Protestants and Pentecostals in particular definitely believe communication with demons is possible ( demons hear them while they cast them out, follow their commands, sometimes even communicate back etc.) …why not the good half of the spiritual realm? Why only is communication with demons possible?

In fact, the Martyrdom of Polycarp contains a great deal of important information about the beliefs, practices, and liturgical life of the early Christians. Polycarp himself was a disciple of St. John the Apostle, and St. Ignatius of Antioch, in his letters, mentions Polycarp as his contemporary and fellow leader in the Church. The two are traditionally regarded as disciples of St. John the Apostle and Evangelist.

One only has to read the last few chapters of the Martyrdom of Polycarp to find many significant details.

For example, after Polycarp's martyrdom, the author writes that the Christians collected his bones because they were "more precious than the most exquisite jewels and more purified than gold." This is a clear testimony to the great reverence that the early Christians had for the relics of the saints.

The text then says that the Christians would gather at the place where his relics were laid in order to celebrate the anniversary of his martyrdom with joy and thanksgiving. Although it does not describe every detail of their liturgical practice, it is evident that they assembled there for religious commemoration and prayer, not merely for a social gathering.

Another important point appears during Polycarp's trial. When the proconsul urges him to renounce Christ, Polycarp replies, "Eighty-six years have I served Him, and He has done me no wrong. How then can I blaspheme my King and my Savior?"

We also know that Polycarp was about eighty-six years old when he was martyred. Since he says that he had served Christ for eighty-six years, I conclude that he must have been a Christian for essentially his entire life. This, in turn, strongly suggests to me that he was most likely baptized as an infant or in very early childhood. While this conclusion is an inference rather than an explicit statement of the text, it follows naturally from the information given.

3:16 - this with all the other evidence,,, has destroyed my worldview as it stands as an evangelical.

In 2 Maccabees you see Jeremiah praying in heaven as well.

In this regard, one of the most important accounts Christ tells is the story of the rich man and Lazarus. Even the rich man, while in Hades, remembers his brothers and does not want them to make the same mistake he made. He asks Abraham to send Lazarus to warn them.
This is not merely a parable or an imaginary story. It conveys spiritual realities. One of those realities is that, after death, a person remembers his earthly life. This is evident from Abraham's words to the rich man: "Remember how you lived on earth and how Lazarus lived."
In fact, St. John Chrysostom points to this very passage and argues that, if people did not retain the memory of their earthly lives after death, God's judgment would make no sense, because we could not be judged for actions we no longer remembered.
Therefore, this account is not something invented out of thin air. It conveys real spiritual truths, including the fact that the departed remain concerned for their relatives. If a man in Hades was concerned about his brothers and did not want them to make the same mistake, why would the saints in heaven, who are closer to God, not be even more aware of us and pray for us?
From my perspective, Protestantism seems spiritually very cold. I have never been a Protestant, so it is difficult for me to understand that perspective. I am a Georgian Orthodox, and I sincerely pity Protestants because, in my view, their religion is spiritually dry and lacks the fullness of the spiritual life. I pray that God will enlighten many of them so that they may come to the true faith rather than remain in what I see as the error of spiritual pride.

Truly beautiful to see clip channels working together

If you have not read the book by Scott Peck, “people of the lie” you will not recognize that Gavin Ortlund is very possibly under the demonic influence of evil spirits. That is why he can misrepresents so easily and continually move the goal posts-I have met people like this as a protestant minister, and whatever you say to them that is true they will twist in something not true. It is a spiritual exercise that has to be confronted with prayer and fasting ! Those are signs of somebody who has a deep hatred for the things of God in their heart.

Wearing my hat forward while I watch this 🫡

Weird, today  I was just thinking of if I could actually pray to my brother…. Then I thought what is or makes a saint?

I tried to argue the calling out to Elijah verses as evidence of a culture of intercession with JP. He rejected it, of course. Focusing on their misunderstanding. The idea that they even thought like that was going over the whole panel's head.

