Does a Person Have to Believe Noah’s Ark Really Happened to Be Saved?

As critics to my previous blog post pointed out: Jesus is only revealed through Scripture, so it’s illogical to claim that you can believe in Jesus without believing in Scripture. And, as that argument goes, if you deny the authority of any Scripture you deny all of Scripture (since Scripture claims to be authoritative), therefore you can’t believe in Jesus without affirming the authority of Scripture. And by Scripture, they refer to the 66 canonical books of the Old Testament and New Testament as affirmed by the church beginning in the 4th century.

Here’s my problem with that logic: to say that the Bible is effectively equal with Jesus because Jesus is only known through Scripture is the same logic that drove the Catholic church to make Mary (mother of God) equal with Jesus. Catholics venerate Mary because she gave birth to God. Jesus would not be alive without Mary, therefore Mary is equal with Jesus. This sounds like heresy to evangelicals because Mary is not a part of the Trinity. Belief in Mary is not necessary for salvation. Only belief in Jesus. My argument is simply that our elevation of the Bible to a level seemingly making it the fourth part of the Trinity is based on that same heretical logic that led to the veneration of Mary. If Jesus is known only because Mary birthed him, therefore she deserves co-equal status with him, then since Jesus is known only through Scripture, therefore the Bible deserves co-equal status with him.

The Bible is not co-equal with Jesus. Scripture is not what saves me. Jesus saves me. Sound heretical? Sound liberal? Guess who I’m getting this idea from? The guy who denied that Scripture was equal with him. “You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life” (Jesus, as recorded in John 5:39-40 ESV). Jesus himself draws a distinction between the Scriptures that testify about him and he himself. He claims that to think that eternal life comes through anyone or anything else other than him is erroneous, even if that something else is the Scriptures.

We’ll get into Stanley’s reasoning for picking this fight in the first place in a future post, but let’s keep this post here on point. I believe the Bible is without error in everything it affirms. I believe what the Bible says is true, is true. But I also believe that you don’t have to believe in the inerrancy of all of Scripture to be saved, because Scripture doesn’t save you. Only Jesus saves you. You don’t have to believed that Noah’s ark actually happened to be saved. But you definitely have to believe that Jesus is the Son of God and he died on the cross and rose again on the third day (1 Corinthians 15:3-4).

For my pastoral friends that will take issue with this, please note that 2 Timothy 3:16 says that Scripture is useful for many things, but it does not say that a believe in Scripture is a requirement for salvation. In John 5:39-40 Jesus claims that eternal life comes through him, not through the Scriptures. Since everyone here affirms the inerrancy of Scripture, let’s argue this on the merits of that Scripture as opposed to our personal or denominational theological frameworks.

I believe Noah’s ark happened just the way that the Bible says, but that’s not what saves me. Jesus alone saves me. The Bible is at the core of my faith. I view it, live under it, and teach it as the authoritative word of God. But the Bible is not the fourth person of the Trinity. It is not God. The Bible points me to Jesus, but it is not Jesus.

Thoughts?