John 14:6 and John 8:24

[Free Speech Enjoyer]

I know we've had conversations on this topic before, or at least conversations on theological matters similar to it, but I wanted to get some more opinions on this one.

John 14:6 is commonly understood as Jesus invoking a warning of exclusion; that one must follow Him or become baptized in order to be accepted into God's paradise.  John 8:24, if anything, appears to support that interpretation.  What's funny is that many Catholics and Protestants have not only condemned non-Christians by using passages like these, but also Christians who do not affiliate themselves with a particular denomination.

I've read about these passages on other forums, and some have suggested that Jesus was actually implying that one should get to know God, personally, through Christ, rather than spend their lives wandering in doubt about His goodness or His morality.  (I'm paraphrasing, of course.)  Another problem with the exclusivist interpretation is that, if God is all-loving and all-inclusive, why would seemingly minor things such as labels jeopardize one's standing with Him?  Does adherence to a particular set of legalistic tenets or the partaking in specific rituals mean more to God than love and trust?

The Bible doesn't give a clear answer on this.  How do you, personally, interpret these passages?

EDIT: Acts 4:12 also endorses the exclusivist position, but I don't put much stock into words that do not come from Jesus himself.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I know we've had conversations on this topic before, or at least conversations on theological matters similar to it, but I wanted to get some more opinions on this one.

John 14:6 is commonly understood as Jesus invoking a warning of exclusion; that one must follow Him or become baptized in order to be accepted into God's paradise.  John 8:24, if anything, appears to support that interpretation.  What's funny is that many Catholics and Protestants have not only condemned non-Christians by using passages like these, but also Christians who do not affiliate themselves with a particular denomination.

I've read about these passages on other forums, and some have suggested that Jesus was actually implying that one should get to know God, personally, through Christ, rather than spend their lives wandering in doubt about His goodness or His morality.  (I'm paraphrasing, of course.)  Another problem with the exclusivist interpretation is that, if God is all-loving and all-inclusive, why would seemingly minor things such as labels jeopardize one's standing with Him?  Does adherence to a particular set of legalistic tenets or the partaking in specific rituals mean more to God than love and trust?

The Bible doesn't give a clear answer on this.  How do you, personally, interpret these passages?

EDIT: Acts 4:12 also endorses the exclusivist position, but I don't put much stock into words that do not come from Jesus himself.

John 8:24 is indeed a claim to divinity, but beyond that it does not have any particular bearing on the exclusivist position by itself, for it does not forestall the possibilities of either other divinities or other incarnations by a sole divinity.

The exclusivist interpretation of John 14:6 depends upon a fixation upon the person of Jesus as opposed to the message of Jesus.  If one takes John 14:6 as metaphor instead of as a literalism, a inclusive Universalist approach to the passage is quite easy to find.

In Acts 4:12 Peter is speaking to the Sanhedrin.  Jesus was the intended pathway to salvation for the Jews.  Certainly at the time Peter spoke, there was none but the Christ that was available to them.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

\What's funny is that many Catholics and Protestants have not only condemned non-Christians by using passages like these, but also Christians who do not affiliate themselves with a particular denomination.

My church has frequently condemned other denominations with John 14:15:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

(I used the KJV because there is a significant group in my church that opposes any denomination except the King James or New King James Versions.)

The reasoning goes that since most Christians worship on Sunday instead of Saturday, they are violating the fourth commandment and thus do not love God.  I disagree with this reasoning, as there are many genuine Christians who worship on Sunday, and they obey God's commandments as they know to.

[Joe Biden 2020]

All Scripture is God-breathed.  These passages are saying that there are no multiple ways to get into heaven.  There is only one way to get into heaven.  He is also saying this as a source of comfort, not just a warning.  All one has to do is accept Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior and they'll be let into God's kingdom.  They don't have to meet certain qualifications or have their good outweigh their bad at the end of their lives.  No, all they have to do is accept the free and sufficient sacrifice of Jesus on the cross and his resurrection from the dead.  This is indeed a way to make it easier, not harder, to enter into heaven because it provides one, clear-cut, simple way to get in.

[tik 🪀✨]

There are verses in the Epistles, I believe, that seem to suggest that if one does what they do to glorify God and in good conscious, then they are in the right. One man will not eat certain meats to honor God, one man will hold one day holy that another does not. If the intent is there and it does not cause another believer to stumble, it is acceptable.

That is a massive paraphrase, of course. It does seem to point towards the "love and trust" you mentioned, more than the legalism. Strict rules, regulations, and rituals have always left bad tastes in my mouth. I knew a Seventh Day Adventist who left all of his friends behind because of that. It is bizarre to me. Say, if you re-arrange the completely arbitrary order of the days on the calendar, suddenly you are following God's commandments? Silliness.

In broader terms the verses you mention are indications by Jesus that he would fulfill his divine role as the sacrifical yadda yadda yadda redemption. That's what my understanding of Christianity indicated the "through me" part referred.. that is it. As Bushie proselytized, accepting Christ is the only requirement to know the Father. Good works, deeds, practices, and life are the result and indication of the point of these verses, not the requirement. Exclusive access to the Father through Christ by belief, NOT exclusive access to the Father through Christ's teachings and your strict interpretations thereof.