{"id":64033,"date":"2022-04-25T14:36:17","date_gmt":"2022-04-25T18:36:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=64033"},"modified":"2022-04-25T14:36:17","modified_gmt":"2022-04-25T18:36:17","slug":"reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html","title":{"rendered":"Reply to Jordan Cooper’s Rejection of the Papacy"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper<\/a> is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner<\/em> <\/a>YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a doctrinally traditional Lutheranism<\/a>, similar to the Lutheran Church \u2013 Missouri Synod). He has authored several books<\/a>, as well as theological articles<\/a> in a variety of publications.<\/p>\n

*****<\/p>\n

I will be responding to the first \u201cpapacy portion\u201d of Jordan\u2019s YouTube video, \u201cFive Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic\u201d<\/a> (1-27-19). When I cite his words directly, they will be in blue<\/span>, and citations and descriptions of his arguments will be accompanied by the time in the video as well.<\/p>\n

1) The Papacy.\u00a0 . . . The claims regarding the papacy I simply don\u2019t see as historically verifiable, and I also do not see them exegetically.\u00a0 I don\u2019t see them as being taught in Scripture. . . . Matthew 16 is the one that\u2019s often pointed to.\u00a0 . . . Even if you are to argue that Peter is indeed the<\/em> Rock, . . . that still does not prove that there is any truth to the claims about the successors<\/em> of St. Peter.<\/span>\u00a0[1:08-2:32]<\/p>\n

See my papers, for the general Catholic \u201cPetrine\u201d or \u201cpapal\u201d argument from Scripture:<\/p>\n

50 New Testament Proofs for Petrine Primacy & the Papacy\u00a0<\/a>[1994]<\/p>\n

Primacy of St. Peter Verified by Protestant Scholars<\/a>\u00a0[1994]<\/p>\n

Can Christ & Peter Both be \u201cRocks\u201d?<\/a>\u00a0[4-21-22]<\/p>\n

See also: \u201cProtestant Scholars on Matthew 16:16-19<\/a>\u201d (Nicholas Hardesty) [9-4-06]<\/p>\n

As to papal succession<\/em>, most Christians agree that St. Peter was the leader of the early Church and the disciples: whether they believe he was a \u201cpope\u201d or not.\u00a0It stands to reason, then, that there would\u00a0continue<\/i>\u00a0to be a leader, just as there was a first President when the laws of the United States were established at the Constitutional Convention in 1787.<\/p>\n

Why have one President and then cease to have one thereafter and let the executive branch of government exist without a leader? Everyone understands that there is then a succession of Presidents and that it doesn\u2019t\u00a0end<\/em>\u00a0with the first one and the prototype.<\/p>\n

So why do people think so differently when it comes to Christianity, which is in need of a governing body and person at the top of the chain of authority, just as any effective organization\u00a0whatever<\/em>\u00a0has? Catholics are, therefore, applying common sense: if this is how Jesus set up the government of His Church in the beginning, then it ought to continue in like fashion, in perpetuity.<\/p>\n

If indeed an office of the pope was truly intended to be set up by Jesus, why in the world would anyone think it was solely for the lifetime of Peter and then it would vanish? The Church supposedly had a supervisor for ten, twenty years, but then never did\u00a0again<\/em>? That makes no sense. What would be the\u00a0point<\/i>?<\/p>\n

When other offices are referred to in the Bible (excepting the apostles and perhaps prophets: but there is a biblical argument that bishops are the successors of the apostles), they were clearly regarded as permanent and ongoing (deacons, elders, pastors \/ priests \/ bishops). By analogy, then, it follows that this office is perpetual, just as the others are. It also makes sense to have a\u00a0chief\u00a0bishop.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the very nature of the concept of\u00a0office<\/em>\u00a0is that it is larger than one mere person who occupies it: even the first and most extraordinary one who does. It\u2019s quite obvious that Jesus\u2019 commissioning of Peter was the creation of a new office or position: having to do with the governance of the Church and jurisdiction and power.<\/p>\n

Moreover, the consensus of Bible scholars today (including Protestants) is that the notion of \u201ckeys of the kingdom of heaven\u201d given to Peter by Jesus (Mt 16:19) hearkens back to the Old Testament:<\/p>\n

\n

Isaiah 22:22-24 <\/b>(RSV) And I will place on his shoulder the key of the house of David; he shall open, and none shall shut; and he shall shut, and none shall open.\u00a0[23] And I will fasten him like a peg in a sure place, and he will become a throne of honor to his father\u2019s house. [24] And they will hang on him the whole weight of his father\u2019s house, the offspring and issue, every small vessel, from the cups to all the flagons. (cf. 36:3, 22)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This was a supervisory office. The great Protestant Bible scholar, F. F. Bruce observed:<\/p>\n

\n

The keys of a royal or noble establishment were entrusted to the chief steward or majordomo; . . . About 700 B.C. an oracle from God announced that this authority in the royal palace in Jerusalem was to be conferred on a man called Eliakim . . . (Isa. 22:22). So in the new community which Jesus was about to build, Peter would be, so to speak, chief steward.\u00a0(The Hard Sayings of Jesus<\/i>, Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1983, 143-144)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

If the direct analogy understood in the commission refers to an office itself inherently possessing\u00a0succession<\/i>, as a matter of historical fact (according to Old Testament scholars and ancient Near East historians), then it follows that the papacy\u00a0also<\/i>\u00a0has succession as one of its inherent characteristics. This is purely logical and based on facts concerning the office that is the basis of the analogy. In that sense it is even explicit in Scripture.<\/p>\n

Jordan then talked about how there are bishops in the NT and Church history, and that this is good. At that point, I ask again: why have leaders in local churches, but not one leader of the whole Church? Why have a leader of the disciples, but not a leader of the bishops, who were the successors of the disciples \/ apostles? I would say that in fact we observe Peter acting as such a leader of the Church throughout the first half of the book of Acts and in the Jerusalem Council (Acts 15).<\/p>\n

We see him writing very much as a pope would write in his First Epistle, which was written from Rome in general homiletic, or \u201chortatory\u201d fashion (though not to all Christian inhabitants of the known world, which is not required for my point to stand) as (according to Guthrie and The Eerdmans Bible Dictionary<\/i>) a \u201ccircular letter\u201d (much like a papal encyclical is today). In fact, if we look up\u00a0encyclical<\/i>\u00a0in the dictionary, we find that it comes from the Latin\u00a0encyclicus<\/i>\u00a0and the Greek\u00a0enkyklios<\/i>, meaning, literally, \u201cin a circle, general, common, for general circulation.\u201d The word\u00a0encyclopedia<\/i>\u00a0is derived from the same root. Renowned Protestant Bible scholar J. B. Lightfoot comments on this passage as follows:<\/p>\n

St. Peter, giving directions to the elders, claims a place among them. The title \u2018fellow-presbyter,\u2019 which he applies to himself, would doubtless recall to the memory of his readers the occasions when he himself had presided with the elders and\u00a0guided their deliberations<\/i>.\u00a0(St. Paul\u2019s Epistle to the Philippians<\/i>, Lynn, Massachusett: Hendrickson Pub., 1982, 198; emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Furthermore, we have St. Clement of Rome decidedly acting like a pope before 100 AD in his letter to the Corinthians:<\/p>\n

Pope St. Clement of Rome & Papal Authority<\/a>\u00a0[7-28-21]<\/p>\n

Is First Clement Non-Papal? (vs. Jason Engwer)<\/a>\u00a0[4-19-22]<\/p>\n

Jordan argues that early Church documents don\u2019t refer to a pope. For example, St. Ignatius of Antioch doesn\u2019t seem to be aware of a pope. But he ignores the strong evidence of 1 Clement, which is very early as well. St. John Henry Cardinal Newman offers a cogent explanation as to why the papacy is rather subdued and manifest relatively less in the earlier centuries of the Church (and specifically a reason for Ignatius\u2019 silence on the matter):<\/p>\n

\n
\n
Let us see how, on the principles which I have been laying down and defending, the evidence lies for the Pope\u2019s supremacy.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
As to this doctrine the question is this, whether there was not from the first a certain element at work, or in existence, divinely sanctioned, which, for certain reasons, did not at once show itself upon the surface of ecclesiastical affairs, and of which events in the fourth century are the development; and whether the evidence of its existence and operation, which does occur in the earlier centuries, be it much or little, is not just such as ought to occur upon such an hypothesis.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
For instance, it is true, St. Ignatius is silent in his Epistles on the subject of the Pope\u2019s authority; but if in fact that authority could not be in active operation then, such silence is not so difficult to account for as the silence of Seneca or Plutarch about Christianity itself, or of Lucian about the Roman people. St. Ignatius directed his doctrine according to the need. While Apostles were on earth, there was the display neither of Bishop nor Pope; their power had no prominence, as being exercised by Apostles. In course of time, first the power of the Bishop displayed itself, and then the power of the Pope. . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
St. Peter\u2019s prerogative would remain a mere letter, till the complication of ecclesiastical matters became the cause of ascertaining it. While Christians were \u201cof one heart and soul,\u201d it would be suspended; love dispenses with laws . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
When the Church, then, was thrown upon her own resources, first local disturbances gave exercise to Bishops, and next ecumenical disturbances gave exercise to Popes; and whether communion with the Pope was necessary for Catholicity would not and could not be debated till a suspension of that communion had actually occurred. It is not a greater difficulty that St. Ignatius does not write to the Asian Greeks about Popes, than that St. Paul does not write to the Corinthians about Bishops. And it is a less difficulty that the Papal supremacy was not formally acknowledged in the second century, than that there was no formal acknowledgment on the part of the Church of the doctrine of the Holy Trinity till the fourth. No doctrine is defined till it is violated . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Moreover, an international bond and a common authority could not be consolidated, were it ever so certainly provided, while persecutions lasted. If the Imperial Power checked the development of Councils, it availed also for keeping back the power of the Papacy. The Creed, the Canon, in like manner, both remained undefined. The Creed, the Canon, the Papacy, Ecumenical Councils, all began to form, as soon as the Empire relaxed its tyrannous oppression of the Church. And as it was natural that her monarchical power should display itself when the Empire became Christian, so was it natural also that further developments of that power should take place when that Empire fell. Moreover, when the power of the Holy See began to exert itself, disturbance and collision would be the necessary consequence . . . as St. Paul had to plead, nay, to strive for his apostolic authority, and enjoined St. Timothy, as Bishop of Ephesus, to let no man despise him: so Popes too have not therefore been ambitious because they did not establish their authority without a struggle. It was natural that Polycrates should oppose St. Victor; and natural too that St. Cyprian should both extol the See of St. Peter, yet resist it when he thought it went beyond its province . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
On the whole, supposing the power to be divinely bestowed, yet in the first instance more or less dormant, a history could not be traced out more probable, more suitable to that hypothesis, than the actual course of the controversy which took place age after age upon the Papal supremacy.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
It will be said that all this is a theory. Certainly it is: it is a theory to account for facts as they lie in the history, to account for so much being told us about the Papal authority in early times, and not more; a theory to reconcile what is and what is not recorded about it; and, which is the principal point, a theory to connect the words and acts of the Ante-nicene Church with that antecedent probability of a monarchical principle in the Divine Scheme, and that actual exemplification of it in the fourth century, which forms their presumptive interpretation. All depends on the strength of that presumption. Supposing there be otherwise good reason for saying that the Papal Supremacy is part of Christianity, there is nothing in the early history of the Church to contradict it . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Moreover, all this must be viewed in the light of the general probability, so much insisted on above, that doctrine cannot but develop as time proceeds and need arises, and that its developments are parts of the Divine system, and that therefore it is lawful, or rather necessary, to interpret the words and deeds of the earlier Church by the determinate teaching of the later. (Essay on the Development of Christian Doctrine<\/em><\/a>, 1878 edition, Univ. of Notre Dame Press, 1989, pp. 148-155; Part 1, Chapter 4, Section 3<\/a>)<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
And of course Catholics would ask Lutherans: there is no patristic evidence for sola Scriptura<\/em>, sola fide<\/em> (justification by faith alone), consubstantiation, or any number of other Lutheran doctrines that appeared suddenly in the 16th century (indeed, even by the time of the Diet of Worm in 1521<\/a>). That doesn\u2019t, however, make you stop believing in those<\/em> doctrines? Why<\/em>? Why the difference of principle<\/em> with regard to the papacy, where there is actually more early evidence than for your Lutheran distinctives?<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
When you look at the earlier ecumenical councils, like the council of Nicaea<\/span> [325], the bishop of Rome has no clear role there, not a strong one. It\u2019s clear that the other bishops aren\u2019t looking to Rome as the ultimate source of authority or truth.<\/span>\u00a0[4:28-4:43]<\/div>\n
\n

*<\/p>\n

I debated this with Reformed anti-Catholic apologist James White way back in August 1997:<\/p>\n

Pope Silvester and the Council of Nicaea<\/a> (vs. James White)<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

See also the related: \u201cPapal Authority at the Earliest Councils\u201d<\/a> (Fr. Brian Harrison, Catholic Answers, 1-1-91)<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
You see this going back to the book of Acts: the council of Jerusalem; it\u2019s James who is really heading up that particular council, not Peter.<\/span>\u00a0[4:42-4:52]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
I dealt with this question in my article, Did Peter or James Preside at the Jerusalem Council? (And Was it the Prototype of Ecumenical Councils or Merely a Local Synod?)<\/a> [5-21-21]. Here\u2019s the key portion:<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
From Acts 15, we learn that \u201cafter there was much debate, Peter rose\u201d to address the assembly (15:7). The Bible records his speech, which goes on for five verses. Then it reports that \u201call the assembly kept silence\u201d (15:12). Paul and Barnabas speak next, not making authoritative pronouncements, but confirming Peter\u2019s exposition, speaking about \u201csigns and wonders God had done through them among the Gentiles\u201d (15:12). Then when James speaks, he refers right back to what \u201cSimeon [Peter] has related\u201d (15:14). To me, this suggests that Peter\u2019s talk was central and definitive. James speaking last could easily be explained by the fact that he was the bishop of Jerusalem and therefore the \u201chost.\u201d<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n
\n
\n
St. Peter indeed had already received a relevant revelation, related to the council. God gave him a vision of the cleanness of all foods (contrary to the Jewish Law: see Acts 10:9-16). St. Peter is already learning about the relaxation of Jewish dietary laws, and is eating with uncircumcised men, and is ready to proclaim the gospel widely to the Gentiles (Acts 10 and 11).<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n
\n
This was the secondary decision of the Jerusalem Council, and Peter referred to his experiences with the Gentiles at the council (Acts 15:7-11). The council then decided \u2014 with regard to food \u2013, to prohibit only that which \u201chas been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled\u201d (15:29).<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
He notes that the Church fathers, by and large, do not interpret Matthew 16 in a papal manner, but this is not at all fatal to the Catholic claims (or even any sort of difficulty), per my reasoning in a recent reply to a Reformed Protestant: James Swan, St. Augustine & \u201cThis Rock\u201d<\/a> [4-19-22].<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n
\n

*
\nPractical Matters<\/em><\/strong>: Perhaps some of my 4,000+ free online articles (the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site) or\u00a0fifty books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>,\u00a0or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/p>\n

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\u2019m always in need of more funds: especially\u00a0monthly<\/em>\u00a0support. \u201cThe laborer is worthy of his wages\u201d (1 Tim 5:18, NKJV). 1 December 2021 was my 20th anniversary as a\u00a0full-time Catholic apologist<\/a>,\u00a0and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/p>\n

PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. You\u2019ll see the term \u201cCatholic Used Book Service\u201d, which is my old side-business. To learn about the different methods of contributing, including 100% tax deduction, etc., see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0from the bottom of my heart!<\/p>\n

***<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

Photo credit<\/strong>: Christ Handing the Keys to St. Peter<\/em> (1481-1482), by Pietro Perugino (1448-1523)<\/span> [public domain \/ Wikimedia Commons<\/a>]<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
***<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n
Summary<\/em>: Response to Jordan Cooper\u2019s rejection of the papacy, in his video, \u201cFive Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic\u201d: showing his reasons to be weak & able to be refuted.<\/div>\n
<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

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 \u2013 Missouri Synod). He has authored several books, as well […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":64041,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[138],"tags":[1168,8,16066,5444,163,16056,16068,2632,2636,16071,419,16063,161,162,4500],"class_list":["post-64033","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-catholic","tag-catholicism","tag-contra-catholic-apologetics","tag-conversion","tag-ecclesiology","tag-jordan-b-cooper","tag-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy","tag-lutheran","tag-lutheran-apologetics","tag-lutheran-rejection-of-the-papacy","tag-lutheranism-2","tag-lutheranism-vs-catholicism","tag-papacy","tag-popes","tag-roman-catholic"],"yoast_head":"\nReply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube Response to Jordan Cooper's rejection of the papacy, in his video, "Five Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic": showing his reasons to be weak & able to be refuted.\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube Response to Jordan Cooper's rejection of the papacy, in his video, "Five Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic": showing his reasons to be weak & able to be refuted.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-04-25T18:36:17+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/04\/PeterKeys2b.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"501\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"480\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Dave Armstrong\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"13 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html\",\"name\":\"Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2022-04-25T18:36:17+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-04-25T18:36:17+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube Response to Jordan Cooper's rejection of the papacy, in his video, \\\"Five Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic\\\": showing his reasons to be weak & able to be refuted.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Reply to Jordan Cooper’s Rejection of the Papacy\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/\",\"name\":\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\",\"description\":\"Catholic biblical apologetics\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\",\"name\":\"Dave Armstrong\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Dave Armstrong\"},\"description\":\"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \\\"This Rock\\\" (now called \\\"Catholic Answers Magazine\\\"), \\\"Envoy Magazine\\\" (Patrick Madrid), \\\"The Catholic Answer,\\\" \\\"The Coming Home Journal,\\\" \\\"Gilbert Magazine\\\" (American Chesterton Society), and \\\"The Latin Mass.\\\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \\\"The Michigan Catholic\\\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \\\"Catholic Answers Live\\\" (twice), \\\"Faith and Family Live\\\" (Steve Wood), \\\"Kresta in the Afternoon,\\\" \\\"Son Rise Morning Show,\\\" \\\"Catholic Connection\\\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \\\"The Catholics Next Door.\\\" His large and popular website, \\\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\\\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \\\"Envoy Magazine.\\\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \\\"index\\\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \\\"Surprised by Truth\\\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \\\"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\\\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \\\"The Catholic Verses\\\" (2004), \\\"The One-Minute Apologist\\\" (2007), \\\"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\\\" (2009), \\\"The Quotable Newman\\\" (editor: 2012), and \\\"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\\\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \\\"The New Catholic Answer Bible\\\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \\\"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\\\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \\\"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\\\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \\\"Quotable Wesley\\\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy","description":"Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube Response to Jordan Cooper's rejection of the papacy, in his video, \"Five Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic\": showing his reasons to be weak & able to be refuted.","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy","og_description":"Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube Response to Jordan Cooper's rejection of the papacy, in his video, \"Five Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic\": showing his reasons to be weak & able to be refuted.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_published_time":"2022-04-25T18:36:17+00:00","og_image":[{"width":501,"height":480,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2022\/04\/PeterKeys2b.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Dave Armstrong","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Dave Armstrong","Est. reading time":"13 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html","name":"Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy Reply to Jordan Cooper's Rejection of the Papacy","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2022-04-25T18:36:17+00:00","dateModified":"2022-04-25T18:36:17+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular Just & Sinner YouTube Response to Jordan Cooper's rejection of the papacy, in his video, \"Five Reasons I Am Not Roman Catholic\": showing his reasons to be weak & able to be refuted.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2022\/04\/reply-to-jordan-coopers-rejection-of-the-papacy.html#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Reply to Jordan Cooper’s Rejection of the Papacy"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/","name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","description":"Catholic biblical apologetics","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e","name":"Dave Armstrong","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/820e6db89734ae7a9e5dac8d498f5ac7?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Dave Armstrong"},"description":"Dave Armstrong is a Catholic author and apologist, who has been actively proclaiming and defending Christianity since 1981, and Catholicism in particular since 1991 (full-time since December 2001). Formerly a campus missionary, as a Protestant, Dave was received into the Catholic Church in February 1991, by the late, well-known catechist and theologian, Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave\u2019s articles have appeared in many influential Catholic periodicals, including \"This Rock\" (now called \"Catholic Answers Magazine\"), \"Envoy Magazine\" (Patrick Madrid), \"The Catholic Answer,\" \"The Coming Home Journal,\" \"Gilbert Magazine\" (American Chesterton Society), and \"The Latin Mass.\" He also writes a featured column for every issue of \"The Michigan Catholic\": published by the archdiocese of Detroit, and was editor for most of the apologetics tracts published by the St. Paul Street Evangelization apostolate. Dave\u2019s apologetics and writing apostolate was the subject of a feature article in the May 2002 issue of \"Envoy Magazine.\" He served as the staff moderator at the Internet discussion forum for The Coming Home Network, from 2007-2010. Dave has been interviewed on many nationally syndicated Catholic radio shows, including \"Catholic Answers Live\" (twice), \"Faith and Family Live\" (Steve Wood), \"Kresta in the Afternoon,\" \"Son Rise Morning Show,\" \"Catholic Connection\" (Teresa Tomeo), and \"The Catholics Next Door.\" His large and popular website, \"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism,\" was online from March 1997 to March 2007, and received the 1998 Catholic Website of the Year award from \"Envoy Magazine.\" His blog of the same name (now transferred to Patheos), begun in February 2004, contains more than 1,500 papers, at least 500 debates or dialogues, and over 50 distinct \"index\" web pages. Unsolicited correspondence has indicated many hundreds of conversions (or returns) to the Catholic faith as a result, by God's grace, of these writings. Dave's conversion story was published in the bestselling book \"Surprised by Truth\" (edited by Patrick Madrid; San Diego: Basilica Press, 1994). Sophia Institute Press has published six of his books: \"A Biblical Defense of Catholicism\" (Foreword by Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J., 1996 \/ 2003), \"The Catholic Verses\" (2004), \"The One-Minute Apologist\" (2007), \"Bible Proofs for Catholic Truths\" (2009), \"The Quotable Newman\" (editor: 2012), and \"Proving the Catholic Faith is Biblical\" (2015). He is co-author (with Dr. Paul Thigpen) of the inserts for \"The New Catholic Answer Bible\" (Our Sunday Visitor: 2005), and editor for \"The Wisdom of Mr. Chesterton: The Very Best Quotes, Quips, and Cracks from the Pen of G. K. Chesterton\" (Saint Benedict Press \/ TAN Books: 2009). \"100 Biblical Arguments Against Sola Scriptura\" was published by Catholic Answers in May 2012. His \"Quotable Wesley\" compilation was published by (Protestant \/ Wesleyan publisher) Beacon Hill Press in April 2014. Several of his 49 books are bestsellers in their field. Dave maintains a popular personal Facebook page, a Facebook author page, and has a Twitter account as well. He offers almost all of his books in e-book form on his own Biblical Catholicism site (http:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/), at a permanent deep discount: only $2.99 for ePub, mobi, and AZW, and $1.99 for PDF. His writing has been enthusiastically endorsed or recommended by many leading Catholic apologists, authors, and priests, including Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Peter M. J. Stravinskas, Marcus Grodi, Patrick Madrid, Steve Ray, Tim Staples, Devin Rose, Mike Aquilina, Al Kresta, Karl Keating, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, Brandon Vogt, Marcellino D'Ambrosio, and Fr. John A. Hardon, S. J. Dave has been happily married to his wife Judy since October 1984. They have three sons and a daughter, and reside in southeast Michigan (metro Detroit).","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64033","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2331"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=64033"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/64033\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/64041"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=64033"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=64033"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=64033"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}