It is surely valid to ask how the exegetical model that rejects a literal application of “six days” can be prevented from being applied to a literal application to “on the third day.”

I read with much interest the recent exchange between Mr. Williamson and Dr. Evans.

I believe that in one point he has been less than fair to Mr. Williamson and in another that he has actually made Mr. Williamson’s point for him.

Dr. Evans states: “Williamson seems to assume that the doctrine means that all passages of Scripture are going to be easily accessible to ‘God’s simple people,’ to ‘older saints,’ and to ‘ordinary people.’” Mr. Williamson makes no such assertion regarding “all passages of Scripture.” I think he is entitled to say that the normal and natural reading of a passage is the one to be preferred unless there is some good reason for adopting another meaning.

Thus we come to 1 Corinthians 15:4 which states with reference to Jesus “that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day in accordance with the Scriptures.” The statement seems clear and not in need of revision so in that sense, as I understand Mr. Williamson, he is affirming that Scripture is “perspicuous.”

Having attended a liberal divinity school, I was used to men and women being willing to dismiss what seems the clear teaching of Scripture on the basis that we should take neither “the third day” nor the resurrection itself literally. It is surely valid to ask how the exegetical model that rejects a literal application of “six days” can be prevented from being applied to a literal application to “on the third day.” Mr. Williamson argument, if I understand him correctly, is that the clear and straightforward reading should be adopted. There is nothing obscure about saying that God created the world in the space of six days and all very good.

The point not to be missed is that Mr. Williamson nowhere says in his article that all of Scripture is similarly perspicuous.

Having misrepresented Mr. Williamson Dr. Evans goes on to chide him with reference to the Westminster Confession of Faith: “But the historic Protestant doctrine manifestly does not mean that all portions of Scripture are equally understandable or accessible to all (see WCF I.7).”

Dr. Evans goes on to ask, “Do we really want Reformed churches that would, in principle, exclude B. B. Warfield, J. Gresham Machen, Meredith Kline, and a host of others?”

One might similarly ask if we would desire to exclude from our ministry the prince of preachers, Spurgeon, if he had applied to either of the Presbyterian denominations to which Mr. Williamson and Dr. Evans belong. Our response would surely be that his view on baptism would exclude him. My point is absolutely NOT to say I believe that Warfield, Machen or Kline should be excluded from ministry, but only that the matter should be decided purely on the substance of the matter laid before the determining body.

An appeal to the “big names” is exactly the “tyranny of the experts” to which Mr. Williamson was drawing attention. An argument that we should not adopt a particular response because some luminary in the Reformed firmament holds the contrary opinion is to yield to a reputation and not to the Word of God which alone is the rule of faith and life, or as the WCF states it: “The supreme Judge, by which all controversies of religion are to be determined, and all decrees of councils, opinions of ancient writers, doctrines of men, and private spirits, are to be examined, and in whose sentence we are to rest, can be no other but the Holy Spirit speaking in the Scripture.” (WCF 1:10)

It seems to me that an appeal to the reputation of men is explicitly ruled out, confessionally speaking.

Iain Wright, a native of Scotland, served as assistant minister at St. Columba’s, London where he was ordained by the Presbytery of England. Iain later moved to the States where he served as pastor of Second Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Yazoo City, MS and is presently pastor of Covenant OPC, Orland Park, IL