Romans

[Adammi]

Is it just me or is Romans a difficult book?
It is always recommended for new Converts, but I am a "semi-seasoned" Christian. I really don't get it continually using the word "law".

 

[johnd]

Is it just me or is Romans a difficult book?
It is always recommended for new Converts, but I am a "semi-seasoned" Christian. I really don't get it continually using the word "law".

Shalom, Shavuot. Ma nishma?

Key verse in Romans:

Romans 3:31 Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law.

This puts the Law into its proper light to be seen and understood as:

Galatians 3:24 Wherefore the law was our schoolmaster to bring us unto Christ, that we might be justified by faith. 25 But after that faith is come, we are no longer under a schoolmaster.

Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.

The rest is essentially commentary on:

Jeremiah 31:31 Behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah: 32 Not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of Egypt; which my covenant they brake, although I was an husband unto them, saith the LORD: 33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and they shall be my people. 34 And they shall teach no more every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the LORD: for they shall all know me, from the least of them unto the greatest of them, saith the LORD: for I will forgive their iniquity, and I will remember their sin no more.

And on how in the end God will reunite the divided house of Israel (physical and Spiritual).

Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but a new creature. 16 And as many as walk according to this rule, peace be on them, and mercy, and upon the Israel of God.

Hope this helps.

 

[StevenL]

2 Peter 3
15And consider that the long-suffering of our Lord [[1] His slowness in avenging wrongs and judging the world] is salvation ([2] that which is conducive to the soul's safety), even as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the spiritual insight given him,
16Speaking of this as he does in all of his letters. There are some things in those [epistles of Paul] that are difficult to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist and misconstrue to their own [3] utter destruction, just as [they distort and misinterpret] the rest of the Scriptures.
17Let me warn you therefore, beloved, that knowing these things beforehand, you should be on your guard, lest you be carried away by the error of lawless and wicked [persons and] fall from your own [present] firm condition [your own steadfastness of mind].
18But grow in grace (undeserved favor, spiritual strength) and [4] recognition and knowledge and understanding of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ (the Messiah). To Him [be] glory (honor, majesty, and splendor) both now and to the day of eternity. Amen (so be it)!

 

[mdith4him]

Is it just me or is Romans a difficult book?
It is always recommended for new Converts, but I am a "semi-seasoned" Christian. I really don't get it continually using the word "law".

I read through Romans and it can be confusing. My pastor puts all his sermons online in .ram format and .mp3 format. He has a PhD and his sermons are great. He's the best I've ever heard. Anyway, last year he started a series on Romans in October. He took a couple months off for a sabatical, so as of now he's only on about chp. 8, but he only takes a couple verses at a time and really explains everything well. Here's the link to the beginning of the series:

www.immanuelbible.net/audio2003.htm

The first one is on October 5, 2003.

Here are his sermons starting in 2004:

www.immanuelbible.net/audio.htm

He's such an awesome speaker, I hope they help!

~M-dith~

 

[Adammi]

Shalom, Shavuot. Ma nishma?

I have no idea what that means, all I know is that I am devoutly Pentecostal, one that thinks that we should hold to our holiness roots (by holiness I do not mean dresses and hair). Most "modern Pentecostals" do not. So considering that Pentecost was originally called Shavuot, well you get it.

Adonai Yahushuah Bless and Keep You​

 

[CSMR]

Romans can be difficult - It's something that has to click I think. It is difficult because it is so radical. It took me a long time before I could understand even the first two chapters, but when that happened it made a big change in my understanding. I am not sure that I would reccomend it for a beginning Christian except with guidance.

If you want to understand the word "law" I would recommend reading Luther's preface. This is a great interpretation of and preparation for Romans and begins with an account of Paul's meaning of Law.

 

[Theophorus]

Yes depending on the perspective you approach it with, it can become a maze. Try looking at several points of view, ie calvinist, catholic, even evangelical , that way you can become more familiar with it, and maybe find some answers.

 

[davidoffinland]

From Finland.

For the last year or so I have been studying the bk of Romans and Galatians...not from a post-christian or reformation perspective...but from a 1st CT Jewish perspective. I.E.... studying Paul and what he wrote within the boundaries of 1st CT Judaism, its theology, culture and history. I believe that if you study with this in mind, the bk of Romans will take on new meaning.

