Take for instance, the establishment principle were the Divines appeal to Is. 49:23. It is possible to agree with the establishment principle but not agree with their application of this text to it (though I believe that they were right to use this passage in support of the establishment principle).
It's difficult to answer a hypothetical which proves to be correct.
To my mind, knowing that interpretation has advanced somewhat since those days, I would still see valid *applications* of the general principle of a given text, even where I thought the text wasn't speaking directly to the issue.
I think that is exactly what Daniel is saying, or at least trying to get at.