Basic HTML Version
205
1. THE ARMINIAN VIEW.
Arminians claim that this legal covenant was wholly abrogated at the
fall of Adam, and argue this as follows: (a) The promise was then revoked and thus the compact
annulled, and where there is no compact there can be no obligation. (b) God could not continue
to exact obedience of man, when the latter was by nature unable, and was not enabled by the
grace of God, to render the required service. (c) It would be derogatory to God’s wisdom,
holiness, and majesty to call the depraved creature to a service of holy and undivided love.
They maintain that God established a new covenant and enacted a new law, the law of faith
and evangelical obedience, which man in spite of his impaired powers can keep when assisted
by the enabling helps of common or sufficient grace. However, the following considerations
militate against this view: (a) Man’s obligation to God was never rooted merely in the covenant
requirement, but fundamentally in the natural relation in which he stood to God. This natural
relationship was incorporated in the covenant relationship. (b) Man’s inability is self-induced,
and therefore does not relieve him of his just obligation. His self-imposed limitations, his
criminal and voluntary hostility to God did not deprive the sovereign Ruler of the universe of
the right to demand the hearty and loving service which is His due. (c) The reductio ad
absurdum of the Arminian view is that the sinner can gain complete emancipation from
righteous obligations by sinning. The more a man sins, the more he becomes a slave of sin,
unable to do that which is good; and the deeper he sinks into this slavery which robs him of his
capacity for good, the less responsible he becomes. If man continues to sin long enough, he will
in the end be absolved of all moral responsibility.
2. THE REFORMED VIEW.
Even some Reformed theologians speak of the abrogation of the legal
covenant, and seek proof for this in such passages as Heb. 8:13. This naturally raised the
question, whether, and in how far, the covenant of works can be considered as a thing of the
past; or whether, and in how far, it must be regarded as still in force. It is generally agreed that
no change in the legal status of man can ever abrogate the authority of the law; that God’s
claim to the obedience of His creatures is not terminated by their fall in sin and its disabling
effects; that the wages of sin continues to be death; and that a perfect obedience is always
required to merit eternal life. This means with respect to the question under consideration:
a. That the covenant of works is not abrogated:
(1) in so far as the natural relation of man to
God was incorporated in it, since man always owes God perfect obedience; (2) in so far as its
curse and punishment for those who continue in sin are concerned; and (3) in so far as the
conditional promise still holds. God might have withdrawn this promise, but did not, Lev. 18:5;
Rom. 10:5; Gal. 3:12. It is evident, however, that after the fall no one can comply with the
condition.