Look for James Dunn and NT Wright´s writings; check out the www.thepaulpage.com and I think this will help you get started. I have bought 4 of James Dunn´s books and he is a prof of theology in England who is into 1st CT Jewish studies. I think it is great because it is placing the Apostle Paul in 1st CT Judaism with all its diversities.

Shalom,
David.

 

[johnd]

I have no idea what that means, all I know is that I am devoutly Pentecostal, one that thinks that we should hold to our holiness roots (by holiness I do not mean dresses and hair). Most "modern Pentecostals" do not. So considering that Pentecost was originally called Shavuot, well you get it.

Adonai Yahushuah Bless and Keep You​

Just thought by your use of Anglicanized Hebrew you might speak...

Ma nishma? is essentially the equivalent of " s'up?"

<smile>

baruch habbah b'shem adonai eloheynu v' melekh Y'shua HaMoshiakh Nagiyd olam.

Look it up... <heh heh>

 

[mikesw]

To understand Romans you need to first learn the flow of this epistle.

Chapter 1 is just designed (by Paul as part of his approach) to get the Romans to get excited. The Romans thought chapter 1 was about the Jews.

Chapter 2:1 represents Paul's main issue: exposing the problem of the Romans' judgmental behavior. This verse doesn't make sense until the verse is understood as the main issue of Paul's writing.
Then vs 2-8 just describes the consequences related to judging
And vs 9-end focus again on the issue at hand
Chapter 3:1 Paul brings the second big punch "What advantage has the Jew?"
Remember first that Paul had just brought the Roman readers/hearers to the pinnacle of self-righteous judgement. And now Paul is addressing the idea "what advantage has the Jew"

This question leads to the idea that the Romans were saying that the Jews had no advantage. Even more, the Romans were condemning the Jews for the same things every natural born man is guilty of.

Sorry, but the whole outline is too much to extract from my website in a single post.

But Paul is quietly introducing the Romans to their inappropriate thoughts in relationship to the Jews, who were prosecuting even Roman believers(5:1-12). And Paul argues against boasting(3:27)

Paul had to tell the Romans that the Law is good and that the Jews weren't wrong in recognizing the goodness of the Law. But Paul also had to show that the Romans didn't have to follow the Law but instead follow the Spirit (this would seem to be through the Law of Love) [chapter 8]

 

[CSMR]

There is nothing to indicate that any judgemental behaviour of the Romans is a "problem". In chapter 1 we see the depravity of lawless people - why does this mean the Jews? And then in chapter 2 we see that those who have the Law, those who can judge - something characteristic of the Jews. They are no better either, despite having the law. The problem is not judging: one who judges is judged because he does the same things as Paul says in chapter 2; but one who does not judge is no better: he is the lawless person of chapter 1. All are under sin, Jew and gentile (Ch. 3).

 

[In Christ Forever]

All of Paul's epistles make sence if you know why God sent His Son and what He came to both accomplish and abolish.
Once you know who is representing "satan/accuser" here, you will have not only a better grasp of Romans, but a better grasp of the whole Bible. God bless.

romans 16:20 And the God of peace will crush Satan/accuser under your feet shortly. The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ [be] with you. Amen.

John 8: 44 "You are of [your] father the devil, and the desires of your father you want to do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and [does not] stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own [resources,] for he is a liar and the father of it.

 

[mikesw]

There is nothing to indicate that any judgemental behaviour of the Romans is a "problem". In chapter 1 we see the depravity of lawless people - why does this mean the Jews? And then in chapter 2 we see that those who have the Law, those who can judge - something characteristic of the Jews. They are no better either, despite having the law. The problem is not judging: one who judges is judged because he does the same things as Paul says in chapter 2; but one who does not judge is no better: he is the lawless person of chapter 1. All are under sin, Jew and gentile (Ch. 3).

I better first clarify... The Roman mindset, of that time and situation, would be to read the idea of "Jew" into Romans 1. (My observation here only makes sense once you understand the reason why Paul wrote to the Romans at this point in time. Sorry, I should have omitted this point.)

Your lack of agreement on the purpose for Romans doesn't come as a surprise. The problem in understanding Romans comes as a result of the situation Paul was addressing at the time. I would suggest that you be open to some ideas about Romans that you weren't aware of before. (Though always approach a stranger with caution. And from your statement "why does this mean Jews" it sounds like you thought I was deriding Jews. That would not be consistent with my attitude.)

