Help for giving answers to a Protestant objections?

[Camillus14]

Hi, everyone! This is my first thread, and I hope that I placed this in the right area. If not, my apologies.

Anyways, I have an Evangelical friend that’s been looking into Catholicism out of curiosity, as we are pretty close and he wants to learn more about my religion. Unfortunately though, he has been very stubborn on his view on things. He refers to the Bible for proof, I believe that is what we call “Sola Scriptura”. He doesn’t pray to the dead, he doesn’t believe in Purgatory, he thinks that Mary sinned just like us and didn’t keep her virginity, thinks that we worship Mary and are “obsessed” with her.

I have tried explaining to him on our view on things, but his reply was more than disappointing and I feel like I have failed. I wasn’t expecting a conversion of course, but he doesn’t seem to get it at all. This is what he said to me:
“If I’m being entirely honest I find the whole idea ridiculous, as there’s nothing of actual substance in the Bible to say, confidently, that Mary never sinned, from her birth to her death, and that she should be honored and glorified constantly and to the extent that she is. It is based on speculation. There are arguments towards it, but those are very spotty, more like grasping at straws then presenting actual evidence. But then, as I am of course, arguing against this, it could be plain stubbornness that is keeping me arguing these points so long. But the bottom line is, I do not think Mary is sinless and should be honored/debatably-worshipped/glorified to the extent that she is in Catholicism, I do not believe that purgatory is an actual thing, and in turn I do not believe that you can pray for the dead. None of these are concrete Biblical concepts, from what I can see.”

He wants a concise argument that does not jump through “assumption holes” that are explained purely from the view point of a Catholic. I don’t know how I can do that… So, please, help would be greatly appreciated.
(Also, I hope my post isn’t too long, if it is, please tell me so I can edit it.)

 

[thephilosopher6]

First of all tell him that not everything has to be in the Bible. Tradition provides us with some answer too regarding certain doctrines. In fact, the Bible itself a compilation of a bunch of traditions that were eventually written down. Not only that, the the Bible wasn’t even fully put together until the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. It didn’t just fall from the sky. During the Protestant reformation, Martin Luther took it upon himself to remove 7 books from the Old Testament and he even attempted to remove a few books from the New Testament, though even his followers thought he was going too far with that one. Christianity predates the Bible. But eventually it was put together. In fact, it was put together by Catholics! We created the Bible.

Also, if everything has to be in the Bible, where in the Bible does it say that everything needs to be in the Bible to be true? No where. But guess what it does say?

*“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” - 2 Thessalonians 2:!5

“Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you.” - 1 Corinthians 11:2*

Now in regards to Mary, though the Bible doesn’t directly come out and say it, the Bible hints that she was sinless.

“And the angel came in unto her, and said, Hail, thou that art highly favoured, the Lord is with thee: blessed art thou among women.” - Luke 1:28

The word for “highly favored” (also translated as “full of grace”) in Greek is "kecharitomene " and is used in the past tense suggesting Mary had always been in a state of grace and therefore sinless.

Now, to make clear we do not worship Mary. we venerate her which is different from worship. We worship God and God alone, there is no other. The early Church has high veneration for Mary and we can see this in many early Church father’s.

*“For whereas Eve, yet a virgin and undefiled, through conceiving the word that came from the serpent, brought forth disobedience and death; the Virgin Mary, taking faith and joy, when the Angel told her the good tidings that the Spirit of the Lord should come upon her, and the power of the Most High overshadow her, and therefore the Holy One to be born of her should be the Son of God, answered, Be it doneaccording to thy word. And so by means of her was he born, concerning whom we have shown so many Scriptures were spoken; through whom God overthrows the serpent, and those angels and men who have become like to it, and on the other hand, works deliverance from death for such as repent of their evil doings and believe in him (Dialogue with Trypho [160 A.D])” - Justin Martyr

