Calvinism and Arminianism are both wrong!

[atpollard]

All arguments for or against OSAS rely on portions of scripture being ignored and good Hermeneutics demands that not be done and you will not drag me into the stupid, fruitless, Calvinist/Armenian Debate, both sides are wrong and God will straighten every one of us out when we arrive Home.

Amen to that!! I agree that both sides are wrong.

Arminianism:
Free Will or Human Ability
Although human nature was seriously affected by the fall, man has not been left in a state of total spiritual helplessness. God graciously enables every sinner to repent and believe, but He does not interfere with man’s freedom. Each sinner possesses a free will, and his eternal destiny depends on how he uses it. Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters; his will is not enslaved to his sinful nature. The sinner has the power to either cooperate with God’s Spirit and be regenerated or resist God’s grace and perish. The lost sinner needs the Spirit’s assistance, but he does not have to be regenerated by the Spirit before he can believe, for faith is man’s act and precedes the new birth. Faith is the sinner’s gift to God; it is man’s contribution to salvation.

Calvinism:
Total Inability or Total Depravity
Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not — indeed he cannot — choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ — it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation— it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.



Arminianism:
Universal Redemption or General Atonement
Christ’s redeeming work made it possible for everyone to be saved but did not actually secure the salvation of anyone. Although Christ died for all men and for every man, only those who believe on Him are saved. His death enabled God to pardon sinners on the condition that they believe, but it did not actually put away anyone’s sins. Christ’s redemption becomes effective only if man chooses to accept it.

Calvinism:
Particular Redemption or Limited Atonement
Christ’s redeeming work was intended to save the elect only and actually secured salvation for them. His death was a substitutionary endurance of the penalty of sin in the place of certain specified sinners. In addition to putting away the sins of His people, Christ’s redemption secured everything necessary for their salvation, including faith which unites them to Him. The gift of faith is infallibly applied by the Spirit to all for whom Christ died, therefore guaranteeing their salvation



Arminianism:
The Holy Spirit Can Be Effectually Resisted
The Spirit calls inwardly all those who are called outwardly by the gospel invitation; He does all that He can to bring every sinner to salvation. But inasmuch as man is free, he can successfully resist the Spirit’s call. The Spirit cannot regenerate the sinner until he believes; faith (which is man’s contribution) precedes and makes possible the new birth. Thus, man’s free will limits the Spirit in the application of Christ’s saving work. The Holy Spirit can only draw to Christ those who allow Him to have His way with them. Until the sinner responds, the Spirit cannot give life. God’s grace, therefore, is not invincible; it can be, and often is, resisted and thwarted by man.

Calvinism:
The Efficacious Call of the Spirit or Irresistible Grace
In addition to the outward general call to salvation which is made to everyone who hears the gospel, the Holy Spirit extends to the elect a special inward call that inevitably brings them to salvation. The eternal call (which is made to all without distinction) can be, and often is, rejected; whereas the internal call (which is made only to the elect) cannot be rejected; it always results in conversion. By mean, of this special call the Spirit irresistibly draws sinners to Christ. He is not limited in His work of applying salvation by man’s will, nor is He dependent upon man’s cooperation for success. The Spirit graciously causes the elect sinner to cooperate, to believe, to repent, to come freely and willingly to Christ. God’, grace. therefore, is invincible; it never fails to result in the salvation of those to whom it is extended.



Arminianism:
Falling From Grace
Those who believe and are truly saved can lose their salvation by failing to keep up their faith. etc. All Arminian, have not been agreed on this point; some have held that believers are eternally secure in Christ — that once a sinner is regenerated. he can never be lost.

Calvinism:
Perseverance of the Saints
All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end.



According to Arminianism
Salvation is accomplished through the combined efforts of God (who takes the initiative) and man (who must respond)—man’s response being the determining factor. God has provided salvation for everyone, but His provision becomes effective only for those who, of their own free will, “choose” to cooperate with Him and accept His offer of grace. At the crucial point, man’s will plays a decisive role; thus man, not God, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

According to Calvinism
Salvation is accomplished by the almighty power of the Triune God. The Father chose a people, the Son died for them, the Holy Spirit makes Christ’s death effective by bringing the elect to faith and repentance, thereby causing them to willingly obey the gospel. The entire process (election, redemption, regeneration) is the work of God and is by grace alone. Thus God, not man, determines who will be the recipients of the gift of salvation.

