A recent Pew Study found that 57% of evangelicals believe there is more than one path to salvation. Cal Thomas has written a piece, "Do They Think Jesus Was a Liar?" in which he lays out a more traditional view of Jesus' exclusivity. However, the title alone is one of those "When Did You Stop Beating Your Wife?" propositions that puts any contrary opinion on the same level as blasphemy. The old "Lord, Lunatic, or Liar" argument is not a slam-dunk for me. What if there are more than just three choices? Well, four if you count "Legend", which is used as a derogatory term for anything less than inerrant journalism.
The Gospel of John portrays Jesus as saying, "No one comes to Father except by me." To disagree with that statement makes Jesus either mistaken or a liar, according to Thomas. What if there are other possibilities? What if it is not Jesus, but our interpretation of his words that are mistaken? What evidence is there that he was speaking of Christianity (perhaps a foreign notion to him) compared to other world religions? What if "through him" refers not to a belief system, but obeying his commands? Wouldn't that be much more in line with Johannine emphasis on following Jesus' commandments? Wouldn't that open the way to the Father much wider? Is it possible that Gandhi followed the way of Jesus, even though he did not espouse a Christian atonement theory? Come to think of it, does the Gospel of John espouse an atonement theory?
More importantly, what if John is not a verbatim transcript of Jesus' words, but the product of a community and written decades later? That is not just the opinion of more sensational groups like the Jesus Seminar, but also the content of New Testament 101 in most major seminaries. This does not mean that John is unreliable, just that we must take its context into consideration when interpreting it.
Perhaps your answer is "No" to all of the above, but can we at least discuss these matters without maligning others faithfulness to the gospel? I like and respect Cal Thomas and find him a refreshingly rational voice for Christianity in the media. But a rigged argument like this shuts down conversation and neglects the fact there are faithful and intelligent Christians who may interpret this verse differently.