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?

Second, what does it even mean to be outside the bounds? Does that mean no exception can be granted here? Of course, the concept of exceptions didn’t exist in the 1640s and wouldn’t for another 80 years and on another continent, so what exactly does this mean? If this just means “Different from the views in the Standards” then we just have a tautology.

Third, Mathison is right that not everything in the Westminster Confession is a compromise, but there were many members of the Assembly who held views excluded by the Standards. But to my knowledge no member of the Assembly was required to recant their views once the Confession was adopted, nor was any member of the Assembly disciplined or excluded from ministry for their views prior to the Restoration in 1660. If doctrines held by individual members of the Assembly were considered outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy, do we have any examples of those views or the members who held them being reprimanded by the Assembly?

Fourth, who gets to decide which views are considered outside the bounds? I think the answer is the ordaining and overseeing synod of individual ministers. The Westminster Standards don’t exist just in a particular historical moment, but are held by churches in the present. And churches don’t subscribe to the Assembly. What constitutes a doctrine being inside/outside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy cannot be solved by historians or even systematic theologians, but the assemblies of the church. And this makes the situation more difficult for both Mathison and the rogue divines: Whether or not an excluded doctrinal view is inside the bounds of confessional orthodoxy needs to be wrestled through again and again in different churches and situations with different answers given at different points.