Contemporary Challenges to Christian Soteriology - Keith Mathison

Found here. Our comments in bold.

--------------------

The author makes a superficial attempt to explain his topic, but requires his readers to possess an understanding of terminology not commonly known. Thus it is a basic explanation which requires advanced knowledge. We simply don't understand what profit there is to require the reader to know so much to understand an explanation about elementary things, but this seems to be the author's preferred approach.

Most obvious, the title. The author presumes his audience knows what soteriology is, and everything he writes is premised on this. For the benefit of the reader, we will define the word. Soteriology is the study of the various doctrines relating to salvation. 

The author approaches this from the Calvinist viewpoint. Calvinism is the collection of doctrines taught by John Calvin 500 years ago, most particularly the idea that God has already chosen everyone who will be saved (predestination).

This knowledge will help the reader to some degree, but as we will note, the author fails to explain a lot of the terminology he uses, as well as the concepts he references. We will insert a double question mark whenever we come across one these instances. There will be a lot of them.

In addition, the author doesn't quote a word of Scripture. Not one. How does someone teach the Bible without quoting it?

We must deem this Bad Bible teaching.

----------------------

Since Satan Knows the Ultimate Outcome of God’s Plan, Why Does He Continue Opposing God? - Randy Alcorn

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------------

This is an incredibly well-documented presentation, filled with Scripture and light on personal commentary. Truly a Bible teacher after our own heart.

The author makes a series of observations and backs each with one or more pertinent Scriptures. We followed along with pleasure as the author presented this explanation, murmuring amens under our breath.

Until the end. The very last paragraph. It starkly contrasts with the bulk of the article. Let's quote:

If Satan was free to decide not to do what the Bible reveals he will do, then Satan would be more powerful than God. God would be proven not to be Sovereign. Additionally, God tells us He is Truth (“I am the way, the truth, and the life,” John 14:6) and His Word is Truth (John 17:17); if, in fact, Satan could decide that he will not act as prophesied in Revelation, then the Word would be false. If the Word is false, and it is the source that reveals both God and Satan, then nothing could be believed about either.

This is the author's only undocumented assertion in the entire article. He tells us that Satan does exactly what God purposed him to do, he has no choice. This idea has profound ramifications regarding the Problem Of Evil and the issue of free-will versus Calvinistic predestination. But the author doesn't discuss this. 

And in fact the rest of his presentation is irrelevant, because all that matters is that Satan is doing only what God has decreed. But he also writes, 

Satan’s entire delusion is that he is “like God.” This is the reason he fell and introduced sin into the creation. 

This would mean that God's purpose for creating Satan was so that he would rebel and bring about sin. Therefore, God created sin. It's inescapable. God dictated everything, including Satan's fall, therefore God is the cause of all the misery and perversion in the world.

If the author has an explanation for this, we would love to see it.

---------------------------------

Why We Urgently Need a Progressive Policy Infrastructure - By Rob Kall

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

This author seems to believe that the 80-plus years of Leftist political domination didn't happen, that the wrecking ball of leftist policies is non-existent, and that the installation of Leftist politics at every level of government isn't actually there. The leftist control of the news media, Hollywood, public education, and corporations is near total, but not according to the author.

He thinks that the Left lacks the infrastructure to compete with the Right.

Astonishing.

The unstated truth is, the Left thought it had a lock on the power structure, but the walls of the Leftist citadel have been cracking. Conservative ideas have been seeping in, and there became more and more avenues to obtain a right-leaning perspective. Regular America has always been in varying degrees politically Right, despite American institutions tracking Leftward. 

Within the last 40 or so years prominent conservative voices began arising, like Rush Limbaugh, who articulated the things mainstream America knew in their bones to be true but never heard from the media voices. When leftist agitprop is all people see and hear, the conservative message is like a breath of fresh air.

The Leftist citadel had never been challenged before, so they didn't know what to do. But being authoritarians, dissent cannot be permitted. So rather than develop rhetorical skills or logical arguments, they simply turned to personal attacks, deplatforming, and censorship, strategies which continue to be utilized with impunity by the Left even today.

