Calvinism and Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit Matthew 12:31 says blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is an unforgivable sin. Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit in the ESV Study Bible, says that it is, &quot;This sin is committed today only by unbelievers who deliberately and unchangeably reject the ministry of the Holy Spirit in calling them to salvation&quot;
In Calvinism, the I in TULIP is irresistible grace. Those God elected cannot resist His grace and that man will answer God's call. You can't resist it. So how does this fit in with blasphemy of the Holy Spirit where unbelievers resists the ministry of the Holy Spirit? Does the Holy Spirit try to work in everyone? Or does the Holy Spirit only work within those elected?
Jesus makes it quite clear that blasphemy is a matter of speech. 'He that speaketh ...' is how Jesus, himself, defines the unforgivable sin of which he warns.

And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come. [Matthew 12:32 KJV]

The word Jesus uses, reported by Matthew 12:32, Mark 3:28-39 and Luke 12:10 is βλασφημία which Thayer (see Strong 988) lists as 'slander' 'injurious speech' and 'impious and reproachful speech' is, invariably, a matter of the spoken word.
It seems to me that Calvin, himself, has caused a difficulty when he defines the blasphemy of the Holy Spirit thus  :

I say therefore that he sins against the Holy Spirit who, while so constrained by the power of divine truth that he cannot plead ignorance, yet deliberately resists, and that merely for the sake of resisting. For Christ, in explanation of what he had said, immediately adds, ‘Whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him,’ (Mt. 12:3


Perchristum Wordpress

Calvin, in this place, defines the unforgivable sin as 'resisting' but does not make it clear that the sin is blasphemy, which is a matter of speaking. 'Resisting' could mean an internal matter, deep within the spirit of a man. And in the spiritual experience, there can be confusion within, ignorance and doubt.
But to 'speak against' is what is in view, according to the three apostolic reports of Jesus' definition.
If every resistance to the Holy Spirit is unforgivable then who shall be saved ?
Was not Saul of Tarsus found breathing out threatenings and slaughter against that which he knew of Christ ? And did not he 'kick against the stings' ?
Yet it is so, that Paul tells us he did it ignorantly and in unbelief. Not wilfully, in the full appreciation of what he was doing. We read of his turmoil and deep, spiritual experience in Romans 7.
But regarding the context and the content of Jesus' words on the subject, it seems abundantly plain that it is the verbal attributing of the visible effects of the power of the Holy Spirit to the 'Devil' (Diabolos, properly). This would not be forgiven, in this life or the next, if one publicly states that what is visibly and palpably holy, and of God . . .  is of the Devil : to have that deliberately in the mind and heart, and then to publicly make a verbal accusation against the evident work of the Holy Spirit, claiming it is of the 'devil' is to be cut off, forever, from him who brings the things of God and of Christ and shows them to us.
And, true, such do (also) resist, within themselves, personally, as well as communally :

Ye stiffnecked and uncircumcised in heart and ears, ye do always resist the Holy Ghost: as your fathers did, so do ye. [Acts 7:51 KJV]

Many people I have read of and heard of, and known, have been greatly troubled that they have committed the unforgivable sin. And whilst it is a good thing to consider carefully what one says when one opens one's mouth regarding the things of God, yet it can cause great harm if these matters are misunderstood.