The most important thing to know about the book of Romans is that it was inspired by God the Spirit and given to the church through the Apostle Paul. It is God’s holy, infallible and inerrant Word. Another very important thing (but often neglected) to know is that the book of Romans is in three parts, sin (Rom 1:18–3:20); salvation (Rom 3:21–11:36); and service (Rom 12:1–16:27). The historic Protestant way of putting this is to say that after the prologue (Rom 1:1–17), the book is structured by two principles, law (“do this and live”) and gospel (“for God so loved the world”), which leads to progressive sanctification. We might also say that it is in two parts insofar as salvation leads to service, but the Reformed traditionally understood Romans to be in three parts and thus the Heidelberg Catechism (1563) is in three parts following the pattern of Romans. This resource page will contain the archive of the Heidelcast series on Romans, a select bibliography and other resources to help you study and understand Romans. Read more»
- How To Subscribe To Heidelmedia
- The Heidelblog Resource Page
- Heidelmedia Resources
- The Ecumenical Creeds
- The Reformed Confessions
- The Heidelberg Catechism
- Recovering the Reformed Confession (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing, 2008)
- Why I Am A Christian
- Support Heidelmedia: use the donate button or send a check to:
Heidelberg Reformation Association
1637 E. Valley Parkway
Escondido CA 92027
- Heidelblog Contributors
Thank you Scott for bringing this up and providing resources on Romans. Man its missing from so many churches today. The basic training manual for all believers. And may every believer never reach the level that they think they no longer need the gospel!
I must restrain myself in responding to this topic of the book of Romans. But may I suggest one more resource? Chapter six of O. Palmer Robertson’s, The Israel of God, published in 2000 ,on the correct exegesis of Romans 11, esp. v. 26 “and thus all Israel will be saved”. 1st, he supports Calvin’s view which is fascinating since many commentators quite casually dismiss it. 2nd, and here’s the kicker, he corrects his own prior view which appeared in an article in 1979 regarding Israel’s future. Robertson persuasively details why he left the Dutch view and sided with Calvin. There is more to say of course, but may those seeking to sort out this point consult him as well as a paper by Lee Irons’ on his upper register. I for one am convinced of this minority position.