I disagree with the idea that blasphemy means rejecting God and Christ as savior. I think the reason this idea is so popular is because people just don't know what the word 'blaspheme' means, and have not looked up the Greek word translated 'blaspheme' in Matthew. It means to speak against, villify, etc. Jesus said that whoever blasphemed against the Holy Ghost, it would not be forgiven him. One of the gospel accounts rewords it saying whoever speaks a word against the Holy Ghost will not be forgiven So the unforgivable sin is not grieving the Spirit, or resisting the Spirit, or rejecting the Spirit, but rather speaking against the Spirit. (And one may be able to grieve, resist, and reject with one's words as well, so the concepts are not mutually exclusive.) So you end up with people saying that the unforgivable sin is dying while rejecting Christ and His salvation. This does not stand up to reason if we closely examine it. Dying is not a sin. So 'Dying without accepting Christ' is not a sin separate from the sin of not accepting Christ. Rejecting Christ's salvation is not an unforgivable sin. If it were, Paul would not have been saved. He rejected Christ's salvation at first. And the fact that Paul was forgiven for rejecting Christ even to the extent of persecuting the church proves the rejecting Christ is not unforgivable. Jesus words about speaking against the Spirit being unforgivable do not fit into a lot of Christians soteriology-- idea of the doctrine of salvation. So what do they do? They redefine the word 'blaspheme'-- a nonsensical thing to do-- to mean something other than 'blaspheme' to make the passage fit their doctrine. Instead, what they should be doing is including this verse in their concept of soteriology from the get-go, and then they wouldn't have to jerry-rig an interpretation that fits their doctrine. Usually, strong Once Saved Always Saved adherants figure out a way to argue away the possibility of blaspheming the Spirit. One argument is that it is not possible to do so these days. I do not see why it is not possible. People still have mouths. They are still able to speak. The Spirit still exists. Some argue that it was only possible to blaspheme the Spirit because Jesus was there doing miracles by the power of the Spirit. This does not make sense because Christ said whoever spoke a word against the Spirit would not be forgiven. He did not limit His statement to speaking against specific acts of the Spirit in the first century. It bothers me that the Lord passed on this sobering teaching to the church, that many find frightening, and many Christians spend their time trying to convince their listeners not to worry about Christ's frightening words, explaining them away. Maybe Christ passed on these 'scary' teachings because He wanted us to have some holy fear about them. I found an interesting passage in the Didache, a document probably written in the late first or early second century, that is probably the earliest commentary I know of on the unforgivable sin. The author said not to try a prophet while speaking in the Spirit lest you commit the unpardonable sin. Apparently, he considered it possible to blaspheme the Spirit by speaking against words spoken by the Spirit through a prophet, or by speaking against the Spirit by which the prophet spoke. Honestly, it makes me uneasy when people say that speaking in tongues or modern prophecy is of the devil. If the Spirit is speaking through it, isn't that awfully close to what the Pharisees were doing in Matthew 12?