Gavin Ortlund is part liar, and part cognitive dissonance

Even if we say, "not alot of evidence",  it's still not zero

what do you think Eliphaz is doing with that word in (Job 5, 1)?
There is only 3 options:

1. ELIPHAZ IS RECOMENDING CALLING THE "SAINTS"

2. ELIPHAZ IS OPPOSING CALLING THE "SAINTS"

3. ITS A RETHORICAL DEVICE TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE

NOTE: 🔺️my argument is that the only options posible are those where the explanation is that this practice of "calling the saints" LIVES IN JOB

Let's analyze...

1. ELIPHAZ IS RECOMENDING CALLING THE "SAINTS"

A) Eliphaz shows he is not a confident believer in the following textual clue: "is there any who will answer you?" So it's not a good explanation to say: Eliphaz is recomending what he doesn't believe in, to someone else who also doesn't believe in it...🚫

B) the only alternative is that Eliphaz was saying: "Job try that practice of yours just in case it works" cuz he himself doesn't have confidence in this practice ✅️ THIS WOULD MEAN THIS PRACTICE LIVES IN JOB aka "most righteous man on earth" rendering the practice at least LICIT

2. ELIPHAZ IS OPPOSING CALLING THE "SAINTS"

A) in this alternative skepticism & sinicism is propitiated to Job.... (IT WOULD BE A SUBTLE ATTACK TO JOB, VERY SUBTLE)

Job is the target of Eliphaz's attempt to persuade away from this practice.

The textual clue that Job, is his immediate interlocutor, is the TARGET of the attack is in the word "Y O U" :

call now,
Is there anyone who will hear you (JOB)?
To which of the holy ones will you (JOB) turn?

That the attack is addressed to Job reflects that THIS PRACTICE OF CALLING SAINTS LIVES IN JOB... and establishes it !!!

to confirm this 100% consider the alternative:

if Job already agrees that calling angels is wrong... Job lacks an error/target where this attack can land... it would be a target-less attack

This is not a good explanation...

But if this practice lives in Job, this would explain well why Eliphaz is addressing this attack directly to Job

This is a wholesome explanation ✅️

🔺️The chief point here is that JOB a.k.a. "the most righteous man on earth"... practices calling the saints: This would be evidence that the practice is at least LICIT

B) if you say Eliphaz says that to preven Job from doing it... Eliphaz is saying do it..."call now".... it doesn't seem like the best way to prevent him from doing it at least once... sound like Eliphaz wouldn't have a problem if Job attempts this... seems like Eliphaz is prioritizing Job realizing that his practice is useless"...🚫

c) then you can say: but if Eliphaz is trying to persuade Job away from that doesn't necessarily means that Job is guilty of that, his friend could just be wrong on the fact that his friend has this practice: The way his friends react at the beginning of the encounter with Job in a sort of penitence and staying for 7 days in silence... that expresses enough of a bond to render this posibility as not plausible.... it would not be the most natural and coherent and simple... so its not a strong option🚫

d) if you say: Job was so punished by heaven that no angel would want to intercede for him: again in (Job 33, 23 on) you see that an angel can intercede for those who are doing so bad that they are almost death... this option is not free of dificulty 🚫

e) Eliphaz said that just in case Job had this believed, because he didn't know if Job believed this or not: This would lack support and would be too much of a speculation, especially because these people seem like they are habituated to speak religion in deepth... it is unlikely that having heard the wisdom of the others unknowns like these remained🚫

3. ITS A RETHORICAL DEVICE ELIPHAZ USES TO SAY SOMETHING ELSE:

A) "Job you are alone": 🚫 this doesn't work because Job has his wife with him, and now his 3 friends


[...btw Job is not prevented from praying to God to obtain well-being, and if Job is not prevented from praying neithere are his wife or his 3 friends..]

