Mark,

Since none of the other guys are responding...hello?...Brad? Greg? Andy? Thabiti?...Mikey McKinley suggested I start outing the other fellows, Mark...what do you think? I mean, you know we have the material on each of them...anyway, in response to your question, your key point, I take it, was

The real front line is not between Calvinist evangelicals and Arminian evangelicals.  It is between those who are lost in their sins and those who have been saved by God's sheer grace in Christ.

Could we flesh out the matter like this? Various theological/soteriological systems, whether Calvinist or Arminian or something else, will have various strengths and weaknesses, as measured by (i) their fidelity to the canon in its entirety and (ii) their ability to call humans to obedience to God's word in conversion and sanctification in any given context. Both C's and A's naturally give themselves higher marks in both categories (that's what it means to hold the position), and both might want to say that the structural weaknesses in the other system may eventually lead to damning (literally) compromises, either in this generation or the next. "Yes, your building is standing right now, but wait for the first earthquake." Yet the very willingness of both parties to continue working together in organizations like the SBC without taking decisive action to remove the other--as was the case with liberals--must mean that both C's and A's acknowledge that, in many instances, the other's explanation of the gospel is "good enough" or "sufficient"--even though both would want to nuance that statement in a thousand ways. The structural weaknesses both perceive in the other means they remain leery of one another. Still, the concession "good enough" by both sides means the "real front line" is not between the two.

To concede the other side's articulation is good enough is to concede we share Christ. And to share Christ is to share not just the most important thing but the only thing that will persist through eternity. For our savior is good!

Mark, your original statement may be more crisp and elegant, but at least mine is more clunky and turgid.