“Consequently, then, Mary the Virgin is found to be obedient, saying, “Behold, 0 Lord, your handmaid; be it done to me according to your word.” Eve . . . who was then still a virgin although she had Adam for a husband — for in paradise they were both naked but were not ashamed; for, having been created only a short time, they had no understanding of the procreation of children . . . having become disobedient [sin], was made the cause of death for herself and for the whole human race; so also Mary, betrothed to a man but nevertheless still a virgin, being obedient [no sin], was made the cause of salvation for herself and for the whole human race. . . . Thus, the knot of Eve’s disobedience was loosed by the obedience of Mary. What the virgin Eve had bound in unbelief, the Virgin Mary loosed through faith (Against Heresies 3:22:24 [A.D. 189]).” - Ireanaus

“This Virgin Mother of the Only-begotten of God is called Mary, worthy of God, immaculate of the immaculate, one of the one (Homily 1 [A.D. 244]).” - Origen

“He [Jesus] was the ark formed of incorruptible wood. For by this is signified that His tabernacle [Mary] was exempt from defilement and corruption (Orat. In Illud, Dominus pascit me, in Gallandi, Bibl. Patrum, II, 496 ante [A.D. 235]).” - Hippolytus

It was through a man and woman that flesh was cast from Paradise; it was through a virgin that flesh was linked to God…Eve is called mother of the human race, but Mary Mother of salvation. ([397 A.D]) - Ambrose of Milan *

The theology in the early Church concerning Mary held her in such high esteem because she was seen as the new Eve while Jesus was seen as the new Adam. Both were fully obedient to God, unlike the old Adam and Eve. Both played a role in salvation. Mary accepted the will of God and allowed the Holy Spirit to impregnate her and brought Christ into the world so that Christ could shed his blood for the forgiveness of sins.

As we can see, the Church from the very start loved and respected Mary. It can be found in the Bible and the early writings of the Church.

 

[Vivat_Christus]

I don’t think I can answer all of your questions, but I think something important to point out to your friend is the term “full of grace” in Luke 1:28. The term St. Luke uses is “kecharitomene,” and it’s the only place this word is used in all of Sacred Scripture. The form of this verb denotes that God’s “gracing” of the Blessed Mother is something that was already done and fully completed in the past when Gabriel came to her (you can Google “kecharitomene” for more info, I don’t know a lick of Koine Greek ).

Something else about Mary to point out to him is her being the Ark of the Covenant. The ark contained the Ten Commandments (God’s word inscribed in stone), manna from heaven and the rod of Aaron (the first Levitical priest). Mary bore in her womb Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh; the Bread of Life; and our great High Priest. Also, when David finds the ark in 2 Samuel, he says, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” When Mary visits St. Elizabeth in the Gospel of Luke, Elizabeth says, “And how can this be, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” David “leaped and dances” before the ark, and St. John leaped for joy in the womb of Elizabeth at the Visitation. Also, I think the Greek verb for when Elizabeth cried out with a loud voice at the Visitation is only ever used in the context of liturgical worship in relationship to the Ark of the Covenant and is never used to denote someone simply speaking or yelling. And there are lots of other parallels between the narratives concerning the ark in the OT and Luke 1. Again, there are lots of articles that explain this better than I can.

These examples only use the Bible to which hopefully will “satisfy” your friend. I’ve always thought of Mary as the Ark to be very beautiful and convincing. Of course, you can point out that the Church Fathers unequivocally believed in the sinlessness of Mary, that she had only Jesus and remained a virgin her whole life, etc., but I don’t know how much good that would do. I don’t know if your friend believes in a “great apostasy” very early in the history of the Church, as I think some evangelicals/fundamentalists do.

Hope this helps

 

[jane_doe]

My suggestions:

1. Stress that this is what you believe, and obviously not going to be identical to what your friend believes.
2. Talk about most important things first, such as Christ. Even when talking about difference, talk about the most important topic first, such as weather or not all Truth is just found in the Bible or in other sources. Once you cover that, you can talk about specific things you believe from Tradition, such as Marian doctrines.

