zsmcd
Puritan Board Freshman
I just finished reading Ray Sutton's That You May Prosper. I know this work is loved by some and hated by others. I found some of it to be very helpful while other parts were pretty rough.
One thing I noticed is that, in his chapter on the difference between Old and New Testaments, he holds to some very odd form of covenant theology. He argues that there are only two covenants in the bible - Old and New. The Old Covenant was made with principally with Adam and reestablished with others in the Old Testament: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Israel, David, etc. These reestablishments were essentially an attempt at creating a new Adam - yet they fail over and over again. He denies the language of this covenant being a Covenant of Works which gets confusing when he begins to compare the Old and New Covenants.
This is especially confusing because being a theonomist, paedobaptist, et. al. Sutton seems to have an understanding of the relationship between Old and New that is closer to what I have heard/read from Baptists than what I understand the historic reformed position to be - one Covenant of Grace with multiple administrations. He seems to make a sharp distinction between Old and New but than argues for a lot of continuity in the practices that take place between Old and New - i.e. theonomy.
I know Sutton is not Presbyterian - he seems to subscribe to the 39 Articles and he is Episcopalian. So my question is this - is he covenant theology unique to him, or it common among reformed Episcopalians, Anglicans, and others? I don't know enough about the covenant theology of these groups.
One thing I noticed is that, in his chapter on the difference between Old and New Testaments, he holds to some very odd form of covenant theology. He argues that there are only two covenants in the bible - Old and New. The Old Covenant was made with principally with Adam and reestablished with others in the Old Testament: Noah, Abraham, Moses, Israel, David, etc. These reestablishments were essentially an attempt at creating a new Adam - yet they fail over and over again. He denies the language of this covenant being a Covenant of Works which gets confusing when he begins to compare the Old and New Covenants.
This is especially confusing because being a theonomist, paedobaptist, et. al. Sutton seems to have an understanding of the relationship between Old and New that is closer to what I have heard/read from Baptists than what I understand the historic reformed position to be - one Covenant of Grace with multiple administrations. He seems to make a sharp distinction between Old and New but than argues for a lot of continuity in the practices that take place between Old and New - i.e. theonomy.
I know Sutton is not Presbyterian - he seems to subscribe to the 39 Articles and he is Episcopalian. So my question is this - is he covenant theology unique to him, or it common among reformed Episcopalians, Anglicans, and others? I don't know enough about the covenant theology of these groups.