I look forward to being educated on how both positions are wrong ...
... are they both wrong on every point?

* The above material from Romans: An Interpretative Outline (pp.144-147). by David N. Steele and Curtis C. Thomas, contrasts the Five Points of Arminianism with the Five Points of Calvinism in the clearest and most concise form that we have seen anywhere. It is also found in their smaller book, The Five Points of Calvinism (pp. 16-19). Both books are published by The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., Philadelphia.(1963). Messrs. Steele and Thomas have served for several years as co-pastors of a Southern Baptist church, in Little Rock, Arkansas.

 

[smaller]

I look forward to being educated on how both positions are wrong ...
... are they both wrong on every point?

Yes, both positions are WRONG.

How so?

Just look at the presentation Paul gave us about himself, and anyone should be able to SEE THE PROBLEMS with both Calvinism and Arminian postures. I'd call both of the positions a general accounting failure:

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

 

[IncredibleTransformation]

The debate has been going on almost since Jesus died for us. Which is right? I tend toward Calvinism just because of what happened in my life. I tried so hard to be a sinner but the Holy Spirit patiently brought me to salvation no matter how hard I resisted. I love your talking points about the The Five Points of Calvinism. I read a book called "Debating Calvinism." It was two peoples opinions about Calvinism, one for it and one opposed. The only real conclusion I came to was that neither of the writers were Christian because they had no love for each other. Perhaps we should take the advice of the great philosopher Forest Gump, "Maybe it's a little bit of both." We have a will but the Lord can intervene any time he wants because He is. the sovereign Lord of all.

 

[Knotical]

Which way are you leaning, atpollard?

 

[Knotical]

Yes, both positions are WRONG.

How so?

Just look at the presentation Paul gave us about himself, and anyone should be able to SEE THE PROBLEMS with both Calvinism and Arminian postures. I'd call both of the positions a general accounting failure:

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

You are going to have to expound on this a bit more, as it is not clear what exactly you are refuting with this passage.

 

[atpollard]

Yes, both positions are WRONG.

How so?

Just look at the presentation Paul gave us about himself, and anyone should be able to SEE THE PROBLEMS with both Calvinism and Arminian postures. I'd call both of the positions a general accounting failure:

2 Corinthians 12:7
And lest I should be exalted above measure through the abundance of the revelations, there was given to me a thorn in the flesh, the messenger of Satan to buffet me, lest I should be exalted above measure.

Forgive me for being dense, but which point of either Arminianism or Calvinism is that even related to, let alone show that it is wrong?
Armininaism and Calvinism are all about getting saved. Job was an upright man (Job 1:9-12) and Satan was sent to 'buffet' Job. What does that prove about salvation?

 

[smaller]

You are going to have to expound on this a bit more, as it is not clear what exactly you are refuting with this passage.

I pretty much see TWO PARTIES in 2 Cor. 12:7. Paul and a messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh.

I don't think either Calvin or Arminian postures handle this scriptural fact whatsoever.

 

[smaller]

Forgive me for being dense, but which point of either Arminianism or Calvinism is that even related to, let alone show that it is wrong?
Armininaism and Calvinism are all about getting saved. Job was an upright man (Job 1:9-12) and Satan was sent to 'buffet' Job. What does that prove about salvation?

Show me how either Calvinism or Arminianism handles the messenger of Satan in the flesh of Paul from 2 Cor. 12:7.

I'll tell you in advance that both postures completely neglect that fact.

You wanted critique. I just sliced through to the core of the apple of critique.

 

[atpollard]

Which way are you leaning, atpollard?

I was an atheist gang member planning a murder-suicide when God knocked me on my kiester and claimed possession of my life ... I lean hard to 5 point Calvinism because it fits the empirical evidence of my own salvation. That said, I have worshiped with Catholic Charismatics, studied precepts with Wesleyan Arminians, learned from a Moody graduate at an Evangelical Free Church, studied the doctrine of the Trinity and the Baptist Faith and Message with Southern Baptists and currently shake the walls with my brothers at an independent Pentecostal Church with strong Baptist and Moravian roots. So I BELIEVE in Calvinism and celebrate the diversity of all of God's children.

