The Structure of Romans

The book most systematically outlaying the whole Christian faith is Paul's letter to Romans. The book has a structure, a scheme.

It may help some to see this structure and know WHAT aspects of the Christian Gospel are chiefly addressed in what areas.

The epistle to the Romans by Paul.

Subject - the Gospel of God.

The Introduction is given 1:1-17 .

This section covers the subject matter in a most general way. This is what this letter is going to be about.

Romans - "The Gospel of God"

The Introduction is given 1:1-17 .

The next major section is on Condemnation.
This section can be broken into subjections. But it basically outlines the NEED for God's salvation.

The section on Condemnation covers 1:18-3:20.

It is of four major subsections.

Condemnation on mankind in general -1:18-32.

Condemnation on particularly self-righteous people - 2:1-18.

Condemnation on particularly religious people - 2:17-3:8

Condemnation on all the world totally - 3:9-20.

I will collapse these subsections in the next post.

Snoring is not allowed !

So far the structure of Romans is:

Introduction 1:1-17

Condemnation 1:18-3:20

Justification - 3:21 - 5:11

Sanctification -5:12-8:13

This is a big section with many subsections which I will outline below.

Let me carry out the outline to the end this time. I'll come back to important subsections within major sections.

Introduction 1:1-17

Condemnation 1:18-3:20

Justification 3:21 - 5:11

Sanctification 5:12 - 8:13

Glorification 8:14-39

Selection 9:1 - 11:36

Transformation 12:1 - 15:13

Conclusion 15:14-16:27

As and if comments arise, I would like to show in what sections those issues may be dealt with.

This outline is not original. It follows the scheme of the table of contents of the Recovery New Testament.

I have a question for you sonship.

Is the content of this thread your own idea, your own intellectual property, or have you seen it elsewhere by another author (whom you are not giving credit to) and are now relaying it in this this forum?

@divegeester

Did you read the post immediately before your question? It contained this comment:

This outline is not original. It follows the scheme of the table of contents of the Recovery New Testament.

Many people for centuries have outlined the book of Romans well. I find this outline very good.

AS INDICATED it is not 100% my original invention.

Address any complaints about my usage of it to -

Living Stream Ministry
2431 W. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801
United States of America

@sonship said
@divegeester

Did you read the post immediately before your question? It contained this comment:

This outline is not original. It follows the scheme of the table of contents of the Recovery New Testament.

Many people for centuries have outlined the book of Romans well. I find this outline very good.

AS INDICATED it is not 100% my or ...[text shortened]... ream Ministry
2431 W. La Palma Avenue, Anaheim, California 92801
United States of America [/quote]

I did not see that comment no, but clearly my suspicion that this thread content is not your own work was correct.

Well done for being honest about it on this occasion; I would have more respect for you if you clearly credit your sources in every thread.

@divegeester

Well done for being honest about it on this occasion;

You're a liar.

I have always been upfront about who are my influences.
For your fake congratulations I have to return an insult.
Sorry. But I will not allow you to falsely accuse me of trying to impress ANYONE with my originality.

Stop LYING about it.

@sonship said
@divegeester

Well done for being honest about it on this occasion;

You're a liar.

I have always been upfront about who are my influences.
For your fake congratulations I have to return an insult.
Sorry. But I will not allow you to falsely accuse me of trying to impress ANYONE with my originality.

Stop LYING about it.

Ok, insult ignored.

Let’s move forward in this new frame of your openness and clarity of your sources.

@divegeester

Let’s move forward in this new frame of your openness and clarity of your sources.

There is no "new frame of your openness and clarity of your sources".

You've nothing but old tricks, old tactics, old slanders, old lies and going around in your old libelous circles.

Do you think I covet your respect?
I don't.

I prefer to end our exchanges right here for good.

@sonship said
You've nothing but old tricks, old tactics, old slanders, old lies and going around in your old libelous circles.
Do you think I covet your respect?I don't.
I prefer to end our exchanges right here for good.

Tough day?

@divegeester

Get your timer out so you can make some issue of the length of the time interval.
I'll simply wait until there is someone worth conversing with on the OP.
That is worth conversing with period here.

@sonship said
@divegeester

Get your timer out so you can make some issue of the length of the time interval.
I'll simply wait until there is someone worth conversing with on the OP.
That is worth conversing with period here.

Ok, no probs.
Let’s wait and see who interested in your thread about stuff by another author.

@divegeester said
Ok, no probs.
Let’s wait and see who interested in your thread about stuff by another author.

I'm interested.

He's not negative, like you.