Max,
Your answer to the New Guinea question is not what I said gets posters ignored by me, and is what I expected you to say. However I do think as I said that such a position is logically preposterous, i.e. allowing for the OT saints to be saved but not the New Guinea man, because you are coming up with justifications to reconcile two apparently conflicting biblical points, the bible stating that they were justified by faith but at the same time your stating that their faith was in Jesus the messiah whom they have never heard of from God. It is that contrived interpretation that does not make sense. They cannot be reconciled without a means for providing the New Guinea man could possibly have been saved, what we in the catholic church call baptism by desire.
Regarding the second issue, you still have not really grasped the followup question to answer when you choose B. It is this: since Jesus and the aposltes taught 100% correctly, is it reasonable to assume that God doesn't care if we here and now are able to receive that same 100% correct interpretation of scripture/revelation? Thus, is it reasonable to believe that having taught the 100% correct and entire truth in apostolic times that God would not necessarily provide that it be so today by there being one true denomination with the others only being partially right? So, is there one true denomination today that teaches the 100% correct and entire truth? (It is not necessary to specify which one.)
Your answer to that determines whether I will ignore you in the future if you care. There is an important theological and logical point in this matter. If you did not read my earlier thread on this matter,
What You Protestants Don't Seem To Get, you might wish to.