I have made a grave mistake in lumping him in with you and the other OPies here.
I can publically attest that private FReepmails between you and I have been quite satisfactory, though our debate on several threads has been very heated.
Again, my apologies for my misunderstanding and thus insult to you and your fellow OPies here.
Your mistake was not "grave" at all. It was just a hasty generalization that annoyed me. And on that subject, your (entirely charitable) apology is humbly accepted.
It wasn't even annoying to me because I necessarily disagree with "the_doc", either -- I probably don't disagree with "the_doc", and you may freely hold that against me if you wish. (And of course by comparison, I likewise maintain that Patent's posting of private FReepMails remains a violation of FR rules. If, for example, you had chosen to refer to my Protestantism as "the essence of hypocrisy" in a PRIVATE email, because you personally adjudged it to be a PERSONAL communication, I would leave it PRIVATE... not because I would think you a "coward", but simply because if you label something "personal", I would respect that. IMHO, Patent broke the FR rules. Period).
Are the_doc's defenders, Jean Chauvin and RnMomof7, OPies? Given his screen name and vociferous defense of the_doc, I assumed Jean Chauvin was OP, and I have seen RnMomof7 make many statements consistent with the OP positions. (Of course, there are grave differences to you apparently between OPies and the type of Baptist the_doc represents...but you know us Catholics...all you prots sound alike ;-)
Nope.
WHAT "fellow OPC's" (grin)? There's plenty of Conservative Presbyterians around FR, but I am the only Orthodox Presbyterian of which I am aware (think "Conservative" and "Orthodox" Judaism, if that helps).
To my knowledge, I am the *only* Orthodox Presbyterian regularly posting to these threads (there are several Presbyterian-Church-in-Americas [PCA], which is basically the same thing, very-Conservative Presbyterianism, but they are not *technically* OPC).
Likewise, "Jean Chauvin" and "Wrigley" are not, strictly speaking, "Orthodox Presbyterian" but are rather "Reformed Church" (CRC or URC, not OPC). So... Whatsa difference? Geography, mostly. The "Reformed Church" immigrated from the European Calvinist churches, and the "Presbyterians" immigrated from the Scottish Calvinist churches. How can I explain this to a Romanist? (sigh)... I suppose the easiest way of explaining it would be to draw a parallel to the Eastern Orthodox confession, which does not subject itself to a single Universal Pontiff but instead fellowships itself among a number of National Orthodox churches according to language-groups and liturgical practice (Russian Orthodox, Greek Orthodox, Serbian Orthodox, etc.). So you have Scottish/Anglo Calvinist "Presbyterians", and Continental Calvinist "Reformed", like "Jean Chauvin" and "Wrigley". And so, Presbyterians and Reformed are united in spirit, are essentially identical in doctrine, and can trade Presbyter/Elders between congregations as easily as baseball cards (like the Eastern Orthodox churches), but we do technically represent different ethnic and liturgical traditions (again, like the Eastern Orthodox churches).
RnMomof7, on the other hand -- a "wesleyan" who has come to Whitfieldian Calvinism -- is probably closest in doctrinal tradition to Old Calvinist Anglican (albeit the highly-Americanized "methodist" strain)... i.e., she is fairly close to "presbyterianism" doctrinally, except that Methodists accept EITHER Infant Baptism OR Adult Baptism as a sacramental practice. (with all due respect to RnMomof7 [friendly winks and grins to RN], she should probably be either Baptist or Presbyterian.... she is basically a Calvinist Methodist, which is common enough in Britain, but pretty rare in the USA).
Which brings us, of course, to the Old School Baptistry of "the_doc" and "Jerry_M". Where do the Historic Baptists fit in all of this? (Sigh)... again, to explain it as best I can to a Romanist, I would ask you to draw a parallel between the Eastern Orthodox and the Armenian Orthodox churches. Neither accepts the presumptive Supremacy claims of the Roman Bishop, do they? And in many ways, both Armenians and Easterners are very close in Doctrine... yet both will acknowledge that they are different Confessions of Faith. Even as Armenians are monophysite, patriarchal, and judaistic in comparison to the duophysite, collegial, and greek character of the Eastern Orthodox churches, so Old School Baptists -- though very close in doctrine to Reformed/Presbyterians, are practically and ecclesiologically their own Confession. While they would completely agree with Reformed/Presbyterians on all five key theological truths of the Reformation -- sola scriptura, sola fide, sola gratia, solus Christus, sola Dei gloria -- their *practice* is different from the Reformed/Presbyterian practice. Reformed/Presbyterians are Synodical and Covenantal, whereas Baptists are Independent and Anabaptistic. To draw attention to the *main* point of disagreement (far from being a "grave" difference, this is actually the *largest* difference between Presbys and Baptists to which I can draw attention), both Reformed/Presbyterians and Baptists agree theologically that the Sacraments are primarily *symbolic*, not independently *efficacious*; but Reformed/Presbyterians believe we should include the Infants of Believers under the Symbol of Baptism, whereas Baptists believe that the Symbol of Baptism should be extended only to those who make a credible profession of faith (i.e., adults and mature children).
So again, even as the ethnic/liturgical diversity of Eastern Orthodox churches should help to draw a parallel between "Reformed" (Jean Chauvin, Wrigley) and "Presbyterian" churches (myself, and other conservative Presbyterians), I should imagine that the Eastern/Armenian Orthodox parallel should help you to understand the case of Presbyterians and Baptists... Reformed/Presbyterians and Calvinist Baptists will often line up on the same side theologically, for our theologies are so similar; but as attends to praxis (not theory), our ecclesiological and liturgical practices are differently confessional (like the Eastern Orthodox and Armenian Orthodox are very similar, and yet are nonetheless different Confessions).
I hope that you should find the foregoing to be educational.
best, OP