On this topic, I lean towards the opinion that anyone who thinks that both Armininaism and Calvinism are wrong, probably doesn't understand either Arminianism or Calvinism and has been fed bad caricatures of what they believe. Both seem biblically supportable to me, you are going to have to decide for your self which is the stronger case and what the correct interpretation of the opposing scriptures is. That doesn't really take a debate, it takes a Holy Spirit. In the end, it matters less than most people think.

Galatians 5:22-26 [NIV]
But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. Against such things there is no law. Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit. Let us not become conceited, provoking and envying each other.

 

[smaller]

Both seem biblically supportable to me, you are going to have to decide for your self which is the stronger case and what the correct interpretation of the opposing scriptures is. That doesn't really take a debate, it takes a Holy Spirit. In the end, it matters less than most people think.

If you think it's a one or the other deal, there are innumerable slices in between both postures.

Rev. 2 & 3 shows every church with different sets of specific issues and problems.

It's not as easy as saying either position is the whole enchilada because that ain't happening and hasn't happened in christiandom.

 

[atpollard]

Show me how either Calvinism or Arminianism handles the messenger of Satan in the flesh of Paul from 2 Cor. 12:7.
I'll tell you in advance that both postures completely neglect that fact.
You wanted critique. I just sliced through to the core of the apple of critique.

While a little outside the usual salvation wheelhouse that is the primary focus of Arminianism and Calvinism, sure:
2 Corinthians 12:7b [NIV] "Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me."

Arminianism Response:
2 Corinthians 12:8-10 [NIV] Three times I pleaded with the Lord to take it away from me. But he said to me, “My grace is sufficient for you, for my power is made perfect in weakness.” Therefore I will boast all the more gladly about my weaknesses, so that Christ’s power may rest on me. That is why, for Christ’s sake, I delight in weaknesses, in insults, in hardships, in persecutions, in difficulties. For when I am weak, then I am strong.
Paul has a free will ("Man’s freedom consists of his ability to choose good over evil in spiritual matters.") so Paul was able to "plead with the Lord". To which God responded by granting "sufficient" grace to allow Paul to resist. Therefore Paul made the choice to persevere and "delight in weakness". It was for Paul and remains for us a cooperative dance between God and man. This the messenger of Satan can inflict difficulty and tempt, but man alone has the free will to choose good or evil.

Calvinist Response:
John 10:27-30 [NIV]
My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish; no one will snatch them out of my hand. My Father, who has given them to me, is greater than all; no one can snatch them out of my Father’s hand. I and the Father are one.”
Paul was chosen by God on the road to Damascus. His eternal destiny is the choice of God and not man ("All who are chosen by God, redeemed by Christ, and given faith by the Spirit are eternally saved. They are kept in faith by the power of Almighty God and thus persevere to the end."). Paul was, is and shall forever remain safe (eternally speaking) preserved between the hand of Jesus and the hand of God the Father and no messenger of Satan can "snatch" Paul out of those hands. Jesus gives eternal life, so neither Satan nor Paul has the power to take it away. This the buffeting of this messenger of Satan is a hardship to be endured in this life, but not one that can affect Paul's (or our) eternal destiny.

Both Arminianism and Calvinism do not directly address the issue of demons, but they are equipped to handle the issues. I doubt that either an Arminian or a Calvinist would be overly concerned that even Satan himself would be able to ultimately thwart the plan of God and prevent the salvation of one whom God "foreknew" (Romans 8:29). Do you believe that Satan can defeat the will of God?

 

[chessman]

Show me how either Calvinism or Arminianism handles the messenger of Satan in the flesh of Paul from 2 Cor. 12:7.

I'll tell you in advance that both postures completely neglect that fact.

