Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Jan Markell Interviews - April 18, 2009 Program
Olive Tree Ministries Radio Program ^ | April 18, 2009 | Jan Markell

Posted on 04/20/2009 7:21:21 PM PDT by Star Traveler

Here is the latest program from Jan Markell of Olive Tree Ministries - from Minneapolis/St. Paul, Minnesota, on AM980 KKMS. The weekly broadcast specilizes in interviewing various guest, usually two per program (an hour each).

The following are the two guests on for this most recent program.

Dr. Ron Rhodes returns to talk Bible prophecy with Jan. Why is the secular world more interested in eschatology than the church? Those who follow the "end-times" are now called "right-wing extremists" by Homeland Security. Our world is upside down, inside out, and what is the Christian--particularly those watching the "signs of the times"--to do? The scoffing has intensified but due to the turmoil of our times, more are listening, asking questions, and are going to ask you for answers. Dr. Rhodes is one of our "Understanding the Times 2009" speakers. Find Dr. Rhodes' book, "Northern Storm Rising", here.

Bill Salus is the author of the popular book "Israelestine: The Ancient Blueprints of the Future Middle East." Jan and Bill talk about general "signs of the times," the Church of Laodicea, the passage of Psalm 83 (found in a Bible opened to that page in a Irish filthy bog in 2006,) and other important issues of the day. Salus' book will be on our Web site within a week and can be then found here. Salus believes the Psalm 83 war may be the next major war in the Mideast.

--

Here is some information from the Olive Tree Ministries about itself.

Jan Markell, Founder and President of Olive Tree Ministries, was saved under Jewish evangelist Hyman Appleman when she was a child. In Jan’s early ministry years she was a part of the Messianic movement, worked for pro-Israel agencies, and for Jewish evangelism ministries.

In 1982, Jan incorporated Olive Tree Ministries and the goals of the ministry can be read at “Our Purpose.” Jan has written eight major books with prominent Christian publishing houses. She has produced a dozen DVDs, some featured on Sky Angel. At one time she traveled full time across America as a speaker. Visit our store to see some of the products by Jan that are available for purchase. In the year 2000, Jan launched a radio branch of the ministry starting first on AM980 KKMS, Minneapolis/St. Paul. In 2004, the program was syndicated nationally and is heard internationally on the Internet. “Understanding the Times” radio has been received well as a source of news and information hard to find. “Understanding the Times” is interview and commentary-driven. Learn more at the “Radio Show” category. We have had e-mail response from across America and from two-dozen foreign countries listening to the program.

The ministry has five employees including Jan’s personal assistant Heidi Swander. Other employees assist in radio production and technical areas. Olive Tree Ministries is a registered 501c3 organization.


TOPICS: Apologetics; Evangelical Christian; Ministry/Outreach; Religion & Culture
KEYWORDS: dispensational; endtimes; prophecy; rapture
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last
To: topcat54

The best exegesis and hermeneutics applied have come from pretrib, premil studies. Try Walvoord, Pentecost, Thieme, Dean, Ice, Chafer, Fruchtenbaum, and a large number of others who simply place their emphasis on learning Scripture first, then upon historical theology, instead of appealing to a particular church denominational platform prior to simple faith alone in Christ alone.


61 posted on 04/25/2009 8:43:51 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; Lee N. Field; raynearhood
The best exegesis and hermeneutics applied have come from pretrib, premil studies.

"Best" only if you presuppose the literalist futurist pretrib view and discard/ignore the Reformation practice of carefully comparing Scripture with Scripture.

I would put men such as Calvin, Turretin, Bullinger (Heinrich not E.W.), Spurgeon, Hodge (Charles and A.A.), Warfield, Machen, and assemblies such as Westminster and Dordt over and against your list anyday.

62 posted on 04/26/2009 2:53:41 PM PDT by topcat54 (Don't believe in a pre-anything rapture? Join "Naysayers for Jesus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: topcat54

Comparing reformation theology with dispensational theology is like comparing Newtonian mechanics with Quantum Mechanics.

Their basis is quite similar, and firmly rooted in His Word, but studies by Reformed theologians for several centuries after Calvin led to Dispensationalism based upon His Word.

There are many physicists who never bother to understand quantum mechanics and can solve many a problem quite well, but don’t ask an auto mechanic to perform solid state physics. He won’t understand it.


63 posted on 04/26/2009 3:51:49 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; Lee N. Field; raynearhood
Comparing reformation theology with dispensational theology is like comparing Newtonian mechanics with Quantum Mechanics.

This is the religion forum, not the laugh-out-loud humor forum. Your analogy is quite comical.

Dispensationalism grew in independent, non-creedal groups ... groups that had little or no contact with the great doctrines and leaders of the historical Reformation.

Real Reformation churches have warned against its errant teachings from the very beginning.

