Perhaps I was hasty and sent the wrong message. Yes, the differences are important. Arminianism is an antigospel and I must agree with you on that. TULIP is very biblical, and Romans 8:29,30 would affirm its veracity to me independant of any other evidence.
But here, sir, enters the inevitable problem with the statement that anyone who believes in their heart the Arminian doctrine is not saved. In our effort to protect the sacred doctrine of justification by faith alone apart from works, (note I do not agree with Protestant interpretations of this) we have created here a justification based on works as we have made prerequisite a perfect or at least adequate intellectual knowledge of that which saves us.
A circular paradox to be sure. If you require one to suffice in understanding that they are not saved by works, then indeed, you are implying just that; that they are saved by this work.
Actually according to James we are saved by our works, but they are virtually indistinguishable from our faith so closely are they entertwined. This is where protestants need to take a closer look at James's discourse, for you have missed the point. Faith receives the upper hand in this debate because you cannot have faith without works, but you can have works without faith.
But back to the point at hand, sir, I hope you can see the error here. Not only do we all lack perfect knowledge of that which saves us, I assert that we don't have even an adequate knowledge of it, and I'm glad that this isn't a mark against us. In heaven I believe we'll be embarrased at just how much we thought we knew, but in fact how short sighted we really were.
I believe perfect knowledge of that which saves us will be ours when we gaze tearfully for the first time at the scars on the body of our Savior and not before.
In the Sacred Heart of Christ and the Immaculate Heart of Mary
