Thus, my question, does the Puritan side (or do you Matthew) see the continental side on this point as not fully reformed or perhaps not even reformed at all?
But here we are in lands where presbyterian churches represent a further advance in reformation. They are not to turn back from past attainments, but are to press forward and to witness to their brethren of the reasons why they differ from them. It is probably that witness to which you are alluding when you suggest the Puritan tradition seems to be represented as the only genuine reformed tradition. I make no apologies for striving together with my brethren for the faith of the gospel. It would be a sad day for the reformed faith if such striving were to be considered offensive in and of itself.
I'll just say that I admire the Puritans and Presbyterians as much as I admire the magisterial Reformed, but I think there are legitimate differences (diversity) within the Reformed family (unity). I do not believe either/or is the proper distinction on this issue, but both/and is appropriate. So I would not consider the Puritan stream more advanced or more Reformed, just different on specific points but the same on basic principles/ethos, etc. A basis for my understanding on this would be Richard Muller's article: "Confessing the Reformed Faith: Our Identity in Unity and Diversity". The link is below.
Westminster Seminary California
With that I'll bow out of the discussion, no need to go any further. Thanks again for your gracious interaction Matthew.