So the author wants a leftist infrastructure built to compete with the Right. He appears to have forgotten that the Left has made many abortive attempts to compete with the conservative media. Air America, Thom Hartmann, Mike Malloy, Randi Rhoads, Al Franken... None of them has gained any traction in terms of popular appeal. 

No one wants to listen to the Leftist message. 

True to form, Leftists attribute their failures to packaging, presentation, or any other reason besides the message itself. They don't understand (or refuse to admit) that their message, unless camouflaged in euphemisms and feel-good language, is just not popular. People don't like the Leftist worldview. Period.

We hope the author gets his wish, and we will witness the inevitable demise of this latest leftist enterprise, accompanied with the excuse-making as to why it failed that will inevitably follow.

It should be entertaining.

----------------------------

Soul ties? - Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

Ms. Lesley is asked a question about soul ties and completely drops the ball in her answer. And she doesn't quote a single Bible verse. 

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

----------------------------

Gallatin County Health Department - Happy pride month

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------------

This is a very odd Faceborg post from our county health department. It's really nothing more than pandering, a simpering show of support, with tobacco usage being used as the excuse.

Apparently gays are at higher risk because they smoke more. Do they smoke more? Well, yes. But Gallatin County wants to place blame, and the blame is 100% on external factors. Discrimination, stress, targeted advertising. Why? We don't know, except for the County's clear desire to virtue signal.

As much as they want to blame society and intolerant straights, discrimination is simply a questionable reason for higher tobacco use:

...if tobacco use is conceptualized as a coping behavior resulting from psychological distress associated with social rejection and stigmatization—as is the case in the Minority Stress Model26—then what accounts for the greater disparities in use among sexual minority women compared to sexual minority men?

Indeed, Since lesbians have a higher rate of tobacco use, are they subject to more discrimination than gay men? Of course not, blaming discrimination is nonsense. 

14% of people age 18 and above use tobacco products in Gallatin County. There are 126,000 people in the county, which equals 18,000 tobacco users. We will generously grant that 5% of Gallatin County residents are gay, which is 882 people. We will round that off to 1000 because we are so charitable. 

That is 0.8% of the population. This is what we mean by pandering. 

And because of this supposed stress, Gallatin County believes it's harder for gays to quit than it is for straights. They face "unique challenges." However, there is no evidence that quitting very addictive tobacco products is harder for one category of people than it is for another. Again, Gallatin County is simply trying to ingratiate themselves.

How are gays not offended by this?

-------------------------

Understanding the Old Testament sacrifices - By Simon van Bruchem

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-----------------------

The author has written about this before, and commits the same errors:

• Jesus did not "pay for the depth of our sins," He paid for us:

  1Co. 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

• Jesus is not "the substitute for all who believe." Jesus didn't substitute for us, His blood washed our sins away. His sacrificial death was propitiation, that is, the turning away or satisfaction of wrath: 

  Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

  There was no need for Jesus to be punished in substitution for us if His blood is sufficient.

Lastly, we note that there is not a single Bible verse and only one tangential Bible reference in this article. How can a supposed Bible teacher explain the Bible without using it?

We must deem this Bad Bible Teaching.

-----------------------

Trump isn't the fascist here - by Paul Kienitz

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------

This author warns us of all the fascists. He identifies fascists by name. He traces fascism back decades. George W. Bush, Newt Gingrich, Reagan, Nixon, Hoover, Harding. 

Fascists. 

All of them. In fact, the Republican party is all fascists. Has been for decades. Fascists here, fascists there, fascists everywhere. So many fascists.

Fascists.

They're all fascists. We are all fascists. Except Democrats. Wag your finger, Democrats. Clutch your pearls. Burn some Teslas, throw some rocks, turn over some cop cars, loot some businesses. Because of the fascists. 

Fascists.

Your neighbor is a fascist. Your pastor. Your grocer. Straight white male? Fascist. But not Trump. Trump is not a fascist, he's a narcissist. Even he's an authoritarian, a tyrant, and a dictator, he's not a fascist. No, really. Trump is not a fascist. At least there's one person who's not a fascist.