Because believers are disturbed by such enemies, they are addressed in such exhortations as these: “Neither give place to the devil;” “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour; whom resist steadfast in the faith,” (Eph. 4:27; 1 Pet. 5:8). Paul acknowledges that he was not exempt from this species of contest when he says, that for the purpose of subduing his pride, a messenger of Satan was sent to buffet him (2 Cor. 12:7). This trial, therefore, is common to all the children of God. But as the promise of bruising Satan’s head (Gen. 3:15) applies alike to Christ and to all his members, I deny that believers can ever be oppressed or vanquished by him. They are often, indeed, thrown into alarm, but never so thoroughly as not to recover themselves. They fall by the violence of the blows, but they get up again; they are wounded, but not mortally.

John Calvin
​

How bout that. Both postures have NOT "completely neglected that fact".

 

[smaller]

Both Arminianism and Calvinism do not directly address the issue of demons, but they are equipped to handle the issues. I doubt that either an Arminian or a Calvinist would be overly concerned that even Satan himself would be able to ultimately thwart the plan of God and prevent the salvation of one whom God "foreknew" (Romans 8:29). Do you believe that Satan can defeat the will of God?

I honestly say that both positions are entirely blind to the fact of 2 Cor. 12:7 and do not even broach the subject matters in their respective sights.

I know Calvinism doesn't for sure. Calvin has no accounting whatsoever for this particular matter. I'd dare say, completely CLUELESS.

 

[smaller]

Because believers are disturbed by such enemies, they are addressed in such exhortations as these: “Neither give place to the devil;” “Your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about seeking whom he may devour; whom resist steadfast in the faith,” (Eph. 4:27; 1 Pet. 5:8). Paul acknowledges that he was not exempt from this species of contest when he says, that for the purpose of subduing his pride, a messenger of Satan was sent to buffet him (2 Cor. 12:7). This trial, therefore, is common to all the children of God. But as the promise of bruising Satan’s head (Gen. 3:15) applies alike to Christ and to all his members, I deny that believers can ever be oppressed or vanquished by him. They are often, indeed, thrown into alarm, but never so thoroughly as not to recover themselves. They fall by the violence of the blows, but they get up again; they are wounded, but not mortally.

John Calvin
​

How bout that. Both postures have NOT "completely neglected that fact".

IF you call that surface brush above anything close to handling the subject of 2 Cor. 12:7 and the related scriptural subject matter I'd have to strongly disagree.

Calvin has exactly ZERO accounting for the fact that no "messenger of Satan" in the flesh of Paul can be saved. It's not even remotely possible.

Therefore, even IF Paul persevered to the end, which we completely would agree he did, it would avail the "messenger of Satan" in Paul's flesh exactly NOTHING.

If you get the drift here: There are basically TWO separate parties with TWO separate fates to account for. Both standing in one set of shoes.

Neither Calvin or Arminian come even close to touching this subject matter. It's more akin to being completely BLIND to the matters.

Arminian makes a similar mistake in attributing any kind of CHOICE QUOTIENT. That is even more ridiculous. No amount of "choices applied" are going to make indwelling sin and evil present disappear from the equations of the Bible, Romans 7:17-21 in particular. Most of freewill land has been suffering from a similar delusion for quite some time now.

 

[chessman]

Neither Calvin or Arminian come even close to touching this subject matter

Ever read any Calvin or 'Arminian'?

A highly respected 16th Century theologian once said of Calvin's commentaries:

"I recommend that the Commentaries of Calvin be read ... For I affirm that in the interpretation of the Scriptures Calvin is incomparable, and that his commentaries are more to be valued than anything that is handed down to us in the writings of the fathers—so much so that I concede to him a certain spirit of prophecy in which he stands distinguished above others, above most, indeed, above all. His Institutes, so far as respects Commonplaces, I give out to be read after the [Heidelberg] Catechism. . . . But here I add—with discrimination, as the writings of all men ought to be read."
​

Care to guess who said that about Calvin's Commentaries?

And yes, they address the "subject matter" of Paul's flesh in great detail.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Man, I need to produce a document and save it in the Cloud but I will type this out Again, this subject is gaining a lot of attention.

As does my first Pastor, I have labeled myself a a Biblicist because my view is "If the Bible says it, I believe it! God inspired/wrote the entire book and in Deuteronomy 4:2 and at the end of chapter 22 of The Revelation we find God promising that not a single word will ever be added to nor subtracted from His Written Word. Oh, and there are no conflicting passages in the Bible to any man filled with the Holy Spirit for the Spirit teaches us how to reconcile them to one another.

