In which I argue it simply isn't historically feasible to absolutely deny "pre-fall grace"
There has in recent years been an attempt to reserve the word "grace" for a post-Fall situation. I am sympathetic to the concerns of those who wish to do so (see Kline in Kingdom Prologue 113-115, though I certainly don't agree with all of it, for example, the last paragraph on pg. 114 makes no sense, disobedience is inherently worthy of eternal death because of the infinite nature of God). However, I do not think it necessary to avoid using the term for a pre-Fall state in order to protect the contrast between Law and Gospel. Furthermore, I believe an insistence on avoiding the use of the term leads to far more problems than it solves. For example, insistence on an exclusively post-fall use of "grace" confounds grace with mercy. I like the distinction between different senses of grace better than denying it altogether pre-fall so that we may stand in continuity with the majority of the Christian tradition.
John Owen as quoted in Beeke and Jones' A Puritan Theology on the Covenant of Works said that the reward did "in strict justice exceed the worth of the obedience required, and so was a superadded effect of goodness and grace" and "The creation of man in original righteousness was an effect of divine grace…the reward of eternal life in the enjoyment of God was of mere sovereign grace". He even said that there is "infinite grace in every divine covenant, inasmuch as it is established on promises" (231)
Nehemiah Coxe, speaking of Adam before the fall said that "He was not so confirmed in grace that he could not sin and die", understanding the confirmation he would have received to be a confirmation in grace.
Francis Turretin, when discussing original righteousness, says that it "can properly be called 'grace' or 'a gratuitous gift' (and so not due on the part of God, just as the nature itself also, created by him)" (1:473).
This broad definition of grace roughly defined as that which is given yet is not due to the creature in itself has always been recognized by the Christian tradition. If we can use the term "gift" to speak broadly about, say creation, for example, then surely we can use the term "grace" broadly considered (cf. Eph. 2:8 which equates "grace" with "gift") and the majority of the Christian religion has always thought so. This is the very point that Mark Jones brings out at the beginning of a very sober article here: https://www.reformation21.org/blogs/a-gracious-response-to-rick-ph.php This article is part of what spurred me on to write this post and I highly recommend you read it.
I have always been a big believer in making distinctions within theology. I literally cannot do theology without it. I am actually a low-functioning autist who can't do simple theology without precise definitions and fine distinctions. Instead of jettisoning a word altogether, it is much more preferable to follow the lead of the Reformers in explaining what is meant by a word in different contexts. It is much better to distinguish between different meanings and senses of "grace" than to away with the word altogether, which I fear may only cause more confusion than it seeks to avoid.
Thus when Kline says that "Adam's obedience would have merited the reward of eternal life and not a gram of grace would have been involved" (KP pg. 115), when considered in a broad sense, this is surely incorrect. There was plenty of grace from God within the Covenant of Works in the broad sense of the term. God would ensure that "Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease" that Adam may accomplish his work. He was created with the gift of the Holy Spirit "to assist his graces, and cause them to flow and bring forth, and to move him to live according to those principles of life given him" (Thomas Goodwin. cf. also Fesko Covenant of Redemption pg. 325-326, there Owen speaks of Christ being filled with grace). Now, what Kline means to say is that the terms of the covenant itself (i.e. that which gives Adam a legal right to the blessings of the covenant) is wholly dependent upon Adam's works instead of the free gift of God's grace in a narrow sense. The principle of justification is "do", and not "receive". Whereas there are conditions of works within the New Covenant yet the legal right to the blessings of it is a free gift of grace, so there were in reverse, free gifts of grace within the Covenant of Works even while the legal right to its blessings was of works. Even allowing Adam the opportunity to earn eternal life was an act of grace broadly considered and thus the reward would be gracious in that sense, but the actual earning of the legal right to life depended upon Adam's meritorious obedience. Grace and works/law are opposed only absolutely in justification/legal right, for if justification is by works/law, then it is no longer by grace. Grace and works/law are otherwise compatible (as is evident in that sanctification is by