Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof - New Leaven

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 God might have withdrawn this promise,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.
b. That the covenant of works is abrogated: (1) in so far as it contained new positive
elements, for those who are under the covenant of grace; this does not mean that it is
simply set aside and disregarded, but that its obligations were met by the Mediator for
His people; and (2) as an appointed means to obtain eternal life, for as such it is
powerless after the fall of man.
238