 

[Hatikvah]

First of all tell him that not everything has to be in the Bible. Tradition provides us with some answer too regarding certain doctrines. In fact, the Bible itself a compilation of a bunch of traditions that were eventually written down. Not only that, the the Bible wasn’t even fully put together until the Council of Carthage in 397 A.D. It didn’t just fall from the sky.

Also, please explain to him that** Martin Luther viewed Sacred Scripture (the Bible) as part of Sacred Tradition, but at the same time it must correct Tradition (as if there were anything to be corrected).** The original view of sola scriptura was much more manageable, I suppose, and actually acknowledged Tradition in a sense.

 

[Camillus14]

Now, to make clear we do not worship Mary. we venerate her which is different from worship. We worship God and God alone, there is no other. The early Church has high veneration for Mary and we can see this in many early Church father’s.

Thank you very much for your help. I’ve been trying to find some way to present how not everything is in the Bible, so your explanation on that is really helpful! The problem I’m facing with him on the topic of Mary is that he calls it technical terms.
He says:
“To be completely honest, and this is just me personally, I’d like to say that you can say you’re not doing something and use technical terms to excuse it, but the extent to which you’re fixated on Mary is a bit unsettling. Call it honor, glorifying, other special terms, but it still looks a lot like worship to me. But call it what you like.”
So, I’m still in a bit of a rut here.

 

[Camillus14]

Something else about Mary to point out to him is her being the Ark of the Covenant. The ark contained the Ten Commandments (God’s word inscribed in stone), manna from heaven and the rod of Aaron (the first Levitical priest). Mary bore in her womb Jesus Christ, the Word of God made flesh; the Bread of Life; and our great High Priest. Also, when David finds the ark in 2 Samuel, he says, “How can the ark of the Lord come to me?” When Mary visits St. Elizabeth in the Gospel of Luke, Elizabeth says, “And how can this be, that the mother of my Lord should come to me?” David “leaped and dances” before the ark, and St. John leaped for joy in the womb of Elizabeth at the Visitation. Also, I think the Greek verb for when Elizabeth cried out with a loud voice at the Visitation is only ever used in the context of liturgical worship in relationship to the Ark of the Covenant and is never used to denote someone simply speaking or yelling. And there are lots of other parallels between the narratives concerning the ark in the OT and Luke 1. Again, there are lots of articles that explain this better than I can.

These examples only use the Bible to which hopefully will “satisfy” your friend. I’ve always thought of Mary as the Ark to be very beautiful and convincing. Of course, you can point out that the Church Fathers unequivocally believed in the sinlessness of Mary, that she had only Jesus and remained a virgin her whole life, etc., but I don’t know how much good that would do. I don’t know if your friend believes in a “great apostasy” very early in the history of the Church, as I think some evangelicals/fundamentalists do.

Hope this helps

Thanks a lot for this! I’ll see how it goes on presenting that to him.

My suggestions:

1. Stress that this is what you believe, and obviously not going to be identical to what your friend believes.
2. Talk about most important things first, such as Christ. Even when talking about difference, talk about the most important topic first, such as weather or not all Truth is just found in the Bible or in other sources. Once you cover that, you can talk about specific things you believe from Tradition, such as Marian doctrines.

Ah, okay…! I suppose then that I should’ve done that from the start. I just recently realized that I should’ve made that clear from the beginning before we started delving into talking about Mary. I didn’t really know where to start when he told me that he was going to look into Catholicism, so I just let him ask me questions. The question he asked me first was “Why do you worship Mary?” Thank you for your (name removed by moderator)ut!

Also, please explain to him that** Martin Luther viewed Sacred Scripture (the Bible) as part of Sacred Tradition, but at the same time it must correct Tradition (as if there were anything to be corrected).** The original view of sola scriptura was much more manageable, I suppose, and actually acknowledged Tradition in a sense.

