{"id":88495,"date":"2025-01-02T11:26:24","date_gmt":"2025-01-02T15:26:24","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/?p=88495"},"modified":"2025-01-02T16:50:52","modified_gmt":"2025-01-02T20:50:52","slug":"reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html","title":{"rendered":"Reply to Jordan Cooper on Newman & Development"},"content":{"rendered":"\n<\/head>

\"\"<\/a>
Photo credit: self-designed cover of my 2013 self-published book<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n<\/p>

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper<\/a>\u00a0is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular\u00a0Just & Sinner<\/em>\u00a0<\/a>YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a\u00a0doctrinally traditional Lutheranism<\/a>, similar to the Lutheran Church \u2013 Missouri Synod). He has authored\u00a0several books<\/a>, as well as\u00a0theological articles<\/a>\u00a0in a variety of publications. All my Bible citations are from RSV, unless otherwise indicated. Jordan\u2019s words will be in\u00a0blue<\/span>.<\/p>\n

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 \u201cReplies to Jordan Cooper\u201d section at the top of my Lutheranism web page<\/a>. Thus far, he hasn\u2019t responded to any of my critiques, for reasons that he explained\u00a0on my Facebook page<\/a>\u00a0on 17 April 2024:<\/p>\n

I appreciate your thoughtful engagement with my material. I also appreciate not being called \u201canti-Catholic,\u201d 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\u00a0teaching, 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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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

As you may have noticed with my writing, podcasting, and YouTube content, I don\u2019t 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.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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 \u2014 and civil \u2013 discussions. In the meantime, I will continue to try to write what Jordan himself regards as \u201cthoughtful\u201d<\/span>\u00a0and\u00a0\u201cworthwhile\u201d<\/span> responses because the issues we disagree on within the Body of Christ still remain, and I\u2019m 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\u2019s 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.<\/p>\n

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

See Part I<\/a><\/p>\n

This is a reply to the latter two-thirds of Jordan\u2019s video, \u201cJohn Henry Newman on Papal Infallibility\u201d<\/a> (12-28-24). St. John Henry Cardinal Newman\u2019s words will be in green<\/span>.<\/p>\n

26:03 it\u2019s not like Newman\u2019s the first one to ever talk about any of this <\/span>[development of doctrine] and\u00a0there are some arguments that there are some kind of precursors to Newman within the medieval period<\/span><\/p>\n

. . . and in the Bible itself and the Church fathers, as I documented last time.<\/p>\n

27:41 when heresy arises we express things with clarity. We come up with new dogmatic categories in order to\u00a0make things a bit more clear in one way or another. But that\u2019s not the same thing as as a development of a new dogma.<\/span><\/p>\n

Exactly, and this is Newman\u2019s 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 \u201cpillars\u201d of the Protestant Revolt: sola fide<\/em> (faith alone): which is found neither in Scripture<\/a> nor in the Church fathers<\/a>, and sola Scriptura<\/em>: also absent from the Bible<\/a> and the Church fathers<\/a>, as I have demonstrated again and again in the greatest depth in my research.<\/p>\n

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\u00a0church.<\/span><\/p>\n

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

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, \u2018justifying righteousness\u2019 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 \u2018justification\u2019 and the latter \u2018sanctification\u2019 or \u2018regeneration.\u2019 For Augustine, these were simply different aspects of the same thing . . .<\/p>\n

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. . . .<\/p>\n

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\u2019s thought . . . .<\/p>\n

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

For Augustine, justification included both the beginnings of one\u2019s righteousness before God and its subsequent perfection \u2014 the event and the process. What later became the Reformation concept of \u2018sanctification\u2019 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 \u2018forensic\u2019 justification. This understanding of justification is a later development of the Reformation . . .<\/p>\n

Before Luther, the standard Augustinian position on justification stressed intrinsic justification. Intrinsic justification argues that the believer is made righteous by God\u2019s 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 . . .<\/p>\n

[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<\/a>, Roman Catholics and Evangelicals: Agreements and Differences<\/em><\/a>, with Ralph E. MacKenzie, Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Book House, 1995, 502, 85, 222)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

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

\u201cPlease Hit \u2018Subscribe\u2019\u201d!<\/strong><\/span>\u00a0If 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, \u201cSign Me Up!\u201d: to receive notice when I post a new blog article. This is the equivalent of subscribing to a\u00a0YouTube<\/em>\u00a0channel.\u00a0My blog was rated #1<\/a>\u00a0for Christian sites by leading AI tool, ChatGPT: endorsed by influential Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Actually, I partner with Kenny Burchard on the\u00a0YouTube<\/em>\u00a0channel,\u00a0Catholic Bible Highlights<\/em><\/a>. Please subscribe there, too! Please also consider following me on Twitter \/ X and purchasing\u00a0one or more of my 55 books<\/a>.\u00a0All of this helps me get more exposure, and (however little!) more income for my full-time apologetics work. Thanks so much and happy reading!<\/p>\n

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

31:16 [Newman] speaks about the church as this living organism. This language is probably familiar to a lot of you. It\u2019s used a lot by Roman Catholics \u2014 especially today \u2014 I don\u2019t see it as much in, like, Robert Bellarmine <\/span>[1542-1621] [or] older sources, but Newman\u2019s going to say, \u201clook any living organism, whether it\u2019s a person [or] an animal, it is it\u2019s going to have certain characteristics of life and some of those characteristics of a living thing are that living things grow; living <\/span>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 \u2014 the same person \u2013but their way of thinking is different . . . the way that their body looks and functions; aspects about their their mental and physical life didn\u2019t exist at one point and they do later. And so he says if the church is this living thing, it\u2019s 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 C<\/span>hurch and so this this development of the church also includes a development of dogma.<\/span><\/p>\n

\n
\n
Exactly. The Bible, of course, expresses the same sort of thing many times:<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
\n
Matthew 13:31-32<\/strong> (RSV) Another parable he put before them, saying, \u201cThe 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.\u201d<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
1 Corinthians 3:1-3<\/strong>\u00a0But 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.\u00a0 . . .<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
Ephesians 4:13-16<\/strong> 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]\u00a0Rather, 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.<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
\n

Colossians 2:18-19<\/strong>\u00a0Let 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.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n<\/div>\n

Various fathers then picked up these sorts of motifs. Hence, Anglican patristic scholar J. N. D. Kelly writes about St. Vincent of Lerins:<\/div>\n
\n
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 \u2018not new doctrines, but old ones in new terms\u2019 (non nova, sed nove<\/i>). 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<\/i>, San Francisco: Harper, revised 1978 edition, 50-51)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
St. Vincent stated, accordingly:<\/div>\n
\n
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\u2019s limbs are small, a young man\u2019s 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.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
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 <\/i>[Notebooks, <\/i>c. 434] [link<\/a>], translated by C. A. Heurtley, ch. XXIII. On Development in Religious Knowledge<\/em>, sections 55-56)<\/div>\n<\/blockquote>\n
37:51 Newman\u2019s ideas really arise through the very specific debates that are going on in his day\u00a0<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
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\u2019s theory, that\u2019s where we have to go. And that doesn\u2019t fit in at all with the usual tired anti-Newman polemic, that tries to \u201cexplain\u201d 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).<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
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<\/span><\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
church\u00a0<\/span>
\n*<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
Again, it wasn\u2019t 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 \u201cpapal supremacy\u201d in the patristic period, as I proved last time with copious examples.<\/div>\n<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
43:41 he essentially acknowledges that the Protestants are right<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
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\u2019s scarcely an argument that \u201cProtestants are right\u201d<\/span> over against Catholicism.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
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\u2019t present in the early church, but we don\u2019t need to defend it from the early church anymore because we have this notion of dogmatic development<\/span><\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
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<\/em> to find, and indeed do<\/em> find, a \u201csmall Catholic tree\u201d in the patristic period: primitive but essentially the same doctrines, over against finding a \u201csmall Protestant tree\u201d in the same period (as if the fathers were more like Protestants than Catholics). What we universally see is \u201cCatholicism<\/em> in kernel\u201d in the early centuries. So we don\u2019t get to evade<\/em> 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\u2019s the Protestant<\/em> who in fact has a burden greater than they can bear, once serious examination of the fathers occurs. That\u2019s why Newman famously stated that \u201cto be deep in history is to cease to be a Protestant.\u201d<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
45:09 Rome continues to to argue for its positions and Newman certainly does from history and from Scripture. But ultimately the dogma doesn\u2019t depend on either of those things, and so theoretically you can kind of throw out Scripture you can throw out Tradition and say, \u201cokay, maybe Protestants have better arguments in both of those things but it doesn\u2019t really matter, because ultimately if the magisterium says something is true, then it is true because that is the\u00a0 instrument that God has chosen to use to to preserve the truths of both Scripture and Tradition and to interpret both Scripture and Tradition . . .\u201d . . .\u00a0Newman 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\u2019t 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\u00a0two things are to be understood.<\/span><\/div>\n
\n

This is merely the silly boilerplate polemics that derive historically from the Anglican anti-Catholic George Salmon, whose logically- and fact-challenged pseudo-\u201carguments\u201d I and many others have dismantled and eviscerated at great length<\/a>. It\u2019s an exercise in caricature and refusal to seriously deal with the thing (Newmanian development) as it actually is<\/em>. Both sides<\/em> obviously believe things ultimately on faith, because that\u2019s what religion necessarily entails, by definition. It\u2019s not mere philosophy or historiography or even theology.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n

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\u2019s absurd to claim that somehow Catholics \u201cultimately\u201d<\/span> exercise a blind<\/em> faith disconnected from Scripture and history altogether in a way fundamentally different from what Protestants do, as if we are \u201canti-reason\u201d and \u201canti-evidence.\u201d It\u2019s simply untrue as some sort of grand, sweeping description of how Catholics think and go about things. If anything, it\u2019s more often that various sorts of Protestants are the ones who downgrade reason and apologetics.<\/p>\n

47:01 if you\u2019ve submitted to the magisterium to have that kind of interpretive authority, that is your authority, so you\u2019re 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.<\/span><\/p>\n

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\u2019s the Book of Concord, with their roots in (which is different from being identical<\/em> to) the teachings of Luther and his successor Melanchthon. For Calvinists it is various creeds and confessions that they bind themselves to, and Calvin\u2019s Institutes<\/em>. I always give the example of a supposed \u201cCalvinist\u201d going to a traditional, conservative Calvinist \/ Reformed church and its elders and pastors and deliberately rejecting all five points of \u201cTULIP.\u201d<\/a> Will that<\/em> be accepted?<\/p>\n

Of course it won\u2019t 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<\/a>. The same accusation could be leveled: someone dared to dissent from the required belief-system. Certain things weren\u2019t allowed to be believed. Do we then have warrant to claim that Calvinists and Lutherans don\u2019t attempt to produce evidences for their theological systems from Scripture and Church history? No! Of course<\/em> they do, and it would be silly and absurd to claim otherwise.<\/p>\n

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\u2019t follow that we ignore Scripture and Church history as irrelevant. One might argue, of course, that we mistakenly<\/em> interpret Scripture and\/or the teaching of the fathers in particular matters, but one can\u2019t claim that we don\u2019t do it at all<\/em>, and that all that matters is blindly believing in whatever the Church declares (sola ecclesia<\/em>, as the caricature is sometimes called).<\/p>\n

Jordan even noted in his video the virulent anti-Catholic James White\u2019s use of this derogatory term. We clearly teach that Church, Scripture and tradition are in harmony with each other: a \u201cthree-legged stool.\u201d That\u2019s simply not sola ecclesia<\/em>. The very analogy of the three-legged stool shows this, since if any<\/em> of the three legs are removed, the stool can\u2019t stand up. A \u201cstool\u201d representing sola ecclesia<\/em> wouldn\u2019t have three legs, but rather, one huge leg that looks like a tree stump.<\/p>\n

On the other hand, sola Scriptura<\/em> is Protestantism\u2019s own<\/em> term for its own rule of faith, not our attempted caricature of it (see my treatment of its definition<\/a>). Protestants actually believe<\/em>\u00a0that, whereas we do not<\/em><\/strong> teach \u201csola ecclesia<\/em>.\u201d One doesn\u2019t advance any discussion by refusing to accurately accept and acknowledge what one\u2019s opponent teaches about his or her own belief system.<\/p>\n

The first thing one learns in a middle school debate team is to understand the opponent\u2019s 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\u2019s a \u201cpyrrhic victory\u201d<\/a> and is directed against a straw man<\/a> rather than Newman\u2019s actual theory and how he analyzes history and theology in applying it (and how the Catholic Church views things as well).<\/p>\n

The Protestant will (in an illusory sense) \u201cwin\u201d the debate every time if what they war against is a huge caricature and miscomprehension of what Catholic teaching is<\/em>. That is far too often what occurs, which in turn simply reveals how very weak<\/em> the overall case of Protestantism over against Catholicism is<\/em>. If it were so strong and superior to our view, then it wouldn\u2019t have to desperately descend into caricature and distortion as it proceeds.<\/p>\n

See Part I<\/a><\/p>\n

*<\/div>\n
\n
\n
\n
***
\n*
\nPractical Matters<\/strong><\/em>:\u00a0 I run the most comprehensive \u201cone-stop\u201d Catholic apologetics site:\u00a0rated #1\u00a0for Christian sites<\/a>\u00a0by leading AI tool, ChatGPT \u2014 endorsed by popular Protestant blogger Adrian Warnock. Perhaps some of my 5,000+ free online articles or\u00a0fifty-six books<\/a>\u00a0have helped you (by God\u2019s grace) to decide to\u00a0become Catholic<\/a>\u00a0or to\u00a0return to the Church<\/a>, or better understand some doctrines and\u00a0why<\/em>\u00a0we believe them<\/a>.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\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>, and February 2022 marked the 25th anniversary of my blog.<\/div>\n
*<\/div>\n
PayPal donations<\/a>\u00a0are the easiest: just send to my email address: apologistdave@gmail.com. Here\u2019s also a\u00a0second page to get to PayPal<\/a>. 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\u00a0Zelle<\/a>), see my page:\u00a0About Catholic Apologist Dave Armstrong \/ Donation Information<\/a>.\u00a0Thanks a million\u00a0<\/strong><\/em>from the bottom of my heart!<\/div>\n
\n

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

Photo credit<\/strong>: self-designed<\/span> cover of my 2013 self-published book <\/span>(see info. & purchase information<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Summary<\/em>: Critique of Lutheran pastor and apologist Jordan Cooper\u2019s substantial misunderstanding of St. Cardinal Newman\u2019s true opinion regarding doctrinal development in general.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n<\/body><\/html>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 Rev. Dr. Jordan B. Cooper\u00a0is a Lutheran pastor, adjunct professor of Systematic Theology, Executive Director of the popular\u00a0Just & Sinner\u00a0YouTube channel, and the President of the American Lutheran Theological Seminary (which holds to a\u00a0doctrinally traditional Lutheranism, similar to the Lutheran Church \u2013 Missouri Synod). He has authored\u00a0several books, as well as\u00a0theological articles\u00a0in a variety […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2331,"featured_media":88504,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1567,138],"tags":[1851,2336,18563,19564,19561,3027],"class_list":["post-88495","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-development-of-doctrine-2","category-papacy-infallibility","tag-first-vatican-council","tag-john-henry-newman","tag-jordan-cooper","tag-newman-development","tag-newman-early-church-papal-infallibility","tag-ultramontanism"],"yoast_head":"\nReply to Jordan Cooper on Newman & Development<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Critique of Lutheran pastor and apologist Jordan Cooper's substantial misunderstanding of St. Cardinal Newman's true opinion regarding doctrinal development in general.\" \/>\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\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.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 on Newman & Development\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Critique of Lutheran pastor and apologist Jordan Cooper's substantial misunderstanding of St. Cardinal Newman's true opinion regarding doctrinal development in general.\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-01-02T15:26:24+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-01-02T20:50:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2024\/12\/JPG-Cover-613-x-899-scaled.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"524\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"768\" \/>\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\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html\",\"name\":\"Reply to Jordan Cooper on Newman & Development\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2025-01-02T15:26:24+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-01-02T20:50:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e\"},\"description\":\"Critique of Lutheran pastor and apologist Jordan Cooper's substantial misunderstanding of St. Cardinal Newman's true opinion regarding doctrinal development in general.\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.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 on Newman & Development\"}]},{\"@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).\",\"sameAs\":[\"https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/\",\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798\",\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics\"],\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Reply to Jordan Cooper on Newman & Development","description":"Critique of Lutheran pastor and apologist Jordan Cooper's substantial misunderstanding of St. Cardinal Newman's true opinion regarding doctrinal development in general.","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\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Reply to Jordan Cooper on Newman & Development","og_description":"Critique of Lutheran pastor and apologist Jordan Cooper's substantial misunderstanding of St. Cardinal Newman's true opinion regarding doctrinal development in general.","og_url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html","og_site_name":"Biblical Evidence for Catholicism","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","article_published_time":"2025-01-02T15:26:24+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-01-02T20:50:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":524,"height":768,"url":"https:\/\/wp-media.patheos.com\/blogs\/sites\/572\/2024\/12\/JPG-Cover-613-x-899-scaled.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\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html","url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html","name":"Reply to Jordan Cooper on Newman & Development","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#website"},"datePublished":"2025-01-02T15:26:24+00:00","dateModified":"2025-01-02T20:50:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/#\/schema\/person\/471eaa20e441eca4bb1ea50393cf632e"},"description":"Critique of Lutheran pastor and apologist Jordan Cooper's substantial misunderstanding of St. Cardinal Newman's true opinion regarding doctrinal development in general.","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.html"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/2025\/01\/reply-to-jordan-cooper-on-newman-development.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 on Newman & Development"}]},{"@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).","sameAs":["https:\/\/biblicalcatholicism.com\/","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/dave.armstrong.798","https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/@LuxVeritatisApologetics"],"url":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/author\/davearmstrong"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88495","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=88495"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/88495\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/88504"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=88495"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=88495"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.patheos.com\/blogs\/davearmstrong\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=88495"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}