Imputation of Adam's Sin - Pelagianism, Romanism, Calvinism — John Murray

All Thou that dwellest in high, and who hast bestowed Thy favor so abundantly upon us, do Thou grant that our response may ever be one of gratitude, of faith, of love, and of obedience, and in the fullness of understanding may we abound in the fruit of the Spirit, in love, joy, peace, bond-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, against which there is no law.

The Passage and Its Syntactical Construction

In Jesus' name, Amen. Now we'll begin with the subject of invocation, the invocation then of faith, faith being a subdivision or a doctrine of sin, and our study is to a very large extent focused in the exposition of Romans 5, 12 through 19, and the first subdivision of that is the syntax, the syntax or syntactical construction of the passage.

Do you all have your great testaments today? Let us take them out. It is quite obvious that verse 12 in Romans 5, Romans 5, 12, is an unfinished comparison. It begins with hos, her, and that always points to comparison.

The comparison isn't completed because at the middle of the verse you don't have hutos, kai, but kai, hutos. Clothes are comparison, but kai is only comparison. Of the use of hutos, kai, as clothing of comparison, you have even in this chapter, examples, verses 15, 18, 19, and 21, the hutos, kai, hutos is coordinated and in like manner.

Hutos, kai, means even so. When you have a finished comparison, you have what is called a prophesis and an apostasis, prophesis, conjunction. Why do you have that kind of syntax? It is very obvious. It is characteristic of Paul's style.

So in parenthesis, after verse 12, and that parenthesis continues until verse 17. And the reason is that the datum of intimacy in the last clause of verse 12 required the apostle, required that the apostle explain that particular clause in that all-seeing.

It is not one parenthesis, but a double parenthesis. And that verses 13 and 14 directly related to the last clause in verse 12. And verses 15 to 17 directly related to the last clause in verse 14. In the last clause of verse 14, you have a typological datum.

A typological datum. Namely that Adam is the type of the one to come. He stated that typological datum. The apostle was required to develop its implication. Develop the similarities, but also the contrasts.

Be involved in the fact that Adam is the type of Christ. The apostle Paul began with the prophesis of a certain comparison. He did not at that point provide the apostasis. The emphasis was necessary in order to expand some of the implications.

In this passage, he does not apply it with the apostasis of verse 12. In the precise terms, he returns to the type of construction which he began in verse 12. He returns to that type of construction and provides us with a finished comparison.

That is a comparison with both prophesis and apostasis. And that same type of comparison continued. And that same type of comparison with the same kind of construction is continued in verse 19. In verses 18 and 19, you have this completed comparison.

In the middle of each verse, you have to determine what the apostasis of verse 12 would have been. Interrupted. He started by inserting this parenthesis. Preferably the parenthesis. So at this particular point, to say what that apostasis would have been, if it had been supplied from the exact term of the prophesis.

But nevertheless, as we shall discover later on, it would be very easy to supply what the apostasis is. And it would begin with utostai. Or he would have shown something else. Now, at first glance at this, verse 17, it seems very perplexing.

It is very odd. How can we hope and rightly understand the reference in that clause? The whole doctrine of the apostles in this passage is missed. Not only understand the relation of Adam to the wraith, understand the relation of Christ to his redeemed.

The Sin Contemplated in Romans 5:12

So that is the syntax. Now we come to the second main subdivision of our study. Now this is concerned with the sin contemplated. The title, the sin contemplated. And this has particular reference to the last clause in verse 12.

Epho. Epho. In that all sin. In that all sin. Epho. In the title expression of the relative expression, Paul doesn't say enho. Enho. In whom all sin. Which he could very well have used if that were his precise thought.

But epho. And epho has the portion of the conjunction. And means in that. And it would be epi. Two toe. Hockey. A fondness that. Epi. Two toe. And that expansion would mean on the ground of the fact that.

On the ground of the fact that. The abridged expression epho simply means in that. Doesn't have the portion of our conjunction because. Now there is no need to try to demonstrate. That significance of epho because.

There is practically unanimous agreement. Among entities at first time. For a long time also. To that effect. It is perfectly true. It wasn't just a matter of Paul's teaching. That all sinned in Adam.

All sinned in Adam. Consequently the clause in whom all sinned. Is of itself correct. But that is not the precise thought of the apostle here. He very deliberately used this causal conjunction. Because it gives the reason.

Gives the reason. Why death penetrated. To all men. Later on. He will make clear that it is the reason also. Why condemnation passed upon all men. So why it can be said. That all sinned. In the sin of Adam.

In that all sinned. Because that all sinned. On the ground of the fact that all sinned. To what does this passage came upon. With a exegetical question. In this passage. It is more important. This is the pivotal question.

Not only exegetically. But from the standpoint of historical theology. And when I say historical theology. I mean it quite up to date. Because the burning question. In present day theology. Because of the dialectic influence.

The burning question in present day theology is. What did Paul mean. When he said. Francis K. Marshall. He spoke very well. To the actual sins of all men. When Paul meant the actual sins of all men. There is no other expression.

That would have been more suitable. I say if he actually meant. The actual sins of all men. No other expression. Would have been more suitable. To express that thought. Than Pantacea Martin. It is not to be determined.

By grammatical possibility. But by contextual consideration. How to deal with the various views. That have been propounded. Respecting this particular. Thought. Therefore Pantacea Martin. And you first of all have.

You have the. That was the view. Propounded by. Himself. His view was. That this refers. To the actual sins. Of all men. And so. The verse. Means. On that supposition. That Adam sinned. And therefore died.

Like manner. All men sin. And they likewise die. Between Adam. And all men. And Adam. Misconflict. Prototype. And all men. Misconflict. The prototype. Pattern. All other men die. Follow his example. And therefore.

