The "Roman Road" is a common evangelistic tool that features quoting 5 passages from Romans out of textual order (3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 10:13, 10:9-10.)
This has been rejected by some because of the small portions of text used and the way they are arranged out of order. Are there any Hermeneutical approaches that would consider it a valid method of reading the text?
Sensus Plenior permits paraphrasing so long as the meaning is retained. Therefore order does not have to be maintained.
It can be argued that translation uses hermeneutics. Simply translating from one language to another changes the order of words.
And Midrash as defined by various systems such as the 32 Rules of Rabbi Eliezer, permits things to be taken out of order, while also looking to order for meaning.
I would like to answer this question more broadly in that "order" seems to imply that the arrangement of The Bible is chronological. Documentary Hypothesis holds that some portions of the texts were interspersed by divinely inspired redactors or "editors" - if you will which would mean that we need to dispense with the idea that just because a text appears in an earlier book of The Bible, or that it appears with a lower chapter and verse number it should be regarded as the earlier text. We don't know that and we don't know that redactors would have had any regard for chronology as much as they may have been thinking about cogency and readability.
In actuality the texts are not chronological. Genesis 1, for example seems to be a kind of Hebrew "Prologue" that was added much later (like circa 600 BCE) to the text - as opposed to Genesis 2:4-3 that appears to date to 1400 BCE or earlier. This does not mean it was not divinely inspired, just that there were some liberties taken by the redactors and editors.
The ordering of the Hebrew Tanakh also differs from the the Christian and Protestant Canons with the minor prophets appearing before books like Psalms, Proverbs, Ruth and others in the Ketuvim. Instead many of these writings later in the anthology some of us refer to as "The Bible" or "Tanakh" or "Torah". In the Hebrew Canon despite, many writings having an earlier date, they are included after possibly later-dated writing
You can either group the texts chronologically, by subject, or even by other ways, and arrangement has changed over the years. This applies both by book order and within books of the Tanakh and The Bible more broadly.
So sure - to the extent that any "Hermeneutical schema" is capable of establishing and supporting a chronological order, you can justify not quoting "out of textual order" (whatever that means to you given that we know things have been rearranged over millennia). This may not apply to Romans specifically (I will leave that argument for others) but more broadly does apply to the texts as a whole. Sometimes that ordering can matter, and others it really doesn't. But you do have to recognize this is a complicated answer without a clear-cut answer within most (all?) Hermeneutical schemas once you grasp this concept.
Valid Method Some Rabbis and Evangelical Protestant minister may indeed consider this a valid method (32 Rules of Rabbi Eliezer, as previously noted). But this type of Bible study is tenuous, often leading to false doctrines, and misunderstandings concerning the Bible teachings. This so often true when it comes to the study of Eschatology. Jumping around from one verse to another (esp. topically) without doing expository research, considering each context, is not a valid way to do in depth biblical research. And we should not be teaching new converts to do that type of Bible study at the very beginning of their discipleship.
Righteous Intent The use of the questionable method here is done with righteous intent, to be sure. And it has been effective in the saving of souls! (Along with many other methods) The ROMANS ROAD is a metaphor that is easily memorized. Whether evangelists who use it should be criticized, is a matter of concern. By all means same some, might be a legitimate motto.
Hermeneutical Method Having said that, a perfectly sound hermeneutical method for presenting the Gospel to inquiring souls would be to take the very first verse of the Road (3:23), and present it in context! Read the next verse as well (3:24). That type of exposition contains the "Full Gospel" sufficient for salvation!
This righteousness from God comes through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference. For all have sinned and fall short of the Glory of God, AND are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. (Romans 3:22-24)
Not Just Word Order When translating often, the new verbage does not follow the word order of the original because of different syntax rules in different countries. No problem.
But here in this question, we are dealing with the new order of whole verses from different chapters...and that is a different ball game! That practice is suspect. Paraphrasing within a sentence, is legitimate in some cases (translating for children, etc.) But this does not underscore real hermeneutical research, either. Nothing takes the place of expository (hermeneutically contextual) treatment of the Scriptures. New convert should be grounded in this type of Bible study.