That's a relief.

He's not a fascist, but we all are. Fascists. All of us. Half the country is fascist. 

Fascists.

What Must I Do to Be Saved? - by Michelle Lesley

Found here. Our comments in bold.

---------------------

We were filled with hearty amens as we read Ms. Lesley's explanation of the Gospel. Until close to the end, where she writes two erroneous things. The first, 

The gift God offers you is that, on the cross, Christ took the punishment you deserve for your sin.

This is a false and pernicious statement. There is no Bible verse that says Jesus substituted for us. None. Nor did the Father did not punish Jesus. Ever. To state otherwise is to completely misunderstand (or misrepresent) Jesus' sacrificial death. There isn't a single verse in the Bible that tells us the Father punished Jesus or poured out His wrath on Him. Not one. Check it yourself, dear reader.

The first thing we need to note is typology. The OT sacrifice is a type (or illustration) of a greater truth, Jesus' one sufficient sacrifice.

It is important to note the OT animals:

• were not tortured to satisfy the priest
• were never imputed with the sacrificer's sin
• did not receive God's wrath
• were not regarded as substitutes

Similarly,

• Jesus was not tortured to satisfy the Father
• Jesus was not imputed with our sin 
• Jesus did not receive God's wrath
• Jesus did not substitute Himself in our place

Jesus carried (Greek: anapheró), He took, He bore away our sin as a burden to the cross:

He. 9:28: ...so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

He didn't "bear" our sin as in "bear" our punishment, He carried it away. He was sacrificed, not sacrificed and then punished. 

His work is described in the Bible as the propitiation for our sin: 

Hebrews 2:17 Therefore, in all things He had to be made like His brethren, that He might be a merciful and faithful High Priest in things pertaining to God, to make propitiation for the sins of the people.

"Propitiation" is the Greek word hilaskomai, which means appeasement/satisfaction of divine wrath on sin") – properly, to extend propitiation, showing mercy by satisfying (literally, propitiating) the wrath of God on sin; "to conciliate, appease, propitiate... 

Jesus's death on the cross, His spilled blood, is the effective agent in His propitiation:

Col. 1:19-20 For God was pleased to have all his fulness dwell in him, 20 and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether things on earth or things in heaven, by making peace through his blood, shed on the cross.

So Jesus by spilling His blood appeased the wrath of God, turning away what God was going to do in righteous judgment to sinners. By the spilled blood the Father was completely satisfied. Jesus' work was sufficient and totally efficacious. Any man who comes under the blood finds that the Father's wrath against him has been appeased.

The blood is enough. Nothing else. Period. Including the punishment of Jesus. 

If God's wrath against the sinner is totally appeased by Jesus' blood when he repents, why do some think that His wrath must be poured out somewhere else, i.e., on Jesus? This is the crucial question, and why we began with our assertion that the Father did not punish Jesus for our sin.

Read this carefully: If the Father punished Jesus for our sin, then He didn't forgive at all, He simply redirected his wrath and carried it out anyway.

The second glaringly false statement made by Ms. Lesley:

The way you receive that gift and have Christ’s righteousness “credited to your account” is to repent from (have the heart desire to turn away from and ask God’s forgiveness for) your sin and trust that Christ’s death, burial, and resurrection paid the penalty for your sin.

Jesus did not pay the penalty for our sins, He paid for us:

1Co. 6:19-20 You are not your own; 20 you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body. 

1Co. 7:23 You were bought at a price; do not become slaves of men.

In fact, we were condemned to death already:

Ro. 5:16 Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 

Jn. 3:18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already...

This means Jesus paid no penalty for our sin, rather, His death and resurrection propitiated for our sin and brought us from death to life, lifting our condemnation: 

Ro. 8:1-2 Therefore, there is now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus, 2 because through Christ Jesus the law of the Spirit of life set me free from the law of sin and death.

Ms. Lesley must not be allowed to misrepresent any part of the Gospel, especially regarding the nature and character of God.

