1) If I am not mistaken the kind of phrase you used and have used frequently on Puritanboard is characteristic of a certain Sovereign Grace Baptist, and indeed, though I cannot find the reference at present is used in an article in which is roundly lambast Reformed Baptists and many doctrines they share with Puritans and Reformed in general and which he himself rejects. The term is unfortunate because it suggests an unstableness in theology. With regard to it being a rabbit-trail, it most certainly is and one that you took us on unnecessarily and so I won't address any of the other ones you take up under paragraph 1.
I only took the "other ones" up under paragraph 1 because of your previous response. Had you responded privately instead, I would have been happy to have edited my post to remove the offending passage. Had you responded with this context in your previous post, it would not have necessitated going further down those rabbit trails in an attempt to explain what I meant by the term.
Now, you say that I've used this kind of phrase frequently on the Puritanboard. Frequent usage based on what standard? It appears that I have used the phrase 3 times out of over 8,000 posts on the Puritanboard since 2005. I find it once on my blog. Casting the net wider, I find two posts to email discussion lists. That makes 6. But for the sake of argument, let's double the number. Thus, it would appear that I may have used the term no more than a dozen times in what may be over 20,000 emails, posts (8000+ here alone) and comments in various places online over the past decade. The reader will draw his own conclusions about whether not it is reasonable to allege that I've used the term High Water Presbyterian "frequently."
I do not know how the term may have been used in the past by others, but my usage of it here was an offhand remark used in reference to some Calvinistic Baptists that I have known and a tendency that I have observed, and not necessarily any specific school. I find that
one other poster used the term, apparently coming up with it independently.
And, while I certainly didn't communicate it as clearly as I should have and the way that I communicated it caused unnecessary confusion, I did mean to suggest an unstableness in theology, which is clear when taking my post as a whole. Part of the subject at hand in this thread is restlessness after all, and that's what occasioned the comment. I am certainly not suggesting an instability of your theology or the theology of such worthies as Martin, Chantry, et al. In fact, quite the opposite! Coming to those kinds of conclusions would be a solution to the issues of rootlessness, charismaticism, antinomianism etc. that are seen among many in the "YRR" camp. The juxtaposition I made was most unfortunate and prone to misunderstanding. Were I to read it if it were posted by someone else, I would probably connect the dots in the way that you did. I was guilty of very poor editing and posted too quickly without adequately reviewing that part of the message. Please accept my apology for the offense given with that juxtaposition. Mea Culpa!
Now to get back to the point of instability in one's theology. Isn't it fair to state that many if not all of those who embrace Reformed soteriology and within a year or two (if not sooner) embrace paedobaptism had "unstableness" in their theology, at least until the issue in their mind was resolved in favor of paedobaptism? In some cases, they never had a firm grasp on Baptist theology and history, with some demonstrating to this day that they didn't understand it by doing things like anachronistically charging covenantal Baptists with being dispensationalists for rejecting paedobaptism. You'll see comments here and elsewhere about what they think "Baptists believe" based on what some dispensationalist revivalist taught them rather than what historic Calvinistic Baptists (not to mention of the 1689 variety) have believed and practiced. That's about like a Southern Baptist saying that what modern liberal Presbyterians believe equates with historic, confessional Presbyterianism.
A good example of instability in theology for a time after coming to embrace the Doctrines of Grace is one of our moderators here, "Herald" aka Bill Brown. (I don't think he'll mind my mention of him in this context.) He previously had the user name of "Baptist in Crisis" which was indicative of instability in his theology, coming from a fundamentalist, dispensationalist and Arminianish background. Once he stabilized and came to his current convictions, (in this case rejecting paedobaptism and embracing amillennialism) he jettisoned the name.
There are plenty of YRR types (regardless of age) or simply sub-Confessional (or Reformed) people in the PCA (not to mention the EPC or well nigh apostate PCUSA) who have little or no regard for the confession or the RPW. In some cases, there is a lack of understanding of the basic doctrines of Christianity. Some can't explain the reason for the differences between Presbyterianism and Romanism and think the latter is equally valid or nearly so. (I've even seen this among elders!) I've seen a man ordained as a Teaching Elder who took exception to the standards regarding marrying papists and excluding them from the Lord's Supper. He didn't understand why an evangelical Baptist or Congregationalist could partake in the Lord's Supper in a PCA congregation while Romanists were prohibited. After some questioning and deliberation he still didn't appear to get it. But he was ordained nonetheless, even though he was called to a church that is in a heavily Romanist area. Others will say things like Oneness Pentecostals worship the same Jesus they do. And these are people who have been sitting in Reformed pews for decades.
