I just can’t stay off this monocovenantal thing. This whole fracas is a real head scratcher, and the word grace appears to be the thing that causes the great game of paradigm bumper cars to begin. But this is highly selective. The fact that I want to use the word grace to describe the unearned favor of God that was bestowed on unfallen Adam is highly offensive to our critics. And yet (most of them, I think) would not object to the word grace being applied to unregenerate reprobates after the Fall, as in the phrase common grace. Unfallen Adam, no grace at all. Local abortionist, common grace is the order of the day.
Why are the critics struggling with something that is so simple?
1. God’s favor was shown to the unfallen Adam, the grace of creation. All glory goes to God.
2. God’s favor would have been shown to Adam had he not fallen, the grace of sovereign preservation. All glory would have gone to God.
3. God’s favor was shown to the unfallen Christ, the grace of sovereign preservation. All glory to God.
4. God’s favor is shown to the reprobate, the common grace of earthly goods and postponed judgment. All glory to God.
5. God’s favor is shown to us, His believers, the grace of salvation from sin. All glory to God.
“Too much grace around here! Too much emphasis on the fundamental graciousness of God. You must not be Reformed!”