I wrestled with this quite some time now. I want to hear your thoughts on that. In Roman catholicism the idea of (libertarian) free will is crucial to it's system, especially it's sacramental system. While teaching that everything is from grace (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church, chapter on grace and jusitifaction), even the beginning of salvation is "all of grace" (prevenient grace) until final perseverance (efficacious and sufficient grace, which only receive the elect => Thomism). The Mass is the real presence of the body and blood of Christ, and it implies necessarily that Christ's sacrifice doesn't perfect anybody because not all who partake will be saved. Now how on earth in light of that can Arminianism/Semi-Pelagianism be freed from the same charge? I'm looking for consistency. In those systems Christ's work doesn't perfect anybody, it is a fundemental denial of the finished work. If we ought to evangelise Roman catholics, why not Arminians (and other free will and universal atonement affirmers)? On what basis? How is it different concerning the atonement? If we go the route of saying; Well, Arminians are ignorant, but they are still brethren etc. Then on why not embrace a Roman catholic who doesn't subscribe to all dogmas but has almost the same theology like the Arminian (I can speak here from personal experience, not just hypothetically). Or, if we say it is just transsubstantion and it's applications, how could you embrace a confessional Lutheran and Anglican? You have to be consistent. If Roman catholics are not part of the kingdom of Christ, then it's very diffcult for me to see how a denial of the doctrines of grace makes any difference, facing the same problems. It is IMPOSSIBLE to seperate the doctrines of grace from the essentials of the gospel, tgey are everywhere intertwined in the writings of Paul. Where I'm missing something? Help me out.