I wrote a reply to the blog post... it is awaiting moderation for now. In a nutshell I said:

At first all this elaborate stuff seemed to be simply an argument for paedocommunion in the PCA. It seems to have quickly morphed into something much more far-reaching. While I sympathize with those in the PCA who support paedocommunion, I am not willing to turn the Reformation on its head in order to justify it.

Secondly, it seems to me that proponents of FV can "sound" completely orthodox, using such familiar terms as justification by faith, as long as their meaning of those terms remains hidden (or evasively explained) from those who hear and judge their words.

Thirdly (and I didn't include this in my reply to the blog because the author already said it better than I can), the PCA is awfully arrogant to think that they can avoid the same fate as the majority of other Protestant denominations when confronting questions about foundational doctrines. The apostate PCUSA claims the Westminster Standards as well as the PCA - yet they have no difficulty in skirting it (not to mention the Scripture) to justify ordaining non-celibate practicing homosexuals as church officers.

-Robin