[Dog Gone]

By the same token, we're dealing with a translation of his words written decades later and so we don't really have the words of Jesus to examine and analyze.

This is one of those arguments I hate because it can't be definitively resolved. People tend to believe what they want to believe even when the evidence is indisputable.

It's my personal belief that no single church has an exclusive monopoly on salvation because believing that would mean that everyone born prior to the creation of that church would have no chance. There must be something deeper that governs that issue.

And since I believe that premise, the theological disputes between various branches of Christianity seem like interesting squabbles to me, but not much more serious than that.

That's just my take, and I know it's not widely shared.

[Just mythoughts]

"It's my personal belief that no single church has an exclusive monopoly on salvation because believing that would mean that everyone born prior to the creation of that church would have no chance. There must be something deeper that governs that issue."


Peter tells us that Christ at death went first to those that had already died and preached the gospel, their salvation was not contingent upon which church they attended, rather Christ Himself.

IPeter 3:18 For Christ also hath once suffered for sins, the Just for the unjust, that He might bring us to God being put to death in the flesh,

but quickened by the Spirit:

19 By which also He went and preached unto the spirits in prison,.....

IPeter 4:6 For for this cause was the gospel preached also to them that are dead, that they might be judged according to men in the flesh, but live according to God in the spirit.......

[Wonder Warthog]

"By the same token, we're dealing with a translation of his words written decades later and so we don't really have the words of Jesus to examine and analyze."

Not true. The apostle Paul ONLY refers to Peter in his New testament writings as "Cephas". This is sufficient proof in itself.

"This is one of those arguments I hate because it can't be definitively resolved. People tend to believe what they want to believe even when the evidence is indisputable."

Sure it can. All that is necessary is for people to look at ALL the evidence with an open mind, instead of trying to justify an untenable position. That is precisely why folks like Scott Hahn and Stephen Ray converted. If you read "Crossing the Tiber" it is pretty obvious that Ray is "ticked" at the Protestant position for not having "told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth".

"It's my personal belief that no single church has an exclusive monopoly on salvation because believing that would mean that everyone born prior to the creation of that church would have no chance. There must be something deeper that governs that issue.

We've had this interchange before. The Catholic Church agrees with you. As long as the "Protestant" church is truly Christian (i.e. professes the Trinitarian doctrine), then they have a claim in salvation through Christ. Unfortunately, this leaves folks like the Mormons "out in the cold". Note--they CAN still be saved, but it will be a lot harder.

"And since I believe that premise, the theological disputes between various branches of Christianity seem like interesting squabbles to me, but not much more serious than that."

Sorry, but there IS a definable Christian truth, and that is Roman Catholic. The evidence is massive and incontrovertible.