64 posted on 04/26/2009 4:07:32 PM PDT by topcat54 (Don't believe in a pre-anything rapture? Join "Naysayers for Jesus")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: topcat54; Cvengr; raynearhood
like comparing Newtonian mechanics with Quantum Mechanics.

This is the religion forum, not the laugh-out-loud humor forum. Your analogy is quite comical.

I did, in fact, laugh out loud when I read that.

He won’t understand it. --cvengr

Another LOL.

We understand dispensationalists and their -ism just fine. Many of us used to be one, if only because most places it's the default American evangelical position. I'd venture to guess that too many disconnects between dispensational dogma and the plain teaching of scripture have led many to abandon it.

The Freerepublic dispy contingent doesn't seem to understand any other position at all.

65 posted on 04/26/2009 5:51:04 PM PDT by Lee N. Field (Dispensational exegesis not supported by an a-, post- or historic pre-mil scholar will be ignored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

The past most critical complaint from Reformed FReepers against dispensational positions was that the charts presented as third grade level expressions of the dispensations were too challenging for the Reformed intellect to comprehend.

Why would any studied Christian anticipate a Reformed believer to comprehend anything more significant?

Not to worry though, there is plenty of work for a believer regardless their perspective, to return to God, to place faith alone in Christ alone, and perform the works He had predestined from eternity past.


66 posted on 04/26/2009 7:15:24 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
The past most critical complaint from Reformed FReepers against dispensational positions was that the charts presented as third grade level expressions of the dispensations were too challenging for the Reformed intellect to comprehend.

That's just silly. No more substantial than Quix on an html augmented rant. Argument's over.

67 posted on 04/26/2009 7:27:30 PM PDT by Lee N. Field (Dispensational exegesis not supported by an a-, post- or historic pre-mil scholar will be ignored.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Lee N. Field

Only problem is that it was presented by Reformed FReepers, not by any antagonist to their perspective.


68 posted on 04/26/2009 7:29:23 PM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; topcat54; Lee N. Field
The past most critical complaint from Reformed FReepers against dispensational positions was that the charts presented as third grade level expressions of the dispensations were too challenging for the Reformed intellect to comprehend.

Bunk! The most critical complaint lodged against dispensational positions is this:
Anytime that an eschatology focuses on CNN, Fox News, the AP, etc... to try squeezing out fulfillment of Scripture - whenever an eschatology looks to the Jerusalem Post to learn about the endtimes - that eschatology develops a new theology that attempts to extend God's grace to those not in Christ. According to this twisted theology Jesus, our Redeemer, our Savior, the Messiah is not needed universally. That is the core problem with dispensation theology. All other perversions of the Scripture are logical fallicies resulting from that perversion of God's Grace and application of justice.
Besides, it's not that it's hard to understand what's being attempted by the charts, it's just that we don't know which one to shoot down.

As for this:
Why would any studied Christian anticipate a Reformed believer to comprehend anything more significant?

It's due to study that I am no longer a dispensationalist. Pretty sure topcat54 has made similar a statement(s). I was Rapture Ready until I realized that I was dividing the people of God in a way that Scripture never speaks to. Alot of modern dispies are realizing the same thing, resulting in this new fangled "progressive dispensationalism" which is looking more and more like historic premillenialism as it gets hashed out. Why these "progressive dispies" don't just dump the whole system escapes me.
69 posted on 04/27/2009 3:43:51 AM PDT by raynearhood ("I consider looseness with words no less a defect than looseness of the bowels" - John Calvin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr; Star Traveler; topcat54; Lee N. Field
Try Walvoord, Pentecost, Thieme, Dean, Ice, Chafer, Fruchtenbaum, and a large number of others who simply place their emphasis on learning Scripture first,

Your list starts weakly. We had a sampling of Walvoord the other day.

Walvoord, from that article:
One of the familiar arguments against the continuance of Israel as a nation is the idea that when Israel rejected Christ they failed to meet the necessary conditions for the fulfillment of their promises and are in fact disinherited as far as national promises are concerned. According to this point of view, an Israelite today has only the possibility of entering spiritually into the promises given to the church, not the promises given to Israel as a nation.
Familiar argument? Hardly!

Star Traveler went off fighting for the sovereignty of the Lakota, and never came back to answer my questions, so I'll pose them to you.

Which among us non-dispensationalists has ever argued that the reason that the nation of Israel didn't (won't) receive the land promise was because they rejected Christ?

Did Walvoord truly think that the post-mil/amil crowd ever thought that if the nation of Israel would have accepted Christ as their Messiah then the nation of Israel would have received some Mediterranean real estate?

Did Walvoord truly think that the post-mil/amil crowd believe that the nation of Israel could have "met the conditions" to receive some land by not rejected Christ, thus treating OT prophecy as a warning instead of prophecy?