-----------------------

The problems with being a Calvinist

Introduction

Calvinism is a set of doctrines derived from John Calvin's teaching in the 1500s. Calvin was a pastor and theologian, dedicated to the ideas of the Reformation while having his own doctrines as well. He was and is a controversial figure, not only because of his doctrines but also because of his often severe way of dealing with theological dissenters.

Over the centuries Calvinism has insinuated itself almost everywhere. Even churches that would claim to be non-Calvinist hold some Calvinist views, likely unawares. So we view it as important that we understand the problems of Calvinism, and as needed amend our beliefs accordingly.

Calvinism is roughly described with the acronym TULIP (aka, the doctrines of grace):

• (T)otal depravity
• (U)nconditional election
• (L)imited atonement
• (I)rresistible grace
• (P)erseverance of the saints

Total Depravity is the idea that we are not able to participate in our salvation. We cannot make a decision for Christ. God accomplishes 100% of our salvation without our participation in any way.

Unconditional election means that God already chose and predestined who would be saved. The elect are destined for salvation, and everyone else is destined for hell.

Limited atonement is that the atoning work of Jesus applies only to the elect and does not apply to those who are not chosen.

Irresistible grace means the elect cannot resist their salvation, they must be saved.

Perseverance of the saints means that because the elect are chosen they cannot fall away from the faith.

In summary, because we are depraved, there is nothing at all that would allow us to participate in our salvation. We do not yield to God and agree with Him that We need salvation. Our salvation is already chosen for us. God is sovereign and unconditionally elected us, so we don't have a choice because of irresistible grace.  Only the elect are saved, because the atonement only covers the elect. We can't fall away if we're among the elect, because once we are saved we are always saved.

Since the purpose of this post is not to evaluate specific Calvinistic doctrines, we refer the reader to our many doctrinal critiques here, along with the Scriptural support for our positions.

Rehabilitating ministers? Why churches and organisations need to be careful about the idea of 'restoring' their leaders - by Andrew Roycroft

Found here. Our comments in bold.
----------------------

It has been said that the Church is the only organization that shoots her wounded. Or in this case, even if it heals the wounded it still treats them as wounded. The transformative power of the Holy Spirit that brings new life to the condemned soul apparently cannot operate in a fallen pastor. 

However, we believe the idea that a church leader, having done particular sins, is permanently disqualified from ministry is not a Biblical one. We are not saying that restoration ought to be quick, universal, or without conditions or careful consideration. But such a person, faced with the situation where he can never, under any circumstances, be completely cleared of charges, might understandably never bother with the littler repentances required of him. Really, what good would it do to clean up one's life (or even, be renewed by the Holy Spirit) with no prospect of obtaining one's calling, or perhaps even a higher one?

Now, it might be years or even decades before a person might be restored, but in any case we should not deal with these things like the world does. Further, we should have the discernment to ascertain the quality of fruit of the truly repentant church leader:

Matt 7:17-20 Likewise, every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. 18A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. 19Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. 20So then, by their fruit you will recognize them.

A repentant sinner who consistently bears good fruit for a long time must at some point be relieved of his scarlet letter.

But more important to us is the unwarranted and unbiblical high and lofty position most pastors occupy. Churches are to be led by a council of elders (1 Peter 5:1-3). If we want fewer pastoral failures, we should reform the unbiblical idea of a CEO pastor.

Also, the author writes over 1700 words, but not a single Scripture quote, and but a single (irrelevant) Scripture reference. We must regard this as Bad Bible Teaching.

---------------------

Bad worship songs: When wind meets fire - by Gamboa, Holiday, Mooring, Furtick (Elevation Worship)

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, When Wind Meets fire.

"Pastors Only Work 30 Minutes A Week” - by Michael Krahn

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------

This article smacks of self-aggrandizement. Here we have a noble, selfless pastor laboring away under a great burden, called to selfless service, who is the only one in his church able to carry these responsibilities and endure these hardships. And it seems the congregation simply doesn't appreciate him enough. 

"To all of this, pastors are called," he writes.

Oh, please. If one consults the Bible, one will not find any of these duties or privileges explained, or even mentioned, regarding pastors. The biblical fact of the matter is that pastors don't lead churches, the elders do (1 Peter 5:1-3). 