The ideas related to the purpose for Romans really shouldn't change your understanding of the theology of Romans -- in case that is what you fear. (Indeed there are some recent writings on Romans that you should be careful when reading such books.)
But by knowing the actual purpose of Romans, you can understand the teachings of Paul as presented within his original framework and intent.

So let me just describe the situation...
1. Paul didn't start the Roman Church and had not visited it.
2. The Roman Church was boasting in their sin (Rom 6) and boasting about not being under the law.
3. The Jews persecuted the Roman Church. Or Jewish persecutions were an issue to the Roman Church.
4. Paul wrote a letter out of the blue that he hoped that they would read. Paul was concerned that if he just said "I am writing to address your horrible behavior" that the Romans might not care to read the rest of the letter.
5. So Paul started off more subtly. He preached a great message. He wasn't just writing to work off some extra calories. He was getting the Romans all excited and zealous.
6. But Ro 2:1 was then written to confound the Romans. "Why did he preach so well and now he accuses us?" -- the Romans would say. But Paul couldn't say to them yet "You wrongly hate the Jews." I think even the Romans could have glossed over Ro 2:1 just as we can do today.
7. The Romans were comparing themselves to the Jews.
"3:9 What then? Are we better than they? No, in no way. For we previously warned both Jews and Greeks, that they are all under sin. "
cb(3,10); 8. The Romans were boasting. Ro 3:27" Where then is the boasting?" Paul again seemed to take the cautious side and not say "You are evil boasters." --exageration.

I'm sorry again because I still write more as a commentary related to the purpose for the epistle to the Romans rather than as an argument.

Later on maybe I can present the full argument in tact from my website. The lack of clarity on this issue is quite a testimony to Paul's art of argumentation.

 

[mikesw]

Romans is useful to the young Christian because Paul presents many useful teachings. They can understand and be helped by the different pieces of the letter.

For understanding the full letter (all sections in proper context), Romans presents some great difficulties. You have to read the whole of Romans before you can understand the full meaning of his presentation. Then when you understand his full presentation then you can make sense of the pieces.

The article by Russell gives some overview of Romans
Russell, Walter B., III. "An alternative suggestion for the purpose of Romans." Bibliotheca Sacra, 145 (April, 1988), 174-184.

Paul is trying to convince the Romans not to reject the Jews because, in part, the law of God is old-testament stuff. Pauls refers to the Law so much as a result of the Romans' condemnation of the Jews as related to the law. Then in Rom 6 Paul has to tell the Romans not to fulfill their fleshly desires because they are not under the law.
The subject of the Law became the central unifying factor Paul could use to address the issues of sin and the division between Romans and Jews.

 

[CSMR]

mikesw:
I've looked at your comments on Romans on your website, and I have to disagree with your thesis:
"The subtlety in his approach worked so well that most readers seem to miss the main goal of his letter; Paul wanted to convince the Romans not to scorn the Jewish people"

My questions would be:
1. Why in Rome, in which Jewish sects including Christianity suffered persecution and Jews had little influence, were Christians so obsessed with the evil of the Jews that confronted with a description of people who show all possible evils and depravities, in a Roman society full of idolatry and debauchery, they understand - the Jews? (And why in Chapter 1 is God made plain through what has been made rather than through the law and prophets, if Paul means the Jews to be understood?)
2. Why is the judgmental attitude of the Romans so significant that all other theology, the doctrines of law and grace, life in the flesh and the spirit, Adam and Christ, and all correction of greivous heresies are only a dressing for this main message of a right attitude to the Jews? Paul expresses himself in just the way to give as faithfully and profoundly as possible an understanding of all these things; he presents himself as if he is trying to give an understanding of the whole nature of Christian life - and succeeds - except now you say he is not trying to do this and it is only a cover for messages about the Jews which are often structurally incidental to what is explicitly the main argument (made so to avoid offending Christians)!
3. You call a judgemental attitude to the Jews a sin, but if Paul's main message is to correct a sin, he is preaching the Law.
4. Even on the subject of judgement of others, Paul's aim is not to treat this as a problem to be eliminated: he sees more profoundly into the truth of the judgement and the law of God from which it comes, which stands over all of us. Judgement of others is used by Paul as a perception of the truth which is then used on us to show what God's judgement of us really means.

