Jean-Sébastien Godin

@bigheadhcky I think Malhotra might have forced himself into the top 2

Every draft where #1 and #2 overall picks were wingers: • 2026 | McKenna & Stenberg (Projected) • 2007 | Kane & JVR • 1990 | Nolan & Nedved • 1985 | Clark & Simpson • 1983 | Lawton & Turgeon • 1969 | Houle & Tardif It's rarer than you would think.

@R_Clancy2 @BoltsJolts We'll see what Tage and Tuch do in the crease

@BoltsJolts Puck luck and got goalied. Never seen a goalie let so many rebounds out all series and yet not 2 goes i .

Unbelievable. MTL didn’t deserve absolute shit tonight and the hockey gods gave them not one but two absolutely insane bounces. Other than the obvious, goals, don’t really know what more you could have asked for from TBs performance tonight. Sometimes, you just get hockey’d.

@Sapsterr_ He looks a lot like Zegras

For McKenna to score consistently he's gonna need to either pinpoint shots through layers, or he'll need another playmaker to give him space to walk into the high slot and snipe. However, even without any help whatsoever, his transition game and elite (borderline generational) vision with the puck should give him a baseline production of at least 70 assists per season in his prime solely due to his ability to take perimeter plays and turn them into the highest danger chances imaginable. Defensively, he's a black hole. If Vancouver gets him, you play him with Petey to be a defensive babysitter. With that being said, he is a very intelligent player and will use his stick to free up and strip pucks away from piles. Any defensive value he does provide will be from that and his ability to keep the puck 200 feet away from his net. Any coach that is lucky enough to be able to work with McKenna is going to need to give him 1 or 2 non negotiables, but other than that let him run free. You can't afford to put a leash on this kid.

@GrindLinePod Looks more and more like one of Augustine/Cossa gets traded this summer and Postava gets backup duties as son as next season

I get it. We have a handful of really good goalie prospects. Going to be a gauntlet to try and not get traded and make it to Detroit. #LGRW

@CherylSchatz The promise if for you and your children

James White takes issue with John MacArthur's position that all infants and unborn children who die go to heaven. White argues that the same election that applies to adults applies to infants, meaning there are elect infants and non-elect infants. In his view, God makes no exception for the unborn or the very young when it comes to election and its consequences.

@AngAesthetics What's the deal with puritans (or anglo-puritans)?

I am once again begging Protestants to go back to their own sources. This whole "good works necessary to salvation" slop is tiresome. Yes. They are. We have historically said as much: anglicanaesthetics.substack.com/p/the-necessit…

@HadiK_Scouting Still you have Villeneuve way too high

The skill floor in the QMJHL has gotten so much higher in a few short years. Guys playing fourth-line minutes in 2023 vs. now… night-and-day difference in ability. Plus the top end’s skill level keeps climbing. Top draft eligibles have gotten better. Guys are returning for…

@IVMiles @NeilShenvi @Bravetweetr ie dispensationalist clericalism

@NeilShenvi @Bravetweetr Its really not about the person thinking they're a paragon of erudition. Its more about realizing that you live under a pretty ignorant form of clericalism.

Look, no shade at @IVMiles, but if you're thinking this way, you need to go reread 1 Cor. 1:18-31. In fact, go reread all of 1 Corinthians. You may very well be the smartest, most sophisticated guy in the church. Guess what? God is not impressed!

@drantbradley The Predators suck

Why are people moving out of Nashville?

@DanielRHyde Why no Kindle version?

There, fixed it: reformedfellowship.net/products/jesus…

@Curi_Christian The vast majority of Christians do not affirm either

What if both dispensationalism and reformed theology were wrong? 😱

@PAHoyeck Ça s'appelle un roman 😉

If I see one more person calling a nonfiction book "a novel," I'm losing faith in humanity.