B) "Job no man can obtain healing by interceding for you": 🚫 it doesn't work because Elijah, Moses and the prophets obtained healing and even resurrections by interceding... besides "saints" seem to be referring to angels here

C) "Job nobody in heaven can intercede for you": 🚫 this doesn't work because in (Job 33, 23) you see that an angel by his intercesion can obtain your restoration to well being:

(Job, 33, 23ss)

Yet if there is an angel at their side,
a messenger, one out of a thousand,
sent to tell them how to be upright,
24 and he is gracious to that person and says to God,
‘Spare them from going down to the pit;
I have found a ransom for them—
25 let their flesh be renewed like a child’s;
let them be restored as in the days of their youth’—
26 then that person can pray to God and find favor with him,
they will see God’s face and shout for joy;
he will restore them to full well-being


⭕️here you could say... yes but the fact that someone believed that doesn't mean Eliphaz believed in that... actually cuz he believes the opposite is that he attacks this practice in the person of Job: YET THE CHIEF PROBLEM REMAINS: if Job already agrees that calling angels is wrong... Job lacks an error/target where this attack can land... it would be a target-less attack (again it is a more coherent explanation the practice lives in Job... thus would render this practice at least LICIT being Job "the most righteous on earth")


C.2) "Job you cannot obtain the intercesion of an angel by invocation": ½🚫 because the difficulty here is that this is a fine detailed idea, nuanced... and the text itself doesn't seem to offer this level of nuance... but it's not impossible YET THE CHIEF PROBLEM REMAINS: if this practice doesn't live in Job, Job lacks an error to be the target of this attack...

D) the exact same answer for C) applies here about the text where an angel can restore you to well-being by his intercesion on (Job 33, 23ss) if you say: "Eliphaz just came with this example in the moment, he just said that to rethorically say: "Job there is no power to help you...

But there is a few subtle details to consider...

The way Eliphaz speaks... even the phrase "to which of the holy ones will you turn? Would give the sense of an established practice (if is an invitation)... now, if it is an attack this would be by definition already held by Job beforehand...

■■
NOW:

I agree this is not a record of job praying "angel please pray for me"

It is not a record of Job saying "I did/do/will...pray to saints"

Nor is Job saying: "I agree with that prctice."

But if his friend acuses him of praying to saints: "Job you call to saints and that is wrong"..... if we had this statement this would count as evidence

Or if Eliphaz tries to persuade Job away from this practice ... THIS WOULD BE EVIDENCE... and this is the TYPE OF STATEMENT WE HAVE

Job 5

New International Version

5 “Call if you will, but who will answer you? To which of the holy ones will you turn?

Resentment kills a fool, and envy slays the simple.

I myself have seen a fool taking root, but suddenly his house was cursed. His children are far from safety, crushed in court without a defender. The hungry consume his harvest, taking it even from among thorns, and the thirsty pant after his wealth.

For hardship does not spring from the soil, nor does trouble sprout from the ground. Yet man is born to trouble as surely as sparks fly upward.

8 “BUT IF I WERE YOU, I WOULD APPEAL TO GOD;
I WOULD LAY MY CAUSE BEFORE HIM.



(One could say Eliphaz is contrasting the way he proceeds with the way Job proceeds)


My friend, this is the summary of a long list of alternative interpretations of the text that I was working on for months: I hope you find it useful


I ASK YOU FOR 1 INTERPRETATION... only 1 that doesn't run into the above described walls...or embrace that this practice lived in Job. Job aka "most righteous man on earth" rendering this practice at least LICIT

Gavin is so self deceived he can’t even reason properly

Ortlund is a bad faith liar flat out. He's been doin this for literally years and lied on our boy Alex. Don't want to lose that evanjelly money

I used this exact argument with a CRC guy and he said "The Jews misheard Jesus."

"What would they think Jesus was saying then?"
No answer. Dude also believes that IOTS is necromancy akin to King Saul with the witch.

Why don’t you and Gavin have a conversation about this? Those videos seem to be most fruitful for those involved and the audience

Rachael was idolatrous, she stole her father's images and people with idolatrous tendencies will consider her Intercessions!

I’m very ready to be wrong here because I’m an idiot but I don’t get the same reading of Psalm 99 as Jay.  Can someone explain it to me

I’m not Protestant and I affirm the points made by this side I just want to know if I’m getting this Osakn all wrong

The Scriptures record the false and heretical beliefs of the Pharisees all the time... Common EOs, is that your argument? Really? Why is your appeals to icon veneration so scant. Why is it always such a stretch for you? think about it. You shouldn't need to mutilate history and Scripture to get icon veneration since apparetnly it is essential for the faith, but thats all you guys seem to do.