 

[mikesw]

Hi CSMR (and any other readers),
Thanks for reading it or browsing through my analysis. You are the first one to comment on it (except for some discussions with people without them reading it).

CSMR says:
<<I've looked at your comments on Romans on your website, and I have to disagree with your thesis>>
I still can understand that. I need to work on the presentation. I don't feel like its my thesis but rather an exposition. I didn't write the episltle, Paul did. The outline I recorded seemed to be the only framework that shows Paul used a logical order in his writing.

CSMR writes:
<<"The subtlety in his approach worked so well that most readers seem to miss the main goal of his letter; Paul wanted to convince the Romans not to scorn the Jewish people">>
Ironically this is a true statement also in accord with my limited knowledge of history of the Roman Empire. I don't know anyone who has said that Paul was an infallible human.

CSMR writes:
<<My questions would be:>>
I don't know if my answers could do justice to the situation. But I'll try to answer them in case they will be helpful. Also, I'm not sure if you are asking questions germaine to the purpose of Paul's writing. But the questions are interesting anyhow.

CSMR asks:
<<1. Why in Rome, in which Jewish sects including Christianity suffered persecution and Jews had little influence, were Christians so obsessed with the evil of the Jews [than when] confronted with a description of people who show all possible evils and depravities, in a Roman society full of idolatry and debauchery, they understand - the Jews?>>

This is more of a sociological question. The Christians became the younger brother among the Jewish sects. And because these brothers were powerless they took out agressions on each other. N'est pas?

CSMR asks:
<< (And why in Chapter 1 is God made plain through what has been made rather than through the law and prophets, if Paul means the Jews to be understood?)>>

Your question shows the worst weakness in my presentation. First, I am merely presenting the mindset of the original Roman reader as would make sense in light of the purpose of Romans. Second, never should it bec suggested that Paul meant to deride the Jews here -- His main purpose was to entice his original audience into his argument. I'm curious if there is another reason why Paul preaches like this just to throw water on the fire in Ro 2:1??

CSMR asks:
<<2. Why is the judgmental attitude of the Romans so significant that all other theology ... >>
Well if they trip on the first stone how far do you expect them to travel?
It took one stone to kill Goliath. Paul may have seen it important to remove a stone that would kill the Roman Church. And even yet Paul may have failed...

CSMR continues the question:
<< the doctrines of law and grace, life in the flesh and the spirit, Adam and Christ, and all correction of greivous heresies are only a dressing for this main message of a right attitude to the Jews?>>

Paul wrote his letters almost exculsively with inclusion of a correction of wrong behavior. Especially in the case of Romans, Paul also had to provide some important doctrines to shore up the base. He could have waited until Chapter 12 to present general truths. But he would have had to correct the believers without presenting truth about Christ, that would be hard and unnecessary.
Were Paul's writings to be guided by our aesthetics or by the needs of the Romans? It doesn't invalidate my understanding of Paul's purpose if he also wrote eloquently within the circumstances. Actually I feel that Paul is even more qualified to write the subtle argument than what I first thought.

CSMR continues on item2:
<< Paul expresses himself in just the way to give as faithfully and profoundly as possible an understanding of all these things; he presents himself as if he is trying to give an understanding of the whole nature of Christian life - and succeeds>>
You have said this very well. I should have included some expression of his completeness. Yet I succumb to brevity and succinctness in order to present my argument. Your point would fit well in order to answer such questions as you present.

CSMR continues item 2:
<< - except now you say he is not trying to do this and it is only a cover for messages about the Jews which are often structurally incidental to what is explicitly the main argument (made so to avoid offending Christians)!>>

Well... made to keep the wayward Christian interested in the topic.
I don't think Paul is "only" doing one thing. But the structure is to deal with several problems in the Roman Church based on the topic of "the Law"
When you say "messages about the Jews," you are suggesting again that Paul could be deriding the Jews. Paul's argument in reality is to get the Romans to stop deriding the Jews. Paul's whole discussion is oriented in relationship to the Jews, the Laws, and the Old Testament. How do the "Jews" become incidental to this discussion.
I think you are trying to read anti-Jewish sentiment into my writing. In reality I side with Paul who didn't want any attacks on Jews. [I'm sorry if I am interpreting your question wrong. And I hold no grudges in any event.]