@asdasdf293 @AngAesthetics @IndianaBrunner Do you realize the ancient world worked like that? The cultural assumption was that sons would eventually make the same job as their fathers, and the fathers would teach their sons accordingly. That's the point: the individualistic modern anthropology is unnatural

@AngAesthetics @IndianaBrunner A newborn's father is an astronomer. The father takes the baby to work with him, where the baby "participates in" astronomy work. Does the baby believe in heliocentrism? Is he a believer in the Copernican system? >They need to understand it *to their ability*. If zero ability?

Can a biblical case for infant baptism be made? Abraham was directly commanded to circumcise infants (Genesis 17:10-12). That was a physical sign given to a physical nation. Under the New Covenant, Christians are given no such command. Baptism is tied to a different reality. The New Covenant is explicitly not like the old (Jeremiah 31:31-34). Under this covenant, God's law is written on the heart, and all who belong to it know and follow the Lord, not according to the flesh, but through faith. That's the dividing line. Every clear command regarding baptism is tied to repentance and faith: • Acts 2:38 – "Repent and be baptized..." • Mark 16:16 – "Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved..." • Acts 8:12 – "When they believed... they were baptized, both men and women." • Acts 8:36-37 – "the eunuch said, 'See, here is water! What prevents me from being baptized?' And Philip said, 'If you believe with all your heart, you may.'" • Colossians 2:12 – "having been buried with him in baptism... through faith" Many try to claim that baptism is the "new circumcision," using Colossians 2:11-12 to make their case, arguing that since infants were circumcised, infants must now be baptized. But if baptism truly functioned like circumcision in that way, then ONLY male infants should be baptized and it must be done on the 8th day. Paul says we are circumcised without hands, a spiritual circumcision, that comes THROUGH FAITH. So it's not as simple as saying that baptism is the new circumcision and then applying it the same way to infants. Baptism doesn't replicate circumcision, but fulfills what physical circumcision made by hands could never do: change the heart. Paul also shuts down the Judaizers in Galatians 5:2–6. Requiring a covenant sign for inclusion in the people of God is rooted in a misunderstanding of the gospel. He doesn’t say, “We don’t circumcise anymore because now we have baptism: the new circumcision!” Instead, he removes the category entirely: "neither circumcision nor uncircumcision counts for anything, but only faith working through love” (Galatians 5:6). No physical sign can make you a born-again child of God. Only God’s grace through faith can. Nothing external ever could, and that’s precisely why the New Covenant was established in the first place. An infant does not enter the New Covenant simply because someone decided to baptize them. After all, "the wind blows where it wishes, and you hear its sound, but you do not know where it comes from or where it goes. So it is with everyone who is born of the Spirit" (John 3:8). Circumcision marked a nation by birth. Baptism marks believers by faith. Conflating the two collapses the very distinction the New Covenant established.

@AngAesthetics @IndianaBrunner Infants have faith in the same sense elderly people who have dementia persevere in the faith they used to profess

Would love to dialogue. The issue isn't that Baptism replaces circumcision. The issue is that circumcision is a seal of *righteousness had by faith*. In other words, it signified a righteousness had. Circumcision reveals the belief that *children participate in the faith of their parents*; the children of believers *are believers*. They can throw that away of course. But they *are* believers. Acts 2 quotes Joel 2, which has babies brought *as part of the repentance ritual*. Infants are brought to the Lord as a sign of the people's repentance as a whole. Similarly, Luke 18 does not merely teach we ought to have faith like a child. It teaches that "to such belong the kingdom." Infants brought to Jesus as heirs of the kingdom. But as heirs, they ought to receive the visible affirmation of their inheritance in Baptism (Gal 3--as many as were baptized have put on Christ). It is because the children of believers are themselves believers--they participate in the faith of their parents--that we baptize them. Obj: "But they don't understand all cognitive content of the resurrection." Nor do the mentally disabled. Should they never be baptized? They need to understand it *to their ability*. If they can't, then they remained attached to and participants in the faith of their parents

@MethodMinistry These types are all accomplished in a fuller sense in the NT via the sacrament of baptism. The only question imo is if baptism is either the sign or the mean of the spiritual reality signified.

