One of the charges leveled against me for my Auburn Avenuing is that of monocovenantalism. But what is that, exactly?
If the critics mean that I hold that there has only been one covenant throughout the history of mankind, then the charge is false. God made one covenant with mankind in Adam, and He made a distinct and separate restorative covenant with mankind in Christ. So that would be two covenants, not one. The covenants are also distinct in that it was possible for Adam to fall, and it was not possible for Christ to fall. Further, the first covenant did not have to deal with the forgiveness of sin, and the second covenant was remedial, dealing with sin after the fact.
So why am I accused of being a “monocovenantalist”? The reason appears to be that I assert that both covenants were to be kept by the grace of God through faith. God spoke His Word, and both Adam and Christ had a covenanted obligation to believe Him, and to act accordingly. Adam did not, and Christ did. But the assigned way for both covenants to be kept was through simple trust in God.
Further, several prominent men on the other side of this flap have acknowledged to me privately that, had Adam stood, it would have been by the grace of God, appropriated by the faith of Adam. So if I am a monocovenantalist, so are they. But I am not, and neither are they.
But that is no reason to stop fighting, now is it?