[ I may be getting a little defensive right now. But that's almost natural cause I am trying to defend what I understand.]

CSMR asks:
<<3. You call a judgemental attitude to the Jews a sin, but if Paul's main message is to correct a sin, he is preaching the Law.>>
If corrections are laws, then the teachers in my school years wrote many and many laws. Wisdom and advice doesn't come only in the form of laws. Proverbs is designed to steer people well clear of coming under the force of the law. What law did Moses state in regard to "judgmental attituded"?
This is not an issue of the Law.

CSMR asks:
<<4. Even on the subject of judgement of others, Paul's aim is not to treat this as a problem to be eliminated:>>
I guess he differs from Jesus. "Do no judge lest you be judged." -did I quote and ascribe this correctly?
This is interesting. Is there something good about unrighteous judgments being made by believers? Is there something good about Christians hating the Jews? I hope noone has presented such an idea.

CSMR continues on item 4:
<< he sees more profoundly into the truth of the judgement and the law of God from which it comes, which stands over all of us.>>
If you are Calvinistic, I think I understand the interpretation that you are placing upon the letter to the Romans. (I don't use the term "Calvinistic" as a bad word.)
Of the possible objections I had considered, the view from a Christian's tie to the law had not come to mind. Is this heart of the divergence on our understandings?

CSMR continues on item4:
<< Judgement of others is used by Paul as a perception of the truth which is then used on us to show what God's judgement of us really means.>>
Paul may have wanted to show our need for God's mercy. But if the Roman's didn't show mercy, they were in for trouble.

Thanks again for reviewing Paul's purpose for Romans.
I was thinking of looking up Luther's introduction to the Law that you mentioned earlier. Can you site a source for Luther's commentary? And did you have an outline of Romans that you like and could provide?

God bless you.

In Christ,
Mike Whitney

 

[CSMR]

Mike,
Thanks for the response. Sorry if I am too argumentative - that is my nature - and profession !
Criticising a judgemental view of the Jews would have been a fine task for Paul, and I don't disagree about this. The right attitude to the Jews and Judaism is indeed shown in the letter, but I don't think it is the key to interpreting the whole thing.

The outline I recorded seemed to be the only framework that shows Paul used a logical order in his writing.
...
I was thinking of looking up Luther's introduction to the Law that you mentioned earlier. Can you site a source for Luther's commentary? And did you have an outline of Romans that you like and could provide?

Well, you can see if Luther succeeds in giving a logical framework!
There's a translation here of Luther's preface to Romans:
http://www.iclnet.org/pub/resources/text/wittenberg/german.bible/rom-eng.txt
(I have Tyndale's translation but it's not available online.)
I don't know if I can come up with an outline myself - if I could it would be a personal and very partial one. Maybe tomorrow I will try.

The Christians became the younger brother among the Jewish sects. And because these brothers were powerless they took out agressions on each other. N'est pas?

That may well be, but I wouldn't think to the point of associating Jews with idol-worship, dishonouring their bodies, and willfully not knowing God. Particularly as the Roman Christians without Jewish backgrounds are likely to have been guilty of these things.

Second, never should it bec suggested that Paul meant to deride the Jews here -- His main purpose was to entice his original audience into his argument. I'm curious if there is another reason why Paul preaches like this just to throw water on the fire in Ro 2:1??

Does not the fire spread in verse 2:1? From those without jugement to those who judge?

It's very late here, so I must postpone the rest of my reply till tomorrow.

 

[mikesw]

CSMR,

I briefly skimmed through Romans last night and confirmed two things to myself:
1) My outline still makes sense (i.e. seems reasonable and accurate)
2) Yet it is hard to see the outline

Some points of mine seem unlikely when I've read through part of Romans but then later verses confirm what I see.
One of the interesting aspects of Paul's presentation is the progression of references to the Jews:
ch 1. quick blurb on salvation first to the jews then to the greek
ch 2. wrath to the jew first and then to the greek -- speaks negatively of the jews (and greek) --but negativity yet. Then need of salvation for all (this isn't negative or positive but is just a universal truth. i.e. You can tell someone in a spirit of spite that they need to be saved.)
ch 2:17+ starts speaking of the jew with suggestions of hypocrisy. and then heading to the "jew inwardly not outwardly" concept. The Romans in their hate could accept this discussion.
ch 3:1 finally Paul can start attacking the Roman's idea that the Jews are bad and have no advantage. Paul is starting to talk in a positive light on the Jews (which is part of his goal)

But you probably have seen that presented in my writings.

