The Westminster Assembly and Westminsterian Deviations

“The mere fact that a particular doctrine was held by an individual Westminster divine during the assembly’s debates does not automatically mean that doctrine was considered within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy by the assembly. Not everything in the WCF is a compromise.”

This is a quote from Keith Mathison, professor of systematic theology at Reformation Bible College. It’s been making the rounds, but I think it says less than Mathison hoped. There is a kind of person who will cite members of the Assembly as cover for their idiosyncratic views (e.g. hypothetical universalism and Edmund Calamy’s alleged support of it) and my guess is that Mathison is aiming at them. However, the framing in his statement needs further development in order to be helpful.

First, is there a difference between a view being excluded from the Westminster Standards and being ruled outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy? Is it possible to hold doctrinal views excluded by the Assembly and still be within the bounds of confessional orthodoxy? How is that even evaluated? I’m thinking here of Erastianism, which was held by a small number of the divines and was very much rejected in the Westminster Confession. Are Erastians outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy?…