So, in verses Jer. 23:24, Prov 15:3, 1Kings 8:27 we learn that God is Omnipresent. He is literally everywhere but wait a second, I really mean everywhere. The LORD is right this moment everywhere there is on the planet and He is still seated in the Throne Room. Where am I going? God created, out of nothing but His will, this Time/Space Continuum and every person, bird, animal, lake, just everything you see or touch is a product from the hand of God.


We find that a day in Heaven is like unto a thousand years of our time. So there is nothing here like God or Heaven. Our minds put our Omnipotent. Omniscient, and Omnipresent God all over the Earth and maybe in Heaven at this moment but we must learn to cease putting God in some sort of container, there is not one He fits into anyway. No, God is, right now, in the past, in the present, and He is in the future right now!

In Rev. 17:8 and in thirteen we learn that the Book of Life is not being written but is finished and closed. How could men made like unto the image of God do that because they, like God, have a free will? God was there before it happened, He is Omnipotent and with no limits, He is Omnipresent!

I pray this helps.

 

[smaller]

Care to guess who said that about Calvin's Commentaries?

And yes, they address the "subject matter" of Paul's flesh in great detail.

IF a messenger of Satan was in Paul's flesh, which was the actual case per 2 Cor. 12:7, Romans 7:17-21, 1 John 3:8, etc, just exactly WHO is "TOTALLY DEPRAVED" using these facts?

That's kind of the point, ain't it?

To say the people are totally depraved and miss obvious culprit that is NOT MAN, is simply blinded theology.

Here are Calvin's own words on the devil/devils, which he admittedly pays little attentions to in his theology:

"Some persons grumble that Scripture does not in numerous passages set forth systematically and clearly that fall of the devil’s, its cause, manner, time, and character. But because this has nothing to do with us, it was better not to say anything, or at least to touch upon it lightly, because it did not befit the Holy Spirit to feed our curiosity with empty histories to no effect. And we see that the Lord’s purpose was to teach nothing in his sacred oracles except what we should learn to our edification.’

I'd suggest that Calvin's claim above is the claim of a blind man.

Calvin is about as SHALLOW of a theologian as there is. He's not even in the ballpark of credibility.

 

[Mike S]

I'm an Arminianist, but I think the basic theological points are irrelevant. Neither of these positions effect how I approach God and live my Christian life. God is sovereign, God will save who He will save, and it's in His hands.

 

[atpollard]

So, my original question concerned the statements made by multiple posters that "Calvinism and Arminianism are both wrong", to which I listed both positions and threw out a general challenge:

I look forward to being educated on how both positions are wrong ...

'smaller' was the first to take up the gauntlet and offered the sum total of the following ...

I pretty much see TWO PARTIES in 2 Cor. 12:7. Paul and a messenger of Satan in Paul's flesh.
I don't think either Calvin or Arminian postures handle this scriptural fact whatsoever.

Show me how either Calvinism or Arminianism handles the messenger of Satan in the flesh of Paul from 2 Cor. 12:7.
I'll tell you in advance that both postures completely neglect that fact.
You wanted critique. I just sliced through to the core of the apple of critique.

If you think it's a one or the other deal, there are innumerable slices in between both postures.
Rev. 2 & 3 shows every church with different sets of specific issues and problems.
It's not as easy as saying either position is the whole enchilada because that ain't happening and hasn't happened in christiandom.

I honestly say that both positions are entirely blind to the fact of 2 Cor. 12:7 and do not even broach the subject matters in their respective sights.
I know Calvinism doesn't for sure. Calvin has no accounting whatsoever for this particular matter. I'd dare say, completely CLUELESS.