Will do! He questioned how we can be sure that the Tradition of the Church has not become corrupted, and I struggled to find an answer for that. Your reply is greatly appreciated.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Also, please explain to him that** Martin Luther viewed Sacred Scripture (the Bible) as part of Sacred Tradition, but at the same time it must correct Tradition (as if there were anything to be corrected).** The original view of sola scriptura was much more manageable, I suppose, and actually acknowledged Tradition in a sense.

The Bible and Tradition are equal since the Bible basically is Tradition, just written down.

 

[thephilosopher6]

Thank you very much for your help. I’ve been trying to find some way to present how not everything is in the Bible, so your explanation on that is really helpful! The problem I’m facing with him on the topic of Mary is that he calls it technical terms.
He says:
“To be completely honest, and this is just me personally, I’d like to say that you can say you’re not doing something and use technical terms to excuse it, but the extent to which you’re fixated on Mary is a bit unsettling. Call it honor, glorifying, other special terms, but it still looks a lot like worship to me. But call it what you like.”
So, I’m still in a bit of a rut here.

It’s not a “technical term” we are not “excusing” anything. We are telling you what we are doing in regards to worship and veneration. We worship God and God alone. We venerate the Saints, but most especially Mary since she is the mother of our Lord.

 

[jane_doe]

To be completely honest, and this is just me personally, I’d like to say that you can say you’re not doing something and use technical terms to excuse it, but the extent to which you’re fixated on Mary is a bit unsettling. Call it honor, glorifying, other special terms, but it still looks a lot like worship to me. But call it what you like."
So, I’m still in a bit of a rut here.

Remember: Protestants don’t honor anyone but Christ in their worship, and feel that doing so would distract from the majesty of Christ. For Protestants, worship AND honor are intricately intwined, so much so that I’ve heard some Protestants define “worship” = “to honor”. Therefore, when they see a Catholic honoring Mary, they automatically assume honor = worship and get VERY confused when you say it is not.

(Disclaimer here: I’m speaking in generalities about a very broad community, and there are plenty of exceptions here. I am also not a Protestant myself).

 

[Tomdstone]

“Therefore, brethren, stand fast, and hold the traditions which ye have been taught, whether by word, or our epistle.” - 2 Thessalonians 2:!5A lot of Catholic traditions have been changed already.
No meat on Friday.
Sign of the cross from right to left (see Catholic Encyclopedia).
Changes in the creed (filioque added)
Communion, kneeling and on the tongue.
headcovering for women in church.
With reference to statues, some of the newer modern churches are quite barren in comparison with the older style churches.

 

[thephilosopher6]

A lot of Catholic traditions have been changed already.
No meat on Friday.
Sign of the cross from right to left (see Catholic Encyclopedia).
Changes in the creed (filioque added)
Communion, kneeling and on the tongue.
headcovering for women in church.
With reference to statues, some of the newer modern churches are quite barren in comparison with the older style churches.

Most of the things you mentioned are tradition with a lower case “t.” They are not Tradition with an uppercase “T” which would be doctrines and such. Tradition with a lower case “t” are human things that the Church practices for good spirituality.

Also, I do not want to get into a debate over the filioque here. Save that for somewhere else. But you do know that the current creed the Eastern Orthodox Church uses is called the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed? which revised the original Creed from Nicaea from this:

*"We believe in one God, the Father almighty, maker of all things, visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, begotten from the Father, only-begotten, that is, from the essence of the Father, God from God, light from light, true God from true God, begotten not made, of one essence with the Father, through Whom all things came into being, things in heaven and things on earth, Who because of us men and because of our salvation came down and became incarnate, becoming man, suffered and rose again on the third day, ascended to the heavens, and will come again to judge the living and the dead;

And in the Holy Spirit."*

To this:

*"We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible;

And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the Only-begotten, Begotten of the Father before all ages, Light of Light, Very God of Very God, Begotten, not made; of one essence with the Father, by whom all things were made:

Who for us men and for our salvation came down from heaven, and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, and was made man;

And was crucified also for us under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried;

And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures;

And ascended into heaven, and sits at the right hand of the Father;

And He shall come again with glory to judge the living and the dead, Whose kingdom shall have no end.

And we believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, and Giver of Life, Who proceeds from the Father, Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified, Who spoke by the Prophets;

And we believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church.

We acknowledge one Baptism for the remission of sins.

We look for the Resurrection of the dead,

And the Life of the age to come. Amen."*

Therefore, it could also be said the Eastern Orthodox Church “changed” the Creed. But I do not want to get into a debate about the filioque on this thread so please, save this for somewhere else. All you have been doing is starting controversy over the filioque.

Also, yes it is a sad thing that some churches have removed their statues and icons. It’s a result of certain heretical priest and bishops. Hopefully though, the Lord will to bring about change in these places. The good thing is, the Latin mass is on the rise again and most churches are still have their statues and icons.

 

[Tomdstone]

Most of the things you mentioned are tradition with a lower case “t.”

I thought you were talking about statues. Aren’t statues a tradition with a lowercase t?

 

[thephilosopher6]

I thought you were talking about statues. Aren’t statues a tradition with a lowercase t?

I suppose so. Eastern Catholic, for example, don’t use statues since they are Byzantine. Each Church has it’s own tradition. Statues are apart of Latin tradition. Icons are apart of Byzantine tradition.

 

[Cathoholic]

JUDE 1:24-25a (NIV) 24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority . . . .

Camillus14. Concerning the Blessed Virgin Mary, you might just ask him: "Considering Jude 24-25a, do you believe Jesus COULD keep mankind from stumbling?

If you present it this way (by prefacing the passage) he will say “yes”.

Then ask him, aside from Jesus Himself, do you think Jesus might fulfill this verse with at leat ONE person. And if so, WHO do you think that was?

It is not consistent with the passage that Jesus is alluding to Himself here as the Holy Spirit does NOT say through Jude . . .

NOT JUDE 1:24-25a (phantom verse) 24 To him who is able to keep me from stumbling and to present me before my glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority . . . .

So ask him if he thinks Jude was fulfilled or if it merely a (wrong) hypothesis.

This may plant the idea and principle of sinlessness by GRACE (“To him who is able to keep you from stumbling”) in his mind.

THEN after he’s had a day or two to consider and accept this passage, ask him who is “blessed among women” (see Luke 1:42) and talk to him about “kecharitomene” (in Luke 1:28).

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

 

[po18guy]

I prefer to go on the offensive. Ask him what he thinks about the beliefs and practices of the 300 million members of the 2,000 year old Eastern Orthodox Church. Chances are he simply won’t know. Tell him that they are 95-98% identical to Catholic and ask him why he does not attack them and accuse them. Why only the Catholic?

Next, ask him why he believes ideas that are only 100 or so years old (Evangelicalism), and why he believes that the truth was hidden from mankind until a psychologically unstable European man came up with his own ideas. Of course, he cannot answer where the bible teaches sola scriptura, because it does not.

You can show him where his ‘Pope’ (Paul) admonishes believers to keep the traditions of Christianity. Yes, traditions, whether written tradition (bible) or oral preaching. He might be shocked to know that his bible is a tradition. Ask him where his pastor maintains the oral traditions that Paul says they should keep. If his pastor does not have them, ask him by what authority they overrule and disregard Paul. After all, Paul taught to keep them.

If they do not baptize, ask him by what scripture passage they reject baptism. By what authority do they disregard, overrule, oppose Christ and dispense with baptism? Sadly, many Evangelicals are so deep in error that they are blinded to the truth, refusing to believe that there is any other possible way to be a Christian.

He has zero idea just how recent, how fragile and how man-made many of his beliefs are. Go easy on him, as his love of Christ would make him a great Catholic!

 

[Camillus14]

So ask him if he thinks Jude was fulfilled or if it merely a (wrong) hypothesis.

This may plant the idea and principle of sinlessness by GRACE (“To him who is able to keep you from stumbling”) in his mind.

THEN after he’s had a day or two to consider and accept this passage, ask him who is “blessed among women” (see Luke 1:42) and talk to him about “kecharitomene” (in Luke 1:28).

Hope this helps.

God bless.

Cathoholic

Thank you so, so much! I’m certain this will help greatly.

He has zero idea just how recent, how fragile and how man-made many of his beliefs are. Go easy on him, as his love of Christ would make him a great Catholic!

Wow, some of this I didn’t even know much about on concerning his Evangelical beliefs. I’m really grateful for your reply! Thanks for taking the time to help and I hope that I can use what I have learned to good use on behalf of my friend.

 

[Kay_Cee]

What you need is a tutorial on apologetics strategies and techniques. Fortunately, there is a free one which you can find here:

biblechristiansociety.com/download

Hope this helps!

 

[exnihilo]

I have tried explaining to him on our view on things, but his reply was more than disappointing and I feel like I have failed. I wasn’t expecting a conversion of course, but he doesn’t seem to get it at all. This is what he said to me:
“If I’m being entirely honest I find the whole idea ridiculous, as there’s nothing of actual substance in the Bible to say, confidently, that Mary never sinned, from her birth to her death, and that she should be honored and glorified constantly and to the extent that she is. It is based on speculation. There are arguments towards it, but those are very spotty, more like grasping at straws then presenting actual evidence. But then, as I am of course, arguing against this, it could be plain stubbornness that is keeping me arguing these points so long. But the bottom line is, I do not think Mary is sinless and should be honored/debatably-worshipped/glorified to the extent that she is in Catholicism, I do not believe that purgatory is an actual thing, and in turn I do not believe that you can pray for the dead. None of these are concrete Biblical concepts, from what I can see.”

“I do not think Mary is sinless and should be honored/debatably-worshipped/glorified to the extent that she is in Catholicism”

As a convert I can understand this. I can still have a sense of this. But we have to move beyond some gut feeling and think this through. You can ask your friend the simple question, ‘how much honor should we give Mary and how do you know that’? He probably doesn’t have a good answer for either. Catholic theology has this extremely well thought out with Latria, Dulia and Hyperdulia. For me when I read about this, probably in the Catholic encyclopedia, I realized that we can give tremendous honor to Mary. I realized it doesn’t take away from God but that Mary, and even you and me, can be secondary causes of salvation for others.

I’d ask him what he makes of Luke wherein the Blessed Virgin says all generations will call me blessed. I’d ask him if he calls her blessed. If not why not. Ask him what he makes of the Catholic Church calling her blessed, following Scripture, when he doesn’t.

I prefer to go on the offensive. Ask him what he thinks about the beliefs and practices of the 300 million members of the 2,000 year old Eastern Orthodox Church. Chances are he simply won’t know. Tell him that they are 95-98% identical to Catholic and ask him why he does not attack them and accuse them. Why only the Catholic?

For me this was important. I’m not sure how I was so ignorant of Orthodoxy, especially since my church youth group had actually visited the local Greek Orthodox Church. I think I just assumed they were another equally valid branch of Christianity. That is after all the typical Protestant concept.

When I finally started to think about it I realized it was the minority Protestant theology versus the larger and more ancient Catholic and Orthodox theology. That didn’t make that side right, but it did make me realize I’d have to give it greater consideration. It also made me realize all the anti-Catholic arguments would have to be applied to the Orthodox. The problem is many of them just didn’t hold up as well when so applied. Reading the correspondence between the early Lutherans and the Orthodox sealed the deal. The Orthodox clearly rejected Lutheranism as an innovation and departure from the Apostolic Faith.

 

[Todd977]

Hi, everyone! This is my first thread, and I hope that I placed this in the right area. If not, my apologies.

I think you might get even more help by posting questions about defending the Catholic faith, Catholic apologetics, over in the Apologetics Forum.

Praying for the dead
The only concrete examples in the Bible of the living doing things on behalf of the dead that I can think of are 2 Maccabees 12:38-45, where it is related that Judas Maccabeus and his men prayed for their fallen comrades and took up a collection of money that a sin offering might be made for them in Jerusalem, and 1 Corinthians 15:29, where is mentioned the practice of people being baptized on behalf of the dead, and perhaps 2 Timothy 1:18, which seems to be a prayer for the presumably-dead Onesiphorus.

Although it is included among the inspired books of the Bible according to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, your friend may not accept the testimony of 2 Maccabees, as it was rejected by Protestant reformers and is not included among the inspired books of the Bible by those who follow the Protestant tradition.

Prayerfully addressing the dead
The only concrete example in the Bible of the living prayerfully addressing the righteous dead that I can think of is Daniel 3:64, where the three young men in the fiery furnace say, “Bless the Lord, spirits and souls of the righteous, sing praise to him and highly exalt him for ever.” Although it is included among the inspired parts of the Bible according to the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, your friend may not accept the testimony of Daniel 3:64, as it was rejected by the Protestant reformers and is not included among the inspired books of the Bible by those who follow the Protestant tradition. Another example might be Acts 9:40, where dead Tabitha responds to St Peter’s words, "Tabitha, rise.”

Perhaps your friend will accept that the righteous dead in heaven “are like angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30) If that is the case, then there are a couple of examples of the living prayerfully addressing the angels in heaven, such as the following:
Bless the Lord, O you his angels, you mighty ones who do his word, hearkening to the voice of his word! (Psalm 103:20)
Praise him, all his angels, praise him, all his host! (Psalm 148:2)
There is also Daniel 3:37, which says:
Bless the Lord, you angels of the Lord, sing praise to him and highly exalt him for ever.
However, your friend may not accept Daniel 3:37, as it is another verse in Daniel accepted as inspired by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches but rejected by the Protestant reformers and is not included among the inspired books of the Bible by those who follow the Protestant tradition.

The righteous dead aware of our prayers
A concrete example of the righteous dead in heaven being aware of our prayers is Revelation 5:8, where the 24 presbyters (elders/old men) in heaven are described as holding “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” Another example might be Acts 9:40, where dead Tabitha responds to St Peter’s words, "Tabitha, rise.”

The righteous dead praying for us
The only concrete examples of the righteous dead praying for or otherwise doing things for those on earth that I can think of are 1 Samuel 28:16-19, where the dead prophet Samuel prophesied Saul’s doom; 2 Kings 13:21, where a dead man revived when his corpse came in contact with the bones of the dead prophet Elisha; 2 Maccabees 15:12-16, where the dead high priest Onias and the dead prophet Jeremiah are described as praying for the Jewish people; and Luke 16:27-28, where the dead rich man is described as interceding for his five living brothers. Again, your friend might not accept 2 Maccabees 15:12-16 for the reason mentioned earlier.

Also, probably in reference to 1 Samuel 28:16-19 and 2 Kings 13:31, respectively, Sirach says of Samuel, “Even after he had fallen asleep he prophesied and revealed to the king his death, and lifted up his voice out of the earth in prophecy, to blot out the wickedness of the people” (Sirach 46:20) and of Elisah, "As in his life he did wonders, so in death his deeds were marvelous. (Sirach 48:14) Your friend may not accept the testimony of Sirach, although it is included among the inspired books of the Bible by the Catholic and Orthodox Churches, it was rejected by the Protestant reformers and is not included among the inspired books of the Bible by those who follow the Protestant tradition.

If we may prayerfully addressed the righteous dead, and if they are aware of our prayers, and if they can and do pray for or otherwise intercede for us, I do not see any logical reason why we should not prayerfully address them and ask them to pray for or otherwise intercede for us. After all, the Bible says, “The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects.” (James 5:16)