This is not to diminish the efforts of well-meaning, though probably misguided pastors like the author. We appreciate these men for their devotion, but we would suggest they embrace a more biblical view of church leadership and let the elders and deacons share the load and lead the church.

---------------------

Friendship With the World is Enmity with God - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------

The author attempts to explain James 4:4, but doesn't get around to it until the second to the last paragraph. After hundreds of words devoted to tangents, he supplies us but a single line of explanation:

It is doing whatever it takes to imitate worldly ways of thinking and worldly activities. 

He goes on to provide a very appropriate remedy, thankfully, but does not explain how the remedy works out practically. This is really what he should have written about.

----------------------

1 Timothy: Women Preaching as Pastor or as a Guest Violates Scripture, even with “Permission” - By Elizabeth Prata

Found here. Our comments in bold.

-------------------------

Ms. Prata, like so many Bible teachers who consider this topic, imposes upon Scripture things that are not there. The Scripture in question is 1 Timothy 2:11-12, which Ms. Prata does actually quote: 

A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet.

Ordinarily those who approach this Scripture do so by forcing it into the context of a church service. They do this by thinking the epistle is "pastoral," that is, instructions on how to pastor a church. This is false, because Timothy wasn't pastor of this church, he was a troubleshooter sent by Paul. Otherwise Paul would not tell him that the elders direct the affairs of the church (1Ti. 5:17). 

Why is this important? Well, if this is not a "pastoral" epistle, then the instructions given by Paul are not telling Timothy how to run the church. But if Ms. Prata can place all of the epistle into the church service, it allows her to assert that Paul was forbidding women to preach in church. 

Because Timothy wasn't a pastor, then Paul was not telling him about how to prevent women from preaching in a church service. In fact, in 1 Timothy chapter 2 there is no hint in this passage that Paul was dealing with church structure at all. He doesn't breach the topic of leadership until the next chapter. It is actually quite clear that Paul was not dealing with a church service, first because he refers to "a woman," and "a man," not "women" and "men;" and second because his justification for this submission is Adam and Eve (vs. 13), which is a marriage relationship, not a church service. 

Because of the mistaken idea that this is about a church service, Ms. Prata extends the error by raising the issue of pastoral authority, i.e. the pastor as the leader cannot give permission to do an unbiblical thing like allowing women to preach. Since we believe that Paul was not talking about women preaching in church, this point of course is moot. 

But arising from the issue of church authority is the false idea that teaching IS exercising authority. Ms. Prata writes:

"[Scripture] denies a woman the ecclesiastical authority to teach men or be an authority in the church. (1 Timothy 2:12.)"

The only way one could arrive at such a conclusion is to inflate the role of pastor to the singular leader of the local church. And because the pastor preaches, this is exercising authority because the pastor is the boss. Thus a woman preaching is exercising authority. Thus women can't preach.

So the error compounds. 

Let's solve the problem. 

• Paul wasn't talking about what happens in a church service, he was telling us about what a woman cannot do to her husband. Thus Adam and Eve. 
• Pastors, biblically speaking, do not lead churches, elders do:

1Pe. 5:1-2 To the elders among you, I appeal as a fellow-elder, a witness of Christ’s sufferings and one who also will share in the glory to be revealed: 2 Be shepherds of God’s flock that is under your care, serving as overseers...

• Preaching, therefore, is not an exercise of authority.

The blight of CEO pastors - rethink

Recently we've been reconsidering many of the things we thought we understood regarding doctrine and faith. We have begun to question certain beliefs, church structures, and practices of the western church. Too often we have discovered unbiblical doctrines and activities. This causes us concern. We have deemed this our “rethink.”

Our questions include, how did we arrive at our doctrines? Does the Bible really teach what we think it teaches? Why do churches do what they do? What is the biblical basis of church leadership structure? Why do certain traditions get entrenched?

It's easy to be spoon fed the conventional wisdom, but it's an entirely separate thing to search these things out for one's self. In the past we have read the Bible with these unexamined understandings and interpreted what we read through those lenses. We were lazy about our Bible study, assuming that pastors and theologians were telling us the truth, but we rarely checked it out for ourselves.

