Another piece to the equation is I am new to the Reformed faith (less than 2 years), so my questions might seem uninformed or beginner-esque anyway. There is a lot of information on all things theological and Reformed, so I just wanted to shortcut this issue.
That is understandable. Lane is a much more patient fellow than I am so don't interpret him as being short. You generally know when I'm being short here.
I think you hit the nail on the head at being new. The reason it's taken 7 years and they still have people that buy the illusion that they are misunderstood is that the unorthodoxy of their position is very subtle. The nature of the Sacraments and the Covenant is not well understood and, frankly, is even poorly understood and taught by many in Reformed Churches. Without trying to diss Baptists, some Presbyterians are functionally Baptistic in their appreciation for the nature of the Sacraments and the Covenant.
The FV, then, accost some of the language of our Reformed tradition on the Sacraments and the Covenant and some of their critics are underdeveloped in their criticism of it because they need to reform their own appreciation of the same but from a completely different extreme. The FV advocates are often emboldened by what they perceive as broadly evangelical Reformed folk that have their own orthodoxy problems but are calling the FV on the carpet for their orthodoxy problems.
We have discussed this at length and it might be difficult to ascertain at first but I think the folks at Covenant Radio are without excuse for trying to pretend as if they're on the fence. When they were here, I pointed out a number of black and white issues where the Confession said one thing on the nature of union with Christ and Wilkins said another and they hemmed and hawed over it.
There are a number of diversionary tactics at play. A favorite is to say that the WCF teaches up to a certain point on a dogma such as election but that there is a "fuller" Biblical teaching that the WCF leaves unaddressed. Their view is that they have the full orbed understanding of it so they're teaching on an idea that they believe the WCF leaves unaddressed. Folks have repeatedly shown this is dishonest because the WCF anticipates the added information and roundly rejects their ideas.
A perfect example of the evasiveness is something that happened to me when I tried to get an honest answer from Doug Wilson that I had one of the hosts pose for me. I wanted a simple answer to a question about whether or not someone who is not vitally united to Christ would have forgiveness of sins. Doug Wilson hedged and stated that "...there are many types of forgiveness." No follow up and, to his hearers, I'm sure it sounded like he answered the question. Perfect example of how a novice might miss an important point. The larger issue is really whether or not someone who is not vitally united to Christ has his sins covered by the Atonement.
To make it plain, Reformed theology has always held that it is only the Elect of God, known before the foundation of the world, that receive grace from God that grants them faith by regeneration. Faith, alone, is the instrument that vitally unites that person to Christ in Whom is found forgiveness of sins, justification, adoption, definitive sanctification, and eternal life. The FV wants to say that everybody baptized into the Church is united to Christ in some sense. That is to say that union with Christ is not faith alone but baptism and Covenant membership in their view. Oh, they make allowances for those that are "truly elect" and those who will fall away but everyone, by virtue of their baptism, is said to participate in forgiveness of sins and salvation
in a certain sense (that's the key word always used). Friend, we believe that participation in the grace offered through baptism is only enjoyed by the elect. It is not something that we participate in as long as we don't "break the Covenant."
