Dear Brother Michael,
As a Truly Reformed confessional believer who has lived in the MacArthurite baptist world for many years, I hope I can shed some light on your concerns.
You say, "Now having listened to these two radio broadcasts, I am even more content to be called a particular baptist, instead of having the label "reformed" - if indeed being "reformed" produces such slanderous evaluation of Paul Washer." I would gladly and lovingly call you a "Reformed Baptist" since you hold to the LBC1689. Not "Reformed" alone but "Reformed Baptist" or "Particular Baptist" in order to distinguish the slight differences in our theology.
Many Reformed Baptists go to my seminary and we love and respect one another as holders of reformed theology in general. Glad to consider you "one of us" in that sense. Hold to the label because it represents "truth" and don't lose it because of the sinful behavior of some brothers in Christ. Truth is more important than that.
I see you called their evaluation "slanderous" but I cannot agree with your evaluation/accusation. It seems you and I would certainly agree it was "ungracious" but they have a valid point that should properly be heard and understood. It seems you may have not understood the distinction they were teaching.
You ask: "The question for those who listen to this broadcast: "Does Mr Adam Kaloostian and John Sawtelle represent the Reformed faith well in their evaluation of Paul Washer?""
Does their lack of graciousness represent Reformed believers? I think you already know the answer. Just as everything sin your commit doesn't represent all Particular Baptists, certainly this is true of Reformers as well. OF COURSE you can't say "these two men were ungracious so ALL Reformed people must be ungracious." Such a stereotype itself would be ungracious! Just as if one day you cut someone off while driving, no one should make the assumption "All Particular Baptists are bad drivers." Silly, right? But I understand the program offended you and so you probably don't actually think this at all.
Yes, I was very saddened by what I perceived to be "disrespectful and mocking tones."
So let's get to the real heart of your question and concern. Is their point valid? "Does Mr Adam Kaloostian and John Sawtelle represent the Reformed faith well
in their evaluation of Paul Washer?"" And to this, I respond: ABSOLUTELY! I used to not understand the distinction between MacArthurites/Southern Baptists and Reformed but like these men say "The Southern Baptists certainly do!" And you should be very concerned because the differences ABSOLUTELY MATTER. This is not like you and me differing on baptism. You're still my brother and you still hold the gospel and to most of reformed theology too. The two pastors are 100% correct when they say these Baptists are teaching a modified form of "works salvation" and "works sanctification" that are disastrous to the Christian life.
TRANSCRIPTION OF AUDIO (Their words, not mine):
REFORMED VIEW: (24:00) Justification is a legal declaration and it includes imputation of Christ's righteousness on my account and the pardon of sin through Christ's shed blood.
BAPTIST VIEW: (24:40) Saved through faith alone. The evidence of your salvation is by repentance. He claims justification by faith alone but then immediately gets into fruit evidence thing.
(26:25-31:00) On what basis are you rewarded and secure? Is it the imputed righteousness of Christ? Or my repentance I am working after receiving forgiveness of my sins passively. How are you saved? Washer blames preachers for not speaking enough about the fruit of repentance.
JUSTIFICATION. Justification is God’s gracious and full acquittal of sinners who believe in Christ from all sin, through the satisfaction that Christ has made. It is given not for anything wrought in them or done by them; but, on account of the obedience and satisfaction of Christ, they receive and rest on Him and His righteousness by faith.
There is no mention of WHAT obedience is being referred to here. As Reformed, we understand there are two: the active obedience of Christ and the passive obedience of Christ imputed on our account. In Reformed theology, it is the active obedience that is imputed on my account. But on the website, there is ZERO mention of the active obedience of Christ (Christ’s righteousness) being imputed to us. This absence shows up in his preaching. The omission of this concept reinforces a false gospel. He does NOT preach the active obedience of Christ PERIOD. This changes how we understand repentance. When you read someone who suppresses the active obedience of Christ being imputed to you, he will smuggle works right in the back door.
They usually don’t understand the active obedience of Christ. They don’t know how vital this is for a proper righteousness of Christ on their account, they are saved right? Absolutely!
With Washer, you wonder if anyone is ever saved. How can he shy away from saying “If you trust his perfect obedience to the law where he earned heavens rewards for you, then you are saved.” He would say “I do preach that but I’m just focusing on the fact that so many people think they are saved because they prayed the sinner’s prayer.” Yes, it is true there are many Christians that think they are saved but are not, the medicine isn’t to kill them with the law until they clean up their act like me. The assurance of salvation is that you have the level of holiness he has. It produces total despair and hopelessness or you think you achieved and it produces the grosses pharisaical self-righteousness.
The medicine is to breach the real gospel. Of course preach the law but preach the full gospel. This will affect hearts.
He replaces the active obedience of Jesus Christ with the sinners striving after obedience and constantly repenting. So you end up getting the gospel through perpetual repentance. That is Arminianism!
I stopped listening at 37mins because their evaluation thus far is 100% true. The pastors are absolutely correct. These Bapist men are Arminians in theology with the 5 points of Calvinism and a high view of God's sovereignty over suffering slapped on. Despite their ungraciousness, these pastors are speaking the truth and are seeing a grave error that many MacArthurites/Southern Baptists never realize. Some of us have escaped these horribly legalistic self-righteous churches that some weeks preach ONLY law and scare everyone into "doing works" with a "boot in the butt" to "make you move". They emphasize negative fear and boot-in-butt motivation rather than positive motivation out of love/respect for God and Christ. The "works sanctification" method these Baptists teach sounds to me like what John Piper calls "the Galatian heresy" in his Galatians Ch 3-4 sermons. You MUST understand these two theologies are worlds apart.
No offense meant, but I see MacArthur as teaching the same thing. He confuses justification by faith alone (which he intends to teach) but accidentally teaches "justification by faith plus repentance." I hope this helps you and you can truly understand this message. It is essential. If this causes you trouble, try reading Michael Horton's book "Christ The Lord" to understand the differences in theology. He critiques MacArthur's teachings (which sound the same as Washers). These pastors are correct when they say that this will destroy your spiritual life. They are also correct when they say that Washer (and MacArthur, etc) use human works to earn rewards in heaven and earn favor with God (legalism) and to give themselves assurance of salvation THROUGH human works primarily. MacArthur's book "Saved Without A Doubt" is exactly this teaching - 11 steps to give yourself assurance based on "how good a Christian you have been" or "what experiences you have had." It is Arminianism to the core.
FYI... I looked at Washer's website where it is claimed he holds to the LBC1689 but it is clear he does not. His teachings on the sacraments is absolutely contrary to the LBC. He teaches a dead commemorative only sacrament, while Reformers and Reformed Baptists both teach a "means of grace" sacrament in which we TRULY to partake of Jesus via faith. We hold John Calvin's view. They hold Zwingli's view.
. However, let us also appreciate that "Calvinism" or "reformed" is frequently referred to by broad evangelicalism as believing in Sovereign Grace / TULIP. Thus, Paul Washer is often referred to as "Reformed" by broad evangelicalism, whereas by PB's own definition, Washer is NOT reformed at all. 
) Another difficulty is that it that Reformed Baptist are so diverse in belief. Are dispensationalist "RB" reformed? Are Jon Zens and those who express extreme separation between the Covenants reformed, are Primitive Baptist? I have a great love for my Reformed Baptist Brethren and I would say they are albeit inconsistently Reformed. My guess is that they feel the same about me.