Therefore, these Rethinks are our attempt to remedy the situation.

We should note that we are not Bible scholars, but we believe that one doesn't need to be in order to understand the Word of God.

-------------------

Bad worship songs: Fullness, by Steve Furtick, Chris Brown, Matthews Ntele

From time to to we examine the lyrics of worship songs. Our desire is not to mock or humiliate, but rather to honestly examine content with a view to calling forth a better worship expression.

With the great volume and variety of worship music available, none of us should have to settle for bad worship songs. We should be able to select hundreds or even thousands of top notch songs very easily.

What makes a song a worship song? Is it enough to contain words like God or holy? How about vaguely spiritual sounding phrases? Should Jesus be mentioned?

We think an excellent worship song should contain the following elements:

• A direct expression of adoration (God, you are...)
• A progression of ideas that culminates in a coherent story
• A focus on God, not us
• Lyrics that do not create uncertainty or cause confusion
• A certain amount of profundity
• A singable, interesting melody
• Allusions to Scripture
• Doctrinal soundness
• Not excessively metaphorical
• Not excessively repetitive
• Jesus is not your boyfriend

It's worth noting the most worship songs contain at least something good. That is, there might be a musical idea or a lyric that has merit. Such is the case with this song, Fullness.

Video here.

Is there Injustice on God’s Part? - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------

The author didn't write this article to teach about the Bible, he wrote it to teach about his Calvinism. He thinks it is critical to understand the Calvinistic doctrine of election, but he doesn't tell us why it is important. You see, whether we are saved by His sovereign choice or if we are saved because we responded to His invitation, it doesn't make any difference at all in our lives or Christian walk. 

But the bottom line is that election is a doctrine that makes the mistake of including ourselves in the election of the remnant of Israel. We will explain this below.

---------------------------

Can Women Serve as Deacons? (Arguments for and Against) by: Matt Smethurst

Found here. Our comments in bold.
-----------------------

This is a very good article in that it accurately explains two viewpoints on this topic. We have dealt with some of these points, plus some additional information here.

----------------------

For by grace you have been saved through faith - by Mike Ratliff

Found here. Our comments in bold.

------------------

We think Mr. Ratliff is misunderstanding Jesus' teaching on the narrow door (gate). His understanding is a common idea among Christians, likely arising from Reformed doctrine/Calvinism. The belief is that there won't be many saved, based partly on the idea that there will be a last days apostasy with a lot of phony Christians who are not true followers. The narrow door/gate fits right in with this idea. 

We think it is wrong, however. What happens with interpreting these passages is one of the main reasons we embarked on our Doctrinal Rethink. We began to see that too often the Bible translators don't translate words correctly, or they carry preconceptions, which leads us to false doctrines and false teaching.

Here's the first passage:

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. Mt. 7:13-14 (NIV)

First, we always must consider the context and the audience. Jesus was speaking to His fellow Jews. We should resist the urge to insert ourselves into the narrative. This is not about us.

"Narrow" (the narrow gate) in verse 13 is stenos, which the NIV translators correctly render. But "narrow" (narrow the road) in the next verse is a different Greek word, thlibó, to press, afflict... I make narrow (strictly: by pressure); I press upon, (b) I persecute, press hard. To translate both words as "narrow" implies Jesus was repeating his thought but He wasn't. The word thlibó carries a completely different thought. 

Notice the present-ness of this. We believe Jesus was speaking of what was happening right at that moment. Literally, of those who were listening to him, not many were finding the way of life He was telling them about. Few are those...  "Are" is eiemi, the present tense. Again, we need to clearly understand the target of Jesus' comments. Few of His fellow Jews are traveling through the narrow gate because it is difficult, and in fact, being a Jew isn't good enough.

Some translations convey the meaning better:

ESV For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few.

NKJV Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.

NLT: "But the gateway to life is very narrow and the road is difficult, and only a few ever find it."

CSB: "How narrow is the gate and difficult the road that leads to life, and few find it."