God's grace through His law). I certainly don't expect Kline to be making such theological distinctions as he was no systematic theologian, but his basic point about the absolute contrast between grace and works (in the narrow sense) is absolutely correct and essential and his concerns about confusion are admirable. Nevertheless, he has failed to be truly Biblical in recognizing a broader category of grace that does not involve demerit (Luke 2:40, 52) and has left the vast majority of Reformed Orthodoxy behind. Further, it seems to me that if you deny that there can exist the category of "unmerited" apart from covenant, then you cannot use Luke 17:10 to argue against merit. If the moral law demands obedience even apart from the promise of reward, then surely there is a category that is not simply "demerit" nor is it merit, and this state existed when unfallen man lived in a state of nature apart from covenant. But Kline believed that man was inherently created in a Covenant of Works, not making a distinction b/t the CoW (which he should have believed was superadded to nature) and the moral law and thus it makes sense for him to have denied the category of "unmerited". When one starts with a denial that the Covenant of Works is superadded to nature, then errors will inevitably follow later on down the line1
(his take on nature/grace wasn't that great either, but I don't blame him, as the historiography of his time was pretty bad at this point and still somewhat is https://brandoncorleyschoo.wixsite.com/brandoncorley/post/quick-notes-on-nature-grace-and-natural-supernatural-theology)
â€â€
Augustine distinguishes between the broad and narrow sense of grace (https://heidelblog.net/2011/01/augustine-on-grace-before-and-after-the-fall/) and Calvin and Vermigli follow him and Aquinas in speaking of Adam being created in a state of grace (https://epistole.wordpress.com/2009/02/13/calvin-and-vermigli-on-adams-original-righteousness-pt-i/ see also https://epistole.wordpress.com/2009/02/15/calvin-and-vermigli-on-adams-original-righteousness-pt-ii/). Turretin, following Aquinas and the fathers, not doing anything new, again speaks of the spiritual virtues infused into Christ's soul as "supernatural graces". Following Aquinas' interpretation of John 1:14, Turretin affirms that Christ was "full of grace" infused into Him by the Holy Spirit (cf. Steven Duby "Jesus and the God of Classical Theism" chapter 5, section V for more).
Petrus van Mastricht rightly recognizes that in predestination, the leading cause of "the preservation of angels was grace, but in the restoration of men, mercy", thereby recognizing that grace need not necessarily exist alongside demerit, but that "mercy" is a more proper word for what Kline and those following him are trying to get at.
So not only do I think it's unwise to reject the use of the broad sense of grace, but it's also completely impossible to do and maintain any amount of historical continuity unless we want to invent new terminology completely. I suppose you could simply swap out "grace" for "goodness", but this may cause more confusion for those who wish to read older works and see virtually every theologian speaking of "grace" and "graces" in relation to Christ and Adam while at the same time being told that a different word must be insisted on and that everybody before us was wrong. For example, in speaking of the fall of Adam, are we to say that God, though He granted to him sufficient goodness to resist temptation, did not choose to grant to him efficacious goodness (cf. Turretin 1:611)? Are we to put a full stop on speaking of Christ's human nature being infused with many graces, lavished upon Him by the Holy Spirit, and instead start speaking of Christ being infused with "goodness"? It just sounds weird and the insistence upon it will make the student suspect that something is up and modern revisionist trickery is going on.
Now, you can choose to do so, of course, but in doing so not only must you create a new vocabulary, but you're also choosing to do so against Augustine, Aquinas, Calvin, Vermigli, Turretin, Owen, Goodwin, Watson, Boston, Edwards and, according to Richard Muller as you would already know if you clicked on the article from Mark Jones, virtually all Reformed theologians. So good luck with that.
1 This is the same kind of error that I believe leads to most of the errors in Kline's theology: namely, allowing biblical theology to swallow up nature (or supernature). This is a fundamental error and reversal of the way that theology should be done. I commented a bit on this same error in another situation here and tweeted a bit about it here. Allowing biblical theology to swallow up nature/grace can have very serious consequences, leading to errors such as narrow complementarianism. As a result, I regard the recovery of the proper view of nature and grace as found in Augustine, Aquinas, and the Reformers to be one of, if not the, most important issue(s) of our time.