But, to address your last post please consider the following:
Context: The context of
Romans 2 is addressing Jewish hypocrisy and the judgment of God, not the salvation of Gentiles. Paul is emphasizing that God's judgment is based on truth, not outward appearances (
Romans 2:2-3).
I agree
Consistency: If
Romans 2:12-16 teaches that some Gentiles can be justified by their conscience apart from the Gospel, it would contradict the clear teaching of
Romans 3:23-25, which states that all have sinned and are justified by grace through faith in Jesus Christ.
We must believe both Ro2 and Ro3 statements as true at the same time. Paul says they have no law but says they have clear consciences. Obviously God did a work in their heart apart from the law, else how would their consciences be clear? How is it that this nature produces a heart that shows the work of the law, yet they don't have the law? What do you answer this question with? To my mind they are responding to their conscience and it is this that shows they keep the law by naturewithout having the law. But obviously not partakers of grace for they have not heard the law nor the Gospel. All those who have the Gospel also have the law, but Paul says theses Ro2 don't have the law. Therefore they don't have the Gospel nor the grace that comes thereby. To think that only the Jew with the law could be forgiven in the OT, and any Gentile repenting without hearing the law would not be forgiven would put Abraham without forgiveness because he had no law. Similarly in the NT. God can forgive someone outside of the NT, but that doesn't mean they have NT salvation. They have God's forgiving attitude but not remission in the NT understanding. NT forgiveness/remission has two separate components: God's change of attitude toward the repentant at repentance and remission (erasure from the Books of the sin debt). If not this then why the rejoicing with the angels at repentance? Why is he so happy before baptismal remission?
Imputation: Your argument relies on the idea that sin is not imputed to those who have no law (
Romans 5:13). However, this verse is referring to the pre-law era, before the giving of the Mosaic Law. It does not apply to Gentiles in the New Testament era who have the law written on their hearts (
Romans 2:14-15).
Even now in the world we live in I see the possibility that there are some few who have never heard the law or the Gospel yet live right according to the dictates of the conscience. It is these that Paul refers to in Ro2.12-16 While this is happening now in the Church Age it was also a very real possibility for some in the OT Age, that some had never heard of the 10 Commandments yet lived right by their conscience.
Enoch: The comparison to Enoch is misplaced, as Enoch lived before the law and was taken by God without experiencing death (
Hebrews 11:5). His situation is not comparable to Gentiles in the New Testament era.
That Enoch lived before the law almost goes without saying as obvious and wasn't outside of my understanding. Enoch and those with him are effectively the same as these Ro2 Gentiles. The both have no law and they both live by their conscience and intellect to tell them right from wrong. Therefore the comparison is apt. Because I have an agreement with my neighbour has no bearing in my relationship with any other. I may agree to cut their lawn but because I do doesn't mean that I must cut any others lawn. What binds me to them by agreement is only with them and has no effect on any other. What say you about the Gentiles during the Age of the Law. Were they bound to keep the ceremonial laws of sacrifice that the covenant bound the Jew to do? Were they sinners and judged as sinners at the White throne for not being circumcized if not circuncized? Is the ceremonial law only in effect for those in covenant or are the ceremonial laws binding on all those on the earth? To suggest that because there is a covenant in effect for some then means that everyone who isn't in the covenant is bound by the same rules seems to make covenant as something that is imposed and binding whether they want covenant or not. Is this what the Bible teaches us?
Judgment: Your argument suggests that God would be unjust to condemn those who are trying to live right according to their conscience. However, this ignores the biblical teaching that God's judgment is based on truth, not appearances (
Romans 2:2-3).
Perhaps I misspoke or perhaps you've misread what I wrote. I agree with your statement. It would be unjust of God to proclaim any living by conscience in the Age of Conscience as righteous but to condemn any in any other Age if they lived right by conscience who weren't aware of any covenant that God had in effect with others. To be just and seen as just he must judge them the same, ignoring any covenant rules they aren't aware of.
Your argument ultimately relies on a flawed interpretation of
Romans 2:12-16 and contradicts the clear teaching of the New Testament regarding salvation through faith in Jesus Christ.