The crux of our thesis is that Jesus is particularly talking about a hard journey. And, the two words translated “narrow” in verse by the NIV are two different Greek words.

We think the NIV translators engage in an egregious mistranslation of the word, which changes the whole meaning.

The second passage sort of expands the idea:

Lk. 13:23-23 Someone asked him, “Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?” He said to them, 24 “Make every effort to enter through the narrow door, because many, I tell you, will try to enter and will not be able to. 25 Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside knocking and pleading, `Sir, open the door for us.’ “But he will answer, `I don’t know you or where you come from.’ 26 “Then you will say, `We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets.’ 27 “But he will reply, `I don’t know you or where you come from. Away from me, all you evildoers!’ 

28 “There will be weeping there, and gnashing of teeth, when you see Abraham, Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, but you yourselves thrown out. 29 People will come from east and west and north and south and will take their places at the feast in the kingdom of God. 30 Indeed there are those who are last who will be first, and first who will be last.” NIV

This opens with someone specifically asking about salvation: Lord, are only a few people going to be saved?

We can say with certainty that this question was not about gentiles. Jews considered the salvation of God to be for Israel only. So the question is a Jewish question. "Jesus, you have been preaching a new way, and we don't understand. Please explain. Are you really saying only a few of us going to be saved?"

The questioner was probably catching on to the idea that this gospel Jesus was preaching meant that not every Jew was going to be saved. This would be a startling revelation to the typical Jew, who would consider himself to be part of the chosen nation as a son of Abraham.

Jesus answered him, that the door is narrow, and many will try and fail to enter. Who are these that fail to enter? Jesus tells them directly: We ate and drank with you, and you taught in our streets. He was talking to and about Jews. They would consider themselves brothers, but they are the ones Jesus never knew.

Jesus' countrymen will be told that He did not know them.

John references this reality:

Jn. 1:11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him.

"His own" are the Jews. They did not recognize Him or receive Him. Paul explained why:

Ro. 9:6 It is not as though God’s word had failed. For not all who are descended from Israel are Israel.

At this very time Jesus was speaking there were not many Jews who accepting His message, they were not entering in the narrow door. It's narrow because only a few of God's chosen people were entering this "new and living way" (He. 10:20). 

Jesus was speaking to specifically to Israel. That's the obvious context. He was speaking to His listeners, and His listeners were Jewish. So how would they understand it? They would recognize that He was speaking to their current situation. Thus He essentially was saying, "Here I am, and not many of you are taking me up on what I offer."

He goes on to explain that from every corner of the earth the "last" (that is, the gentiles) will take their places at the feast, and the Jews (the "first") will be the last.

Jesus speaks something that must have surprised His hearers: The most righteous-seeming Jews they knew of would not enter the Kingdom.

Mt. 5:20 For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.

So this was a teaching specifically aimed at the Jews, who would largely reject Him and have their house left to them desolate (Mt. 23:38).

Jesus was speaking to His contemporaries, He is addressing His audience; they are the ones who only a few were choosing the difficult road. The "few" are those Jews who received the Gospel, while the rest will be shut out. Therefore, we would say that Matt. 7:13-14 and Lk. 13:23-3 teach different aspects of the same idea - - and it has nothing to do with just a few being saved. 

Jesus' heart was first for His people, the Jews, and they were rejecting Him. This is how we should understand these passages. 

-----------------------

Where Have All the Spiritual Gifts Gone? - by Richard B. Gaffin Jr.

Found here. Our comments in bold.
---------------------------

The author references many Scriptures, but only manages to quote snippets of three relevant verses. But those Scriptures don't bolster his position, rather, he derives his position first and attempts to make them fit.

The author's entire case rests on inference and supposition. We must consider this Bad Bible Teaching.

Lastly, the author never answers the question. "All" the spiritual gifts are not gone, only prophecy and tongues it seems. He never even discusses this, but focuses solely on these two gifts, likely because of their "supernatural" nature. However, all spiritual gifts are supernatural empowerments by definition.

And, apostleship is not a spiritual gift, apostles are appointed by God (1Co. 12:28).

---------------------