thoughts and opinions. I’m not a doll. I don’t like being around people who need agreement and validation to support their truths, beliefs, etc.

I don’t want anyone micromanaging my faith. ;-)

To put in a way He was not a Christian or Jesus follower in the first place.

That's a No True Scotsman.

Just because the fact he used to be a Christian and now isn't is inconvenient for your theological worldview, it does not mean he didn't use to be a Christian.

You don't get to deny the sincerity of his original belief in and love for Jesus just because that belief and love have dissolved.

Your statement is not true. Jesus knows His own and the Bible states it quite clearly that if He is was a true follower ofJesus He would have repented and not left the faith he said he once had. If someone has a true faith in Jesus and denies it later and then if they are a true believer they will come back to a faith later. Jesus said if you deny the Father before men then the Father will deny you.

Celibate Life said:

Jesus knows His own

Click to expand...

You're not Jesus. You don't get to cast doubt on the sincerity of people you have never met.

the Bible states it quite clearly

Click to expand...

The Bible is not "clear" on the topic of "once saved always saved". That's why people have been debating the topic for centuries.

At minimum, Hebrews "clearly" takes the position that people sincere in their faith, "who have once been enlightened", can "fall away".

I not saying once saved always saved. That was not my point. I know I am not Jesus
yet the Bible say that Jesus does know His own. I am trying to say if a person denies the faith and walks away were they a Christian in the first place?

Celibate Life said:

were they a Christian in the first place?

Click to expand...

The answer is yes. They were a Christian. They did believe in Jesus. You don't get to deny the reality and sincerity of their past belief just because it's theologically inconvenient for your worldview.

I would pray that he will find this way that to the foot of the cross.

caerlerion said:

The answer is yes. They were a Christian. They did believe in Jesus. You don't get to deny the reality and sincerity of their past belief just because it's theologically inconvenient for your worldview.

Click to expand...

I agree completely. It is also pretty insulting to former Christians, such as myself, to suggest that they weren't real Christians then because they have different beliefs now.

comana said:

I agree completely. It is also pretty insulting to former Christians, such as myself, to suggest that they weren't real Christians then because they have different beliefs now.

Click to expand...

I agree.

It's also less than flattering to Christians because it suggests that
they cannot learn from new information they didn't have before
and change their minds accordingly. "Christian" shouldn't mean
"unteachable".

Apparently the pastor was a controversial controlling man who made people do things.

DogmaHunter said:

Why?

Click to expand...

Because there is a lot of predatory women out there who just want to take men's money. Sex has consequences, but waiting until marriage is a wise and safe option to ensure your partner is the right match for you.

Dave-W said:

Because God said so.

Click to expand...

Where? The Old Testament never explicitly forbids extramarital sex. The closest thing found in the OT is when a man has premarital sex with a virgin women must marry her, but there is nothing here that would indicate that it was sinful (no punishment is prescribed and nowhere is it mentioned how to make ritual atonement for it)

Rubiks said:

Where? The Old Testament never explicitly forbids extramarital sex. The closest thing found in the OT is when a man has premarital sex with a virgin women must marry her, but there is nothing here that would indicate that it was sinful (no punishment is prescribed and nowhere is it mentioned how to make ritual atonement for it)

Click to expand...

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - New International Version

20 If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the young woman’s virginity can be found, 21 she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.

Click to expand...

How would such a thing occur without extramarital sex? (Yes, I know that not all hymen's break. But, that just makes this injuction worse.)

Rubiks said:

Where? The Old Testament never explicitly forbids extramarital sex. The closest thing found in the OT is when a man has premarital sex with a virgin women must marry her, but there is nothing here that would indicate that it was sinful (no punishment is prescribed and nowhere is it mentioned how to make ritual atonement for it)

Click to expand...

Leviticus 20:10
Exodus 20:14

gaara4158 said:

Leviticus 20:10
Exodus 20:14

Click to expand...

Those verses refer to adultery, not extramarital sex.

Perhaps in my original post I should have used the term premarital sex.

Tinker Grey said:

Bible Gateway passage: Deuteronomy 22:13-21 - New International Version
How would such a thing occur without extramarital sex? (Yes, I know that not all hymen's break. But, that just makes this injuction worse.)

Click to expand...

The issue in the passage you posted is that the marriage was done under false pretenses. Verse 11 (NRSV) says "then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house."

Exodus 22:17 (NRSV) describes a separate dowry for virgins and non-virgins: "But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins."

Rubiks said:

The issue in the passage you posted is that the marriage was done under false pretenses. Verse 11 (NRSV) says "then they shall bring the young woman out to the entrance of her father’s house and the men of her town shall stone her to death, because she committed a disgraceful act in Israel by prostituting herself in her father’s house."

Exodus 22:17 (NRSV) describes a separate dowry for virgins and non-virgins: "But if her father refuses to give her to him, he shall pay an amount equal to the bride-price for virgins."

Click to expand...

The NRSV notwithstanding, that's no proof of prostitution; it can only be evidence (maybe) of previous sexual activity.

The KJV has it "play the harlot." Playing isn't the same as being. The Blue Letter Bible links that phrase to the Hebrew word zanah. Zanah You'll note that the word is most commonly--but not always--used for adultery. Since that cannot be the case here and since the word can be used for fornication, I conclude that the Bible condemns women to death for premarital sex.

Celibate Life said:

To put in a way He was not a Christian or Jesus follower in the first place.

Click to expand...

What comfort does this theology bring to the troubled conscience? None whatsoever. It fosters only a fear and dread that there can be no assurance or confidence in God's grace in the Gospel.

That's pretty good if you are trying to run a religion for the purpose of controlling others and keeping them in line.

But it is a total betrayal of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

-CryptoLutheran