@MethodMinistry Jesus rebuked Nicodemus on this on the ground that he's a doctor of the law, implying the OT signification of the water/Spirit association. And they are indeed shown together a lot (Gen 1.2, Gen 6, prophets...). These types symbolise judgement, new creation, and life/resurrection

The worst exegesis I've ever heard in my life is the baptist understanding of John 3:5. Many argue that the water refers to the natural birth and the spirit the second birth. This means that according to them Jesus is saying, "To be born again, you first must be born." But proper exegesis shows that the water in verse 5 is the same water in verse 23 and is in connection to baptism. But baptists can't admit this for they're forced to concede their entire paradigm. Compare the water in verse 5 with verse 23 in connection to baptism, John 3:5, "Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God." John 3:22-23, "John also was baptizing in Aenon near Salim, because there was much water there; and people were coming and were being baptized."

@OviClapBomb @HabsDepression Typical Habs fan. And I live in Montréal

@HabsDepression “Arguably Schaefer hurt the Islanders more than helped them this season” is the most questionable thing I’ve ever read in my life

Not even because a Habs player won win but my controversial opinion is that you should not be able to win a "Best' or "Most valuable" player award if you dont make the playoffs. Arguably Schaefer hurt the Islanders more than helped them this season. They are not stuck with a bad draft pick for putting up meaningless points. His points and goals didnt end up with a playoff berth so why do we care? Same with the Hart, Celebrini shouldnt win it. He didnt make the playoffs. His contributions mean nothing and again arguably hurt the Sharks by getting them a worse draft pick

@DispyGrace @AndrewTWalker

There’s a particular type of intellectually-inclined Protestant who has tradition-envy and sociological insecurity about their Protestant upbringing and so, in time, they go to Rome. I am convinced this journey stems primarily, though not exclusively, from a failure to do the reading. Reading Reformed Orthodoxy and the Reformed Scholastics will quickly disabuse the anxious Protestant that they must turn to Rome for intellectual depth.

@ReReadingWolfe @fandompulse bUt YoU nEeD hArD mAgIc SyStEm WiTh BiG wOrLd-BuIlDiNg Seriously, the materialistic mindset forces the numinous into hard science to make sens out of it

@fandompulse In mythology: a witch In fantasy: a wizard In sword& sorcery: a sorcerer In magical realism: a random dude with a dark secret In science fiction: a scientist Various alternative worlds we’ll never go to. Who cares if the unicorn were made from CRISPR or not?

The Book of the New Sun author Gene Wolfe explains why he does not see a distinction between fantasy and science fiction: "I don't see really that a sharp distinction can be made. What we're talking about really are publishing categories. What wire rack a book goes on to. Science fiction is always to some degree fantasy. If you say I'm going to extrapolate what the science of the next 50 years will be like that is in itself fantasy if you pretend that your extrapolation is going to be 100% accurate. It never is. It may score some astounding hits and you fade off into unicorns and elves, but unicorns, I think, are science fiction if you put them in our world rather than in the world of a medieval tapestry. So you can argue about that indefinitely. If somebody in the 1800s wrote a book about a robot, a mechanical man, and there were books written that were, generally Clockwork, then to someone who never thought such things would exist that was fantasy. To us looking back at the mechanical man and we see that mobots, mobile robots, can be made and so forth and so on. Automata for Disney and whatnot. Then it's science fiction. But why should the passage of 100 or 200 years make the books change its genre. It depends on the preconceptions we bring to the book." Is he right?

@KDubeJDQ Je le prends avant Villeneuve sans hésitation. Plus de production offensive, plus rapide et beaucoup plus engagé dans la zone défensive. 1ere année dans la Q vs 3è pour Villeneuve. C'est vrai que Moncton est une excellente équipe, mais BLB n'est pas en reste on plus.

On a beaucoup parlé de Xavier Villeneuve, mais le premier défenseur de la LHJMQ sélectionné au prochain repêchage de la LNH pourrait bien être un défenseur américain sorti un peu de nulle part. Et il pourrait être un choix de première ronde. journaldequebec.com/2026/04/01/lhj…