They die. Now. This is not. Fourth century. Or fifth century. Doctrine. It was. Fifth century. Doctrine. But. Regrettably. It's not. Confined. To. Fourth century. Or fifth century. Claiming. The current.

Exegesis. Of this. Thought. Is after. The Pelagian pattern. Now. It never entered. Into Pelagia's mind. Never entered. Into Pelagia's mind. That. There's. Two and three. Well. Or. That they were. Legendary.

He believed. In the historical. Adam. According. These. Genesis. Of time. In the dialectic way. Of thinking. On the. Assumption. That. Genesis three. Is just. Mythical. And. Should be. A mythical. Or legendary. Pattern.

Is regarded. Simply. As the typical. Man. Adam. May never have existed. He may never have existed. But. Genesis two and three. Describe. But. Adam. Is every man. He's all of us. Adam. In that sense. Simply.

Not typically. He's simply. The typical man. And. On that basis. Romans. Five. Twelve. These. Letters. Interpreted. As. Regarding. To the sins. That. All men. And. All. The dialectic. Theology. Went. On an entirely. Different. Biblical. Theologically.

On an entirely. Different. Biblical. Theological. Perspective. Nevertheless. Exegetically. Exegetically. It. Belongs. To the. Category. Of. Superlegion. Exegesis. Well. We all. Ask. That is. What. We. From. The standpoint. Historical. Theology. But. Are. Also. Dealing. With. From. The standpoint. Of. Crucifixion. As. The. Person. The. Pillage. In exegesis. Is. That. You. Cannot. Pleased. A. Refutation. Of. The. Pillagian. View. Cannot. Pleased. As. A. Refutation. Of. The. Pillagian. View. And. Is. In. Health. Fully. Aware. Of. Construction. The. Latin. Text. With. Which. Was. Dealing. With. In. This. Respect. Of. The. Greek. Text. The. 10. Text. Is. Not. A. Finished. Comparison. Is. Not. Finished. Comparison. Nevertheless. There. In. It. A. Subordinate. Comparison. Or. A. Coordinate. Comparison. And. If. The. Pillagian. View. Were. Correct. Or. Could. Still. Have. Written. Verse. Twelve. Precisely. As. He. Did. Write. It. Because. In. That. Instance. The. Comparison. Intimated. In. Huto. Chi. Huto. The. Comparison. Intimated. Is. The. Second. Part. Beginning. With. Huto. Would.

Comparison. Between. The. Entrance. Sin. And. Death. And. The. Passing. On. Sin. And. Death. And. The. Passing. Of. Sin. And. So. Neither grammar. Or grammar. Or parentheses. Nor centers. Of the past.

Refute. Refute. The. Perpetrated. Refeuted on the. Basis. Grammar. Or syntax. But rather not. There. Are. Actual existential. And theological. Objection. To. The. Pelagianism can be refuted, concluded, on the basis of factual, ethical, and theological explanations.

Empirical Objections to Pelagian Exegesis

Now, the presentation of that Pelagianism is this lowercase woman one, two, three, and four, where one, lowercase woman one. It is not factually true, not factually true. Not all die, because they actually say, in a sense, die.

They have not, to this ameliorate That is to say, they have not personally and voluntarily transgressed a commandment of God, meaning that they are not psychologically capable. They may die immediately after emergence from the mother's womb, or they may die in the mother's womb.

But they suffer death. You see, in verse fourteen, as you shall notice in a moment, all sins after this ameliorative of Adam's transgression. Sinning after this ameliorative of Adam's transgression. The Pelagian exegesis is that all sins after this ameliorative of Adam's transgression.

The dialectic, Barton Bruner, the dialectic theology says the very same thing, that all men sin after this ameliorative of Adam's transgression. But what about this? So there is an insufferable objection from the standpoint of empirical fact.

Death and Those Who Did Not Sin Like Adam

Now, secondly, the exegetical. The exegetical. The first exegetical argument, that in verses thirteen and fourteen follows the very opposite of the Pelagian exegesis. He says, death blamed over those who did not sin after this ameliorative of Adam's transgression.

Did not sin after this ameliorative of Adam's transgression. It is not our concern now to determine the denotation, to determine the denotation of those who have had rebuked. That's not the reason. The question is the explicit statement that death blamed over certain persons who did not sin after the pattern of Adam's transgression.

Now this bears direct place upon the Pelagian exegesis. The Pelagian exegesis says the very opposite of what Paul says. And Paul says the very opposite of what the Pelagian exegesis says. Namely, that death blamed over certain persons who were in an entirely different category from that of Adam.

Entirely different. Defined as who did not after this ameliorative of Adam's transgression. Thirdly, the most conclusive recitation is again an exegetical one. Namely, that Paul says the very opposite of the Pelagian exegesis.

Condemnation Through Adam’s One Sin

Repeatedly in this passage, he says the very opposite repeatedly. He says that to damnation and death over all men by reason of the one sin of the one man Adam. The one man Adam, that expression, the one sin of the one man Adam, emphasizes, as plainly as language can, the singularity of the Pelagians upon the untold plurality of the actual sins of all men.

The ground of the condemnation and death of all is the one sin of the one man Adam. If he says that, he would not have used language plainly in refutation of the Pelagian exegesis. That is exactly what Paul does when he says it on five successive occasions in this passage.

Five times in the parenthesis from verses 15 to 17. No, five times in the verses 15 through 19. 15 through 17. Now, part of the parenthesis, part of the parenthesis that is intended to explicate for us what he has said in verses 18 and 19, the recapitulation of what he would have said in verses 12 if he had closed them.

So you see how relevant are the statements in verses 15 through 19 to the precise question at issue.