Mark 3:29 and Limited Atonement?

[no1special18]

I have run into a lot of people that use Mark 3:29 to argue against Limited Atonement.

Mar 3:29 but whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness, but is guilty of an eternal sin"--

They want to translate this as unbelief, in other words, unbelief is blaspheming against the holy spirit. However, I point out that if unbelief can not be forgiven then no one can go to heaven, because all of us are guilty of this sin.

Is there a better way to respond?

 

[Me Died Blue]

Well, a non-Calvinist attempting to critique any of the so-called "five points" must view each one in light of the entire system of thought. In our perspective, because of Preservation of the Saints, we take the above verse to mean that if one commits this "blaspheming of the Spirit," that person was never regenerate, and thus was never bought with Christ's blood. So in order for one to see that verse as dismantling Particular Redemption (by means of it showing one for whom Christ died as commiting that sin), that person must already presuppose their view that it is a sin that Christians are capable of commiting.

So really, that verse cannot be used as a "proof-text" per se for either side on the issue of Particular redemption, since if one approaches the text thinking that the "blaspheming of the Spirit" is a sin that can be commited by Christians, the verse will be inconsistent with Particular Redemption, while if one approaches the text thinking that the "blaspheming of the Spirit" is a sin that cannot be commited by Christians, the verse will be totally consistent with Particular Redemption. And since that verse itself is very vague with just what "blaspheming the Spirit" means, anyone's view before approaching the verse will completely dictate the conclusion they draw from the verse. Therefore, it seems impossible to me to use that verse for either side on the Particular Redemption issue without begging the question, and hence the question of whether true Christians can eternally fall must first be established from elsewhere in Scripture, and only then can the verse you mention be properly interpreted.

 

[no1special18]

Thanks Chris.