Jordan Cooper – författare

Since the sixteenth century, the Protestant tradition has been divided. The Reformed and Lutheran reformations, though both committed to the doctrine of the sinners justification by faith alone, split over Zwingli and Luther''s disagreement over the nature of the Lord''s Supper. Since that time, the Reformed and Lutheran traditions have developed their own theological convictions, and continue to disagree with one another. It is incumbent upon students of the reformation, in the Lutheran and Reformed traditions, to come to an understanding of what these differences are, and why they matter.In The Great Divide: A Lutheran Evaluation of Reformed Theology, Jordan Cooper examines these differences from a Lutheran perspective. While seeking to help both sides come to a more nuanced understanding of one another, and writing in an irenic tone, Cooper contends that these differences do still matter. Throughout the work, Cooper engages with Reformed writers, both contemporary and old, and demonstrates that the Lutheran tradition is more consistent with the teachings of Scripture than the Reformed.

It is a common misconception that Lutheran theology is inherently antinomian, or unconcerned with Christian ethics. This unfortunate caricature of the doctrine of the Reformation has been furthered by certain strands of Lutheran theology, which reject the third use of the law and the necessity of expounding Christian ethics in preaching. In this book, Jordan Cooper challenges the claim that Lutheranism emphasizes justification at the expense of sanctification, demonstrating that the two kinds of righteousness are a historical Lutheran framework that gives prominence to both salvation by grace and one''s duty to serve the neighbor in love. Through an evaluation of Luther''s writings, the confessional documents, Lutheran Orthodoxy, and contemporary writers, Cooper demonstrates that an emphasis on the passive nature of one''s relationship to God does not diminish or negate the necessity of sanctified living. This is done not by departing from Lutheran teaching, but by delving deeper into historic Lutheran theology as found in the scholastic tradition.

Martin Luther''s theological revolution depended in a significant part upon the distinction between law and gospel. Within the last hundred years, several authors have reevaluated the reformer''s understanding of this paradigm in light of its development within the Lutheran orthodox tradition. Some authors have argued that the Lutheran scholastic view of God''s law departs from that of Luther. Specifically, it is contended that the Lutheran orthodox argued for a definition of the law which defines it as God''s eternal will in contradiction to Luther''s approach, wherein the law is defined almost exclusively in negative terms, as a temporal order to eventually be replaced and superseded by the gospel.In this work, Jordan Cooper argues for the continued validity of the Lutheran orthodox definition of the law. Throughout this text, he contrasts the perspective of Radical Lutheran theologians, like Gerhard Forde, with that of earlier Lutheran writers such as Martin Chemnitz and Johann Gerhard. It is argued that Forde''s view is inadequate to address contemporary ethical and pastoral issues, and that the Lutheran scholastic doctrine of the law as God''s eternal will remains a necessary concept for the contemporary church.

Since the publication of E.P. Sanders'' Paul and Palestinian Judaism in 1977, Paul''s soteriology has received extensive evaluation in light of second temple Judaism. These works have focused on exegesis of the Pauline text and evaluating Sanders'' proposal of covenantal nomism within the second temple Jewish literature. There has been an unfortunate gap in this discussion: historical theology. This work addresses the historical claims made by proponents of the New Perspective on Paul regarding Luther''s theology and the early church. In The Righteousness of One, Jordan Cooper demonstrates that the portrait of Luther given by many of the New Perspective writers is a caricature, read through the lens of both Protestant scholasticism and twentieth-century existentialist theology. Luther''s views are more nuanced and balanced than many Pauline interpreters are willing to admit.In light of this reevaluation of Luther''s own theology, early Patristic writings are evaluated in terms of similarity and disparity between Patristic Pauline interpretation and Lutheran Pauline interpretation, and thus it becomes apparent that there is continuity between the patristic tradition and Luther''s reading of the Pauline text. Rather than being driven purely by medieval debates about merit, Luther''s reading of Paul is both exegetically sensitive and consistent with the broader catholic tradition.