# Discussion and Refutation of Dr. Jordan Cooper's Lutheranism



## W.C. Dean (May 13, 2020)

Greetings all. On certain topics, I have enjoyed the comments of Dr. Jordan Cooper but I recently decided to watch his video detailing five reasons he is not Reformed. I sometimes feel anxious about listening to the opposing views when I am not experienced in defending them, and I was surprised by the lack of virtually anything appealing or solid in his video. I'll list the five reasons he says he is not Reformed, and they're not just anti-Calvinist, he also discussed Presbyterian polity and views of the sacraments.

1. Reformed theology is overly logical
A. Certain Reformed beliefs are not explicitly found in Scripture, rather they just logical conclusions from other things found in the Bible or in natural logic and reasoning, examples being "the entire system of election", and "human nature of Christ".
B. When he says the entire system of election, he states that Calvinist thought uses human reasoning to deduce the entire doctrine, while not following the Bible on "universalistic texts" or statements about universal grace.
C. When he says the human nature of Christ, he states that while logic would tell us Christ in human nature could not be in the presence of the father and be in the presence of the Lord's Supper, Scripture teaches something different. It's a mystery to human logic but Calvinists supposedly deny the mysteriousness of it. Reformed theology is effectually denying that God can do whatever he wants with human nature.
D. Lutherans are okay with paradoxes or unexplained mysteries in the Bible. Calvinists deny mysteries and use human logic to explain away mysterious things. 
2. Universal Grace
A. Limited atonement is a cause of doubt of assurance. When you believe Christ only died for some, and you fall into sin you easily doubt your own salvation. Faith is outward looking and has to have an object to cling onto. We need something objective to look to in times of doubt. *For it to be objective it must be universal.* If redemption is particular you have some with a nagging question on whether or not they are saved. He states he believes these kinds of doubt are common in Calvinists and that it's a natural outflow of our theology. There is a consistent testimony in Scripture about the universality of grace, and Christ's death is for everyone. You don't have to wonder or not if Jesus actually died for you within the Lutheran system. 
3. Church Government
A. He says it is the belief of Confessional Presbyterians that the church government espoused in the New Testament is Presbyterian, and that is to be the standard for the whole church. Some Presbyterian told him he was living in sin by attending a Lutheran church without Presbyterian polity. 
B. By the middle of the second century we can from the church fathers (he names Ignacious) that the church operated under a system with Bishops. He says a disciple of the Apostle John speaks about listening to bishops, therefore the early church was not using an exclusive Presbyterian system. 
C. Does the NT require a set church government? No. The book of Acts points this out when the Apostles appoint deacons to serve the church in capacities they were failing at. Titus and Timothy don't actually seem to be pastors/presbyters, rather they are over pastors and choose pastors (hence the qualifications of elders given to them). They're acting as Bishops. Presbyterian church government does not have continuity with the history of the early church. Did even the Apostles get government wrong? Presbyterianism is not required.
4. Holy Baptism
A. Baptismal regeneration is so clear. Baptismal regeneration was the unanimous testimony of the early church fathers. They all believe essentially that baptism gave regeneration. If this was the key part of their faith, why do we deny it? We are at conflict with the church fathers. 
B. In the old testament and New Testament baptism saves. Baptism now saves you, buried with baptism, washed with baptism. These are all pointing to regeneration. Quote: "*It is so clear"*, the only reason people see it differently is through theirs lens of their own system of thought. There really is no question. 
5. Discontinuity with the early church
A. RPW is not found in the early church. This is never how the church operated. Worship in heaven is not like Reformed worship at all. Early church used robes, bowing, recitations, incense. 
B. Sacraments, atonement, election in the Reformed view are not found in the early church. "Maybe" Augustine believes it but that's not what Dr. Cooper thinks. This doesn't mean it's definitely wrong, but it should make us question. If these things are so key to Reformed thought and they're so against what the early church practiced, who is really in the wrong?

-
I had planned on rebutting some of these but honestly typing this whole outline was quite tiring. He posted the video in December 2019. It's titled 5 Reasons why I am not Reformed. I encourage you all to listen to him, I believe my outline dealt with his views fairly. Basically everything I typed is just a rearranging of what he said. Anyone versed in any Reformed confession can poke holes in this like crazy. I highlighted the most striking parts to me. For us to have trust in Jesus' atonement is must be universal. What a ludicrous statement. He also makes it clear limited atonement is just a logical outpouring of our view of election. That's false. I see limited atonement quite clearly in Scripture, most clearly in the sayings of Jesus. If Jesus said he was only praying and lays down his life for his people, you really have to question whether your interpretation of the "universalistic texts" is correct. Also, that idea that baptismal regeneration is so clear, without question in Scripture is pretty insane to me as well. Obviously what I've said here are very short, non-prepared answers. I'd like someone with more knowledge on the church fathers to help understand his statements about the early church.


----------



## RamistThomist (May 13, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> *For it to be objective it must be universal.* I



Two different types of "objective" are in play here, and he is playing off the ambiguity. And I like Jordan. If it is to be psychologically objective, then it needs to be universal. But there are other types of objectivity: logical, covenant, etc. There is no reason why those have to be universal.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (May 13, 2020)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Two different types of "objective" are in play here, and he is playing off the ambiguity. And I like Jordan. If it is to be psychologically objective, then it needs to be universal. But there are other types of objectivity: logical, covenant, etc. There is no reason why those have to be universal.



Thank you for clarifying the faulty logic at play. I could identify it was there but was unsure on how to articulate. What would you say about the claims of discontinuity with the early church?


----------



## Andrew35 (May 13, 2020)

I listened as well. It was interesting, and mostly not what I was expecting. Although the Lutheran accusation of the Reformed as "rationalists" is practically canon to them, so not surprising that was #1.

Incidentally, explaining "Why I'm Not a Lutheran" wouldn't take a Youtube video for me, but a single remark: Have you _heard_ Lutherans exegete Romans 9 or try to discuss election?

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## W.C. Dean (May 13, 2020)

Andrew35 said:


> I listened as well. It was interesting, and mostly not what I was expecting. Although the Lutheran accusation of the Reformed as "rationalists" is practically canon to them, so not surprising that was #1.
> 
> Incidentally, explaining "Why I'm Not a Lutheran" wouldn't take a Youtube video for me, but a single remark: Have you _heard_ Lutherans exegete Romans 9 or try to discuss election?



Sorry, that's just a mystery.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## RamistThomist (May 14, 2020)

W.C. Dean said:


> What would you say about the claims of discontinuity with the early church?



Everyone has elements of discontinuity with the early church. I specifically reject the idea that Calvinism (or LUtheranism) is a pure recovery of the first few centuries of the church.

Reactions: Like 1


----------

