A real philosopher was asking about my use of these terms in a comment on my blog. I don't really know if I'm an original user of these terms, but I think they're very helpful to characterize the later "Tyler-group" theology and its "Moscow-circle" follow-on. What I mean by these terms is a theological orientation which is uniformly postmillenial, predominantly paedo-paedo, characterized by an almost episcopal concern for worship and liturgy, and having as historical and ideological prologue :) the sometime entertainment of the "high" theonomist thesis of Rushdoony and Bahnsen--i.e., that the "civil" law is valid except to the extent explictly altered by the NT. In my view, Jordan is more or less the father of this movement in much the same way that Rushdoony is the father of Reconstructionism in the first place. I would place the Gary North of Tools of Dominion (the greatest printed book of the whole movement, btw) in this category as well, inasmuch as, in his exegesis of the slavery statutes of Exodus 21, he practically abandoned the "high" theonomist thesis of Rushdoony and Bahnsen as a going hermeneutical principle, right at the height of acting on the thesis as an intellectual motive. Although I have not followed Sandlin's post-Chalcedon journey as well as I probably ought (he is an old friend), it strikes me that his "reformed catholic" musings are essentially in the same boat. And this further ties into the willingness of the Auburn Avenue "heretics" to question the universality and strict necessity of what are in many ways historically-constructed Reformation- and English Civil War-era formulations of soteriology and sacramental theology. (This is a subject on which I am woefully underread, however.)
Does that answer the question?