Did Walvoord truly think that the post-mil/amil crowd believes that the land promise was actually a promise to an ethnic group for some Mediterranean real estate?

Did Walvoord truly think that the post-mil/amil crowd believes that the land promise changed from a land promise into something else because Israel rejected Christ?

Do you think, as Walvoord seemed to, that us non-dispies believe "that when Israel rejected Christ they failed to meet the necessary conditions for the fulfillment of their promises and are in fact disinherited as far as national promises are concerned"?

Finally:

Do dispensationalists today learn about post-mil/amil eschatology from bunk like this?

I said it in reply 56 and I'll say it again - Walvoord invented fallacies that don't actually exist in post-mil/amil eschatology in order to oppose them.
70 posted on 04/27/2009 4:00:21 AM PDT by raynearhood ("I consider looseness with words no less a defect than looseness of the bowels" - John Calvin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: raynearhood
"We had a sampling of Walvoord the other day."

Such a position speaks volumes. Rather than adversarily approaching Walvoord, it's far wiser to remain in fellowship with God through faith alone in Christ alone.

Walvoord provides an enormous amount of true guidance on the topics queried. In your query,

"Which among us non-dispensationalists has ever argued that the reason that the nation of Israel didn't (won't) receive the land promise was because they rejected Christ?"

The last conversation I had with a Lutheran on the topic, he took the exact same position. The argument is fairly familiar within the community.

"Walvoord invented fallacies that don't actually exist in post-mil/amil eschatology in order to oppose them."

Seems like an accusation to me.

Perhaps the reader would return to the Walvoord sampling and read it from the perspective of learning instead of accusing.

71 posted on 04/27/2009 6:59:04 AM PDT by Cvengr (Adversity in life and death is inevitable. Thru faith in Christ, stress is optional.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Cvengr
The last conversation I had with a Lutheran on the topic, he took the exact same position.

I will not doubt that you did in fact hear this position from someone. I will not deny the possibility. However, it is not the common position. Nor is it Scriptural. The intent of the national promises were always meant as a shadow of the greater promises. Abraham entered into the promised land, yet lived there as an alien. By faith, he looked forward to a greater promise, a heavenly one.

The national promises were never meant for the nation state of Israel alone, but for the true seed of Abraham, those who are in Christ.

Seems like an accusation to me.

Nope, just a plain reading of Walvoord's article posted on this thread.

Perhaps the reader would return to the Walvoord sampling and read it from the perspective of learning

So, I went ahead and read it again, and found more misrepresentations.

From the article:
(1) The postmillennial interpretation that the promise of future blessing for the Jews will be fulfilled in the people of Israel in the latter days of the period of the church on earth when the Jews are converted and accept Christ as Saviour. This was typical of the conservative postmillennialism of the nineteenth century.
Nope, although that view existed, and still exists today, it was not and is not typical. Nor does it have anything to do with Hebrews 11, to which he is referring. Instead it is an interpretation of "the fullness of the Jews" from Romans 11:11ff. Though a cursory mention may have been called for (had he been referring to Romans instead of Hebrews) his fifth point, which reads:
(5) The amillennial position that the church is true Israel and that the prophecies given to Jeremiah and other prophets are being fulfilled in the church age in a spiritualized way
would have been better representative of the actual position if it read, "The postmillenial/amillennial position that the church is true Israel..." with some more tweaking of the end of the sentence. On this point, amils and postmils have and do generally agree. It's not exclusively the amil position. Postmil and amil are alot closer than speculative disagreements such as Walvoord's point (1) concerning Hebrews 11 (which actually concerns Romans 11).

Concerning an argument over the interpretations of Romans 9-11 and Hebrews 11, there is absolutely no reason to go on arguing. We've been around that block before on this forum. As much as Walvoord would like to divide the postmil/amil position on Israel with outlandish, out of context claims like:
William Hendriksen, for instance, a well-known amillenarian, takes the position that Israel means Israel in the New Testament, not the church. In a similar way Charles Hodge, the postmillenarian of the last generation, held that the term Israel is never used in the New Testament except for those who were physical descendants of Jacob. It would seem in view of the fact that some amillenarians and postmillenarians concede that Israel means Israel in the New Testament it would be unnecessary to debate this point. However, in view of the evidence that many amillenarians consider it, as Allis does, “an almost unprecedented extreme” to insist that Israel actually means Israel (Prophecy and the Church, p. 218), it is necessary to dispose of this point first.
it should be pretty clear from the past discussions on this forum that preterists, postmils, and amils at least mostly agree.

instead of accusing.

What am I supposed to do? Accept his fallacies and misrepresentation in order to better understand the greater point? Sorry. Not gonna happen.
72 posted on 04/27/2009 9:33:47 AM PDT by raynearhood ("I consider looseness with words no less a defect than looseness of the bowels" - John Calvin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-72 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson