Reply to Jordan Cooper on Newman & Development

Reply to Jordan Cooper on Newman & Development January 2, 2025

Photo credit: self-designed cover of my 2013 self-published book

 

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church – Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well as theological articles in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan’s words will be in blue.

This is my 20th reply to Jordan (many more to come, because I want to interact with the best, most informed Protestant opponents). All of these respectful critiques can be found in the “Replies to Jordan Cooper” section at the top of my Lutheranism web page. Thus far, he hasn’t responded to any of my critiques, for reasons that he explained on my Facebook page on 17 April 2024:

I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with my material. I also appreciate not being called “anti-Catholic,” as I am not. Unfortunately, it is just a matter of time that I am unable to interact with the many lengthy pieces you have put together. With teaching, writing, running a publishing house, podcasting, working at a seminary, and doing campus ministry, I have to prioritize, which often means not doing things that would be very much worthwhile simply for lack of time.

In an article sent to his readers on 1-2-25 regarding social media (I receive this, too), a further relevant explanation was made:

As you may have noticed with my writing, podcasting, and YouTube content, I don’t tend to address controversies. Further, those occasional times that I do, I merely use that controversy as a springboard to talk about something more universal. This has all been purposeful, . . . The mystical union will matter to Christians a century from now. Whatever current controversy Doug Wilson is involved in will not.

I appreciate the explanations and the expressed principled resolve as to the stewardship of time, but I continue to think we could have some good and constructive — and civil – discussions. In the meantime, I will continue to try to write what Jordan himself regards as “thoughtful” and “worthwhile” responses because the issues we disagree on within the Body of Christ still remain, and I’m committed to both defending the Catholic view as long as I continue to adhere to it (no end in sight!) and seeking and following truth as best I can, by God’s grace. But in the final analysis I think interaction and serious dialogue and interaction with serious critiques of our views are crucial and indispensable and not things to be regarded as a low priority or even unnecessary altogether. Both Jesus and Paul vigorously argued and defended their viewpoints and they are our models.

*****

See Part I

This is a reply to the latter two-thirds of Jordan’s video, “John Henry Newman on Papal Infallibility” (12-28-24). St. John Henry Cardinal Newman’s words will be in green.

26:03 it’s not like Newman’s the first one to ever talk about any of this [development of doctrine] and there are some arguments that there are some kind of precursors to Newman within the medieval period

. . . and in the Bible itself and the Church fathers, as I documented last time.

27:41 when heresy arises we express things with clarity. We come up with new dogmatic categories in order to make things a bit more clear in one way or another. But that’s not the same thing as as a development of a new dogma.

Exactly, and this is Newman’s and the Catholic view. What Protestants often call a new dogma is simply a highly developed version of the earlier more primitive expression, that contains the latter information in a kernel that includes the essential idea. The truly novel doctrinal inventions that are not developments at all are things like the two so-called “pillars” of the Protestant Revolt: sola fide (faith alone): which is found neither in Scripture nor in the Church fathers, and sola Scriptura: also absent from the Bible and the Church fathers, as I have demonstrated again and again in the greatest depth in my research.

27:53 I would say [that] the elements of the doctrine of justification through faith alone as Luther expressed it are all there in the church fathers; not in every Church father but all of the elements are there somewhere within the tradition of the church.

And I would agree with what these two Protestant scholars (the first one being the foremost expert on the history of justification) assert:

Whereas Augustine taught that the sinner is made righteous in justification, Melanchthon taught that he is counted as righteous or pronounced to be righteous. For Augustine, ‘justifying righteousness’ is imparted; for Melanchthon, it is imputed in the sense of being declared or pronounced to be righteous. Melanchthon drew a sharp distinction between the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous, designating the former ‘justification’ and the latter ‘sanctification’ or ‘regeneration.’ For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .

The importance of this development lies in the fact that it marks a complete break with the teaching of the church up to that point. From the time of Augustine onwards, justification had always been understood to refer to both the event of being declared righteous and the process of being made righteous. . . .

The Council of Trent . . . reaffirmed the views of Augustine on the nature of justification . . . the concept of forensic justification actually represents a development in Luther’s thought . . . .

Trent maintained the medieval tradition, stretching back to Augustine, which saw justification as comprising both an event and a process . . . (Alister McGrath, Reformation Thought: An Introduction, 2nd edition, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1993, 108-109, 115)

For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one’s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection — the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of ‘sanctification’ then is effectively subsumed under the aegis of justification. Although he believed that God initiated the salvation process, it is incorrect to say that Augustine held to the concept of ‘forensic’ justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . .

Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God’s grace, as compared to extrinsic justification, by which a sinner is forensically declared righteous (at best, a subterranean strain in pre-Reformation Christendom). With Luther the situation changed dramatically . . .

[O]ne can be saved without believing that imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) is an essential part of the true gospel. Otherwise, few people were saved between the time of the apostle Paul and the Reformation, since scarcely anyone taught imputed righteousness (or forensic justification) during that period! . . . . . (Norman Geisler, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 222)

***

“Please Hit ‘Subscribe’”! If you have received benefit from this or any of my other 5,000+ articles, please follow my blog by signing up (with your email address) on the sidebar to the right (you may have to scroll down a bit), above where there is an icon bar, “Sign Me Up!”: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a YouTube channel. My blog was rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the YouTube channel, Catholic Bible Highlights. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter / X and purchasing one or more of my 55 books. All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!

***

31:16 [Newman] speaks about the church as this living organism. This language is probably familiar to a lot of you. It’s used a lot by Roman Catholics — especially today — I don’t see it as much in, like, Robert Bellarmine [1542-1621] [or] older sources, but Newman’s going to say, “look any living organism, whether it’s a person [or] an animal, it is it’s going to have certain characteristics of life and some of those characteristics of a living thing are that living things grow; living things develop; living things adapt to their circumstances, and so just like a child is not the same as an adult even though they have the same identity — the same person –but their way of thinking is different . . . the way that their body looks and functions; aspects about their their mental and physical life didn’t exist at one point and they do later. And so he says if the church is this living thing, it’s the the living organism the mystical Body of Christ. If all of this is true, then we should expect the same kind of development that we find within biological phenomena within the ecclesiastical community that is the Roman Catholic Church and so this this development of the church also includes a development of dogma.

Matthew 13:31-32 (RSV) Another parable he put before them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a grain of mustard seed which a man took and sowed in his field; [32] it is the smallest of all seeds, but when it has grown it is the greatest of shrubs and becomes a tree, so that the birds of the air come and make nests in its branches.”
*
1 Corinthians 3:1-3 But I, brethren, could not address you as spiritual men, but as men of the flesh, as babes in Christ. [2] I fed you with milk, not solid food; for you were not ready for it; and even yet you are not ready, [3] for you are still of the flesh.  . . .
*
Ephesians 4:13-16 until we all attain to the unity of the faith and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to mature manhood, to the measure of the stature of the fulness of Christ; [14] so that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro and carried about with every wind of doctrine, by the cunning of men, by their craftiness in deceitful wiles. [15] Rather, speaking the truth in love, we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ, [16] from whom the whole body, joined and knit together by every joint with which it is supplied, when each part is working properly, makes bodily growth and upbuilds itself in love.

Colossians 2:18-19 Let no one disqualify you, insisting on self-abasement and worship of angels, taking his stand on visions, puffed up without reason by his sensuous mind, [19] and not holding fast to the Head, from whom the whole body, nourished and knit together through its joints and ligaments, grows with a growth that is from God.

Various fathers then picked up these sorts of motifs. Hence, Anglican patristic scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes about St. Vincent of Lerins:
He admits that it has been the business of councils to perfect and polish the traditional formulae, and even concepts, in which the great truths contained in the original deposit are expressed, thereby declaring ‘not new doctrines, but old ones in new terms’ (non nova, sed nove). Secondly, however, he would seem to allow for an organic development of doctrine analogous to the growth of the human body from infancy to age. But this development, he is careful to explain, while real, must not result in the least alteration to the original significance of the doctrine concerned. (Early Christian Doctrines, San Francisco: Harper, revised 1978 edition, 50-51)
St. Vincent stated, accordingly:
The growth of religion in the soul must be analogous to the growth of the body, which, though in process of years it is developed and attains its full size, yet remains still the same. There is a wide diference between the flower of youth and the maturity of age; yet they who were once young are still the same now that they have become old, insomuch that though the stature and outward form of the individual are changed, yet his nature is one and the same, his person is one and the same. An infant’s limbs are small, a young man’s large, yet the infant and the young man are the same. Men when full grown have the same number of joints that they had when children; and if there be any to which maturer age has given birth these were already present in embryo, so that nothing new is produced in them when old which was not already latent in them when children. This, then, is undoubtedly the true and legitimate rule of progress, this the established and most beautiful order of growth, that mature age ever develops in the man those parts and forms which the wisdom of the Creator had already framed beforehand in the infant. Whereas, if the human form were changed into some shape belonging to another kind, or at any rate, if the number of its limbs were increased or diminished, the result would be that the whole body would become either a wreck or a monster, or, at the least, would be impaired and enfeebled.
*
In like manner, it behoves Christian doctrine to follow the same laws of progress, so as to be consolidated by years, enlarged by time, refined by age, and yet, withal, to continue uncorrupt and unadulterate, complete and perfect in all the measurement of its parts, and, so to speak, in all its proper members and senses, admitting no change, no waste of its distinctive property, no variation in its limits. (The Commonitorium [Notebooks, c. 434] [link], translated by C. A. Heurtley, ch. XXIII. On Development in Religious Knowledge, sections 55-56)
37:51 Newman’s ideas really arise through the very specific debates that are going on in his day 
*
To some minor extent this is true, as with any great thinker; however, the essential, central ideas in Newmanian development were already formulated 1400 years earlier by St. Vincent of Lerins. If we want the main influence on Newman’s theory, that’s where we have to go. And that doesn’t fit in at all with the usual tired anti-Newman polemic, that tries to “explain” his developmental hypothesis by claiming that it sprung from 19th century Hegelian synthesis or Darwinian evolution, etc. (neither of which have the slightest resemblance to it).
*
43:15 Newman acknowledges what is just the obvious reality that there was no such thing as papal supremacy in certainly the medieval sense within the early
Again, it wasn’t as fully developed as it was in the Middle Ages but it was essentially in place by the 4th century, as persecution died out. But Newman refers multiple times to “papal supremacy” in the patristic period, as I proved last time with copious examples.
*
43:41 he essentially acknowledges that the Protestants are right
*
He did no such thing, as I also proved. The analogies that drove him to become a Catholic out of intellectual necessity and historical honesty, led him to the shocking realization that, analogously, Anglicanism was like Arianism or Monophysitism, whereas the Catholic Church had always been in the same orthodox position or place, in early times all the way to his time. That’s scarcely an argument that “Protestants are right” over against Catholicism.
*
43:53 his system allows him to do it allows him to say well sure Rome does does have all sorts of dogma that wasn’t present in the early church, but we don’t need to defend it from the early church anymore because we have this notion of dogmatic development
*
This is the usual misguided caricature of his views, making out that they are ahistorical or historically revisionist. In reality, his views are densely, thoroughly, substantially historical. He would say that we would expect to find, and indeed do find, a “small Catholic tree” in the patristic period: primitive but essentially the same doctrines, over against finding a “small Protestant tree” in the same period (as if the fathers were more like Protestants than Catholics). What we universally see is “Catholicism in kernel” in the early centuries. So we don’t get to evade historical analysis and the burden of showing that our views are more in line with the fathers than distinctive (i.e., innovative, novel) Protestant ones. It’s the Protestant who in fact has a burden greater than they can bear, once serious examination of the fathers occurs. That’s why Newman famously stated that “to be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.”
*
45:09 Rome continues to to argue for its positions and Newman certainly does from history and from Scripture. But ultimately the dogma doesn’t depend on either of those things, and so theoretically you can kind of throw out Scripture you can throw out Tradition and say, “okay, maybe Protestants have better arguments in both of those things but it doesn’t really matter, because ultimately if the magisterium says something is true, then it is true because that is the  instrument that God has chosen to use to to preserve the truths of both Scripture and Tradition and to interpret both Scripture and Tradition . . .” . . . Newman really does come to exactly the same place that Manning does in that the magisterium becomes its own justification for itself, because both of them ultimately end up in the same place. Both of them ultimately end up saying that you really can’t determine the dogma of the papacy by either history or Scripture and that it is ultimately the papacy or the magisterium that determines how those two things are to be understood.

This is merely the silly boilerplate polemics that derive historically from the Anglican anti-Catholic George Salmon, whose logically- and fact-challenged pseudo-“arguments” I and many others have dismantled and eviscerated at great length. It’s an exercise in caricature and refusal to seriously deal with the thing (Newmanian development) as it actually is. Both sides obviously believe things ultimately on faith, because that’s what religion necessarily entails, by definition. It’s not mere philosophy or historiography or even theology.

Protestants exercise faith just as every sort of Christian does, and at some point it goes beyond what reason alone can prove (involving unproven axioms), so it’s absurd to claim that somehow Catholics “ultimately” exercise a blind faith disconnected from Scripture and history altogether in a way fundamentally different from what Protestants do, as if we are “anti-reason” and “anti-evidence.” It’s simply untrue as some sort of grand, sweeping description of how Catholics think and go about things. If anything, it’s more often that various sorts of Protestants are the ones who downgrade reason and apologetics.

47:01 if you’ve submitted to the magisterium to have that kind of interpretive authority, that is your authority, so you’re not going to contradict the magisterium with Scripture or Tradition, so therefore that does become really your kind of sole primary authority. Everything really does go back to that.

What this neglects to take into account is that Protestantism in practice also has theological norms and doctrines that every Protestant must adhere to. They all have their very strong traditions, whether they acknowledge it or not, or non-optional beliefs that they must hold. For the Lutheran it’s the Book of Concord, with their roots in (which is different from being identical to) the teachings of Luther and his successor Melanchthon. For Calvinists it is various creeds and confessions that they bind themselves to, and Calvin’s Institutes. I always give the example of a supposed “Calvinist” going to a traditional, conservative Calvinist / Reformed church and its elders and pastors and deliberately rejecting all five points of “TULIP.” Will that be accepted?

Of course it won’t be, and such a person will be thrown out of the denomination. This happened on a wide-scale basis in history such as, for example, after the Synod of Dort. The same accusation could be leveled: someone dared to dissent from the required belief-system. Certain things weren’t allowed to be believed. Do we then have warrant to claim that Calvinists and Lutherans don’t attempt to produce evidences for their theological systems from Scripture and Church history? No! Of course they do, and it would be silly and absurd to claim otherwise.

Yet Jordan makes out that this is the case in Catholicism, simply because we have required beliefs, just as every Protestant denomination does. It doesn’t follow that we ignore Scripture and Church history as irrelevant. One might argue, of course, that we mistakenly interpret Scripture and/or the teaching of the fathers in particular matters, but one can’t claim that we don’t do it at all, and that all that matters is blindly believing in whatever the Church declares (sola ecclesia, as the caricature is sometimes called).

Jordan even noted in his video the virulent anti-Catholic James White’s use of this derogatory term. We clearly teach that Church, Scripture and tradition are in harmony with each other: a “three-legged stool.” That’s simply not sola ecclesia. The very analogy of the three-legged stool shows this, since if any of the three legs are removed, the stool can’t stand up. A “stool” representing sola ecclesia wouldn’t have three legs, but rather, one huge leg that looks like a tree stump.

On the other hand, sola Scriptura is Protestantism’s own term for its own rule of faith, not our attempted caricature of it (see my treatment of its definition). Protestants actually believe that, whereas we do not teach “sola ecclesia.” One doesn’t advance any discussion by refusing to accurately accept and acknowledge what one’s opponent teaches about his or her own belief system.

The first thing one learns in a middle school debate team is to understand the opponent’s view at least as well, if not better, than the opponent does. Since Jordan has miserably failed in that respect, his argument has no traction or effect. It’s a “pyrrhic victory” and is directed against a straw man rather than Newman’s actual theory and how he analyzes history and theology in applying it (and how the Catholic Church views things as well).

The Protestant will (in an illusory sense) “win” the debate every time if what they war against is a huge caricature and miscomprehension of what Catholic teaching is. That is far too often what occurs, which in turn simply reveals how very weak the overall case of Protestantism over against Catholicism is. If it were so strong and superior to our view, then it wouldn’t have to desperately descend into caricature and distortion as it proceeds.

See Part I

*
***
*
Practical Matters:  I run the most comprehensive “one-stop” Catholic apologetics site: rated #1 for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT — endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or fifty-six books have helped you (by God’s grace) to decide to become Catholic or to return to the Church, or better understand some doctrines and why we believe them.
*
Or you may believe my work is worthy to support for the purpose of apologetics and evangelism in general. If so, please seriously consider a much-needed financial contribution. I’m always in need of more funds: especially monthly support. “The laborer is worthy of his wages” (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a full-time Catholic apologist, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.
*
PayPal donations are the easiest: just send to my email address: [email protected]. Here’s also a second page to get to PayPal. You’ll see the term “Catholic Used Book Service”, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing (including Zelle), see my page: About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong / Donation InformationThanks a million from the bottom of my heart!

*
***
*

Photo credit: self-designed cover of my 2013 self-published book (see info. & purchase information)

Summary: Critique of Lutheran pastor and apologist Jordan Cooper’s substantial misunderstanding of St. Cardinal Newman’s true opinion regarding doctrinal development in general.

"Try using Google Advanced Search. Just type your search words on the first field and ..."

Joy in Purgatory: St. Catherine of ..."
"Yeah, I noticed that, too. I'm gonna write to someone at Patheos."

Joy in Purgatory: St. Catherine of ..."
"Greetings Dave,I think your search bar for your blog is not functioning properly. Every time ..."

Joy in Purgatory: St. Catherine of ..."

Browse Our Archives