Thanks for the link. I wasn't meaning for you to write an outline. Just wondered if there was one you liked.

CSMR wrote:
<****at may well be, but I wouldn't think to the point of associating Jews with idol-worship, dishonouring their bodies, and willfully not knowing God. Particularly as the Roman Christians without Jewish backgrounds are likely to have been guilty of these things.>>
I have the impression that the Jews were as guilty of this in that generation as were other people. This was the generation that Jesus called the seed of the devil. And I think many prophecies indicated the evils that the Messiah would encounter.
But anyhow this association of "Jews" in the mindset of the Romans -- this isn't even part of my argument -- it is rather an application of the conclusion.

CSMR wrote:
<Does not the fire spread in verse 2:1? From those without jugement to those who judge?>>
It seems to go the other direction. Those who judge then come under judgment.
Paul is leading the Romans to make judgments in Rom. 1 (because their desire to judge was strong). Then in 2:1 Paul says "See you've been judging others. Paul goes on to say "don't do that."
I don't understand the people who say Paul taught different stuff from Jesus. Paul concurs with Jesus in saying "forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who tresspass against us."

 

[CSMR]

I agree with the analysis of Chapter 1 as Paul's presenting the evil of a certain group of people, in such a way that the Romans will strongly perceive that evil in judgement. Paul does not intend to correct this judgement as his primary goal, even if it has the nature of sin. Sin is removed by grace through faith, as Paul is keen to show, and if grace and faith are there, all sin is defeated, not only one particular sin. If the Romans are self-righteously judgmental, then they are not forgiven (Jesus - those who do not forgive and those who are not forgiven are just the same people). What comes first, their forgiveness of others, or forgiveness from God? I would say God's forgiveness comes first and must be the main message, and then the right attitude towards others comes from that. The right attitude towards others is love, and if we do that without already having God's love, then we save ourselves by our works.

(Personally, the first chapter is what helped me, through unrighteous judgement of others, to see what the Law really is, even what the wrath of God really is. I saw the extent of evil in certain others and in my unrigteous anger saw what they deserved for their evil, and thereby understood what the true judgement is like, also against me, in the manner of 2:1.)

 

[CSMR]

ch 2:17+ starts speaking of the jew with suggestions of hypocrisy. and then heading to the "jew inwardly not outwardly" concept. The Romans in their hate could accept this discussion.

The word Jew is not fixed in this discussion. It means first those who posess the law (but do not do it), the outward Jew, and second those who do it, the inward Jew. Paul is concerned here to put forward his radical point: knowing the law in no way leads us to do what the law says, and conveys no righteousness. (Indeed in a sense it creates sin, as he says later.)

ch 3:1 finally Paul can start attacking the Roman's idea that the Jews are bad and have no advantage. Paul is starting to talk in a positive light on the Jews (which is part of his goal)

Acrtually Paul is still skeptical: He assumes that the Jews are unrighteous themselves, but have the oracles of God which declare the righteousness of God. Paul does not say anything good about the Jews (or about anyone); what he does say good about is the word of God that they possessed.

Thanks for the link. I wasn't meaning for you to write an outline. Just wondered if there was one you liked.

That's my preferred "outline". Perhaps more than an outline since there is a limit to what one can to in outline because of the complexity of the subject matter. What I see as being the central message or Romans in summary (at least the first part) is this in Chapter 3:
20 Therefore by the deeds of the law there shall no flesh be justified in his sight: for by the law is the knowledge of sin.
21 But now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets;
Verse 20 could be a heading for the whole argument of the first three (even four) chapters.

Paul is leading the Romans to make judgments in Rom. 1 (because their desire to judge was strong). Then in 2:1 Paul says "See you've been judging others. Paul goes on to say "don't do that."

I think there is something deeper here than "judging is wrong; don't do it", as I have tried to argue.