IF you call that surface brush above anything close to handling the subject of 2 Cor. 12:7 and the related scriptural subject matter I'd have to strongly disagree.
Calvin has exactly ZERO accounting for the fact that no "messenger of Satan" in the flesh of Paul can be saved. It's not even remotely possible.
Therefore, even IF Paul persevered to the end, which we completely would agree he did, it would avail the "messenger of Satan" in Paul's flesh exactly NOTHING.
If you get the drift here: There are basically TWO separate parties with TWO separate fates to account for. Both standing in one set of shoes.
Neither Calvin or Arminian come even close to touching this subject matter. It's more akin to being completely BLIND to the matters.
Arminian makes a similar mistake in attributing any kind of CHOICE QUOTIENT. That is even more ridiculous. No amount of "choices applied" are going to make indwelling sin and evil present disappear from the equations of the Bible, Romans 7:17-21 in particular. Most of freewill land has been suffering from a similar delusion for quite some time now.

IF a messenger of Satan was in Paul's flesh, which was the actual case per 2 Cor. 12:7, Romans 7:17-21, 1 John 3:8, etc, just exactly WHO is "TOTALLY DEPRAVED" using these facts?
That's kind of the point, ain't it?
To say the people are totally depraved and miss obvious culprit that is NOT MAN, is simply blinded theology.
Here are Calvin's own words on the devil/devils, which he admittedly pays little attentions to in his theology:
"Some persons grumble that Scripture does not in numerous passages set forth systematically and clearly that fall of the devil’s, its cause, manner, time, and character. But because this has nothing to do with us, it was better not to say anything, or at least to touch upon it lightly, because it did not befit the Holy Spirit to feed our curiosity with empty histories to no effect. And we see that the Lord’s purpose was to teach nothing in his sacred oracles except what we should learn to our edification.’
I'd suggest that Calvin's claim above is the claim of a blind man.
Calvin is about as SHALLOW of a theologian as there is. He's not even in the ballpark of credibility.

I have addressed how I thought both Arminianism and Calvinism would address 2 Corinthians 12:7, but I have to admit that your responses have left me confused. Your response seems to be: Both Calvinism and Arminianism are blind, completely clueless and don't address the real issue because ... (if I understand you) ... every saved person is demon possessed and this sin nature cannot be saved or eliminated ... (I think). I have to admit that you invested FAR more energy making sure that I knew that John Calvin was CLUELESS, than actually articulating this third, non-Arminian/non-Calvinist position that you believe is correct. In addition, the thinly veiled references to a few verses do not come close to explaining how these verses support your new theology.

So I grant that you seem to have a non-Calvinist/Arminian personal Theology, but I have no idea if it is also non-Biblical.
In any event, you have not really refuted any of the 5 points of either position, let alone refuting any 1 point of both positions.
You have only grafted on a demon-centric focus rather than a salvation centered focus.

To address your last post:

IF a messenger of Satan was in Paul's flesh, which was the actual case per 2 Cor. 12:7, Romans 7:17-21, 1 John 3:8, etc, just exactly WHO is "TOTALLY DEPRAVED" using these facts?
That's kind of the point, ain't it?

No, that is not the point.

1 Corinthians 12:1-7 [NIV]
1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses. 6 Even if I should choose to boast, I would not be a fool, because I would be speaking the truth. But I refrain, so no one will think more of me than is warranted by what I do or say, 7 or because of these surpassingly great revelations. Therefore, in order to keep me from becoming conceited, I was given a thorn in my flesh, a messenger of Satan, to torment me.

The messenger of Satan was given to Paul after his salvation, after he turned from Saul (an enemy of Christ) into Paul (a servant of Christ); thus the 'messenger of Satan' had nothing to do with salvation (the initial transformation from Saul to Paul). Furthermore, the reason for the messenger is given right in the very verse you quoted "in order to keep me from becoming conceited". The "therefore" at the beginning of the verse links the reason why Paul might have become conceited back to the prior verses ... the story about Paul's "surprisingly great revelations".

I do not see the link between Satan and salvation as clearly as you suggest. I will grant that Satan is opposed to people getting saved, but from what I read, God is God and beside Him there is no other. Satan does not get a vote.

 

[th1b.taylor]

I'm an Arminianist, but I think the basic theological points are irrelevant. Neither of these positions effect how I approach God and live my Christian life. God is sovereign, God will save who He will save, and it's in His hands.

The thing people choose not to ignore is that both of the popular positions and the much less popular position of being a Biblicist are, all three, well within the Pail Of Orthodox within the Christian Faith. And try, though the might, they will never convince a Holy God that this is a Salvation Issue.