As one who was born and raised in the Southern Presbyterian Church of a family that counts Presbyterian heritage for generations, I was raised with the general acceptance of the popular view of the day in our circles regarding the creation days. One could believe in the literal six day creation, or could hold to some modified understanding about the length of the days.
        My father, who was a mathematician, and thus had a scientific bent of mind held to a theistic evolution regarding the development of the human body, but did also hold to something special when it came to the creation of Adam and Eve. As one who was always interested in natural science, I tended to accept this view.
        Because of my desire to work in the outdoors, I believed that I should prepare for a career in forestry. I thus went north to what was then recognized as one of the best forestry schools in the country, the University of Michigan. There I was reinforced in the direction of evolution, though, as a Christian, I never thought of it as not being under the control of God. I ended up with a major in Botany. I can well remember taking a course in algae and fungi, in which we were studying these plants in some detail. One day the professor told us to look for certain things in the microscope, and he said, "We are not sure whether this plant is evolving up or down." In some ways, I felt that for the first time they were being honest with us. Whereas the freshmen courses in the department of natural science were always touting the fact that plants and animals were evolving up, for the first time as seniors, we were told that they did not know this for sure.
        About this same time the InterVarsity group had Dr. Russell Mixter (sp.?) of the Wheaton College faculty to come and lecture to us on how we should view the evolutionary theories with the Biblical account of creation. He challenged us to take the same facts presented by the scientists, and place them in the creation model, and see if they did not fit just as well, if not better, than in the evolution model. As I did this I found myself moving back to the literal creation account. At the same time, having been an orthodox Christian, who had held to longer periods of time for the creation, I felt that we should not judge too harshly those who differ with us on this matter. In other words, I felt that since there may be some question of just what the word "day" means in Genesis one, we should be tolerant of different viewpoints. I am still of this mind regarding the members of our churches.
        I remember being somewhat disappointed with Dr. E. J. Young’s position on this matter. I think that Dr. David Calhoun’s history of Princeton Seminary helps to explain where Young was coming from. The Princeton men "waffled" on this matter, with the result that Westminster Seminary, which Machen says was the continuation of Princeton has also continued in that "waffled" position. I have had one student at Greenville, who has posited the theory that whenever a formerly sound seminary has failed to stand firmly on the creation issue, it has brought about the demise of that seminary as an orthodox institution. I am inclined to think that this student is right. Dr. Young had a very simple and childlike faith to the effect that if a man knew enough, he would never say the Bible was in error. He maintained that we could count on the dating in the Bible back to the time of Abraham, but that before that the genealogies were not clear, and therefore, we could not reconstruct a chronology before about 2,000 BC. I always had the feeling that he would have liked to hold to a literal 24 hour day for creation, but was not sure that he could do so. Being influenced by Young in this matter, I have hesitated to be dogmatic about six literal 24 hour days, though this is my personal position. In my Systematic Theology I have not taken a firm stand for the 24 hour day position, though I do indicate why I think it is the preferable position.
        The question that lies before the PCA regarding this matter is not whether men, otherwise in agreement on theology, cannot differ on this matter and still be accepted in the church as ministers and elders; rather, the question is whether the Westminster Standards set forth a particular view. What did the Westminster divines intend when they wrote the Westminster Confession and Catechisms? As various studies on this subject have emerged, it appears that they were not dealing with a theory of longer days, but rather with the position posited by Augustine of instantaneous creation. This sounds so foreign to us, that it is difficult for us to grasp the fact that Augustine’s view was held by a number of theologians in the history of the Church. The Westminster divines used the phrase "in the space of six days" in the Standards to answer the idea of instantaneous creation. They were saying that creation did not take place instantaneously, but it took place over the space of six days. The Westminster divines were not answering the idea of long periods of time, or of a framework hypothesis, but were affirming what the Bible affirms, that creation took place over the space of six days. From the studies of the writings of the divines, I believe it can be demonstrated that those who spoke to the issue held to literal 24 hour days. Thus the Westminster Standards must be understood as teaching a six literal day creation. Any other view must be viewed as outside of the purview of the Standards.
        It is my conviction that an honest subscription to the Westminster Confession and Catechisms requires the acceptance of the position of six literal days. If an ordinand holds to some other view, he must declare it to the ordaining court, which is then to decide whether the exception strikes at the heart of the system of doctrine, and whether a man holding such an exception should be ordained or not.
        If we do not handle this matter in this way, then subscription to the Standards becomes meaningless. Let me illustrate from the way that our "mother" churches allowed this kind of looseness in handling the Standards. The doctrine of the virgin birth of Christ has been an orthodox doctrine since the apostolic age. It is affirmed in our creeds and confessions. The so called "neo-orthodox" people have affirmed the virgin birth as a supra-redemptive-historical event, but not as a literal historic event. The same has been done with the atonement, and the resurrection. To be allowed to handle the Standards in some way other than that which was intended by the authors is not ethically or morally honest.