RogerH retweeted
The tuatara looks much like fossil reptiles found in rocks.
These rocks are dated by evolutionary geologists to supposedly 200 million years old.
Here's what gets our attention, though: It looks no different from those fossils.
CMI sees it as evidence of creatures reproducing within their created kinds.
You know where that's written?
Genesis.
Are you ready to explore the tuatara’s unusual features and the case for creation?
Read the full article: creation.com/articles/tuata…
These rocks are dated by evolutionary geologists to supposedly 200 million years old.
Here's what gets our attention, though: It looks no different from those fossils.
CMI sees it as evidence of creatures reproducing within their created kinds.
You know where that's written?
Genesis.
Are you ready to explore the tuatara’s unusual features and the case for creation?
Read the full article: creation.com/articles/tuata…
0
6
27
565
RogerH retweeted
A horseshoe crab fossil from rock labelled “Jurassic” looks remarkably like a horseshoe crab alive today.
Evolutionists call this “stasis”, but giving that similarity a name doesn’t explain it.
CMI's Dr Don Batten explores why these “living fossils” challenge the evolutionary story and.
And more importantly, how they fit the Bible’s account of creatures reproducing according to their kind.
Now let's see why living fossils matter.
Read the full article: creation.com/articles/dodgi…
Evolutionists call this “stasis”, but giving that similarity a name doesn’t explain it.
CMI's Dr Don Batten explores why these “living fossils” challenge the evolutionary story and.
And more importantly, how they fit the Bible’s account of creatures reproducing according to their kind.
Now let's see why living fossils matter.
Read the full article: creation.com/articles/dodgi…
0
7
27
888
RogerH retweeted
After DOGE, Elon came to a conclusion most people missed.
He tried to reform the state from the inside. He failed. And he said it plainly: the government can't fix its own deficit. Nobody in power actually wants to cut. The machine protects itself.
So he drew the only logical conclusion. If the state can't be reformed, there are only two ways this ends.
Either global bankruptcy. Debt keeps compounding, interest payments eat the budget, and the system collapses under its own weight.
Or robots. AI and robotics grow the economy so fast that the debt becomes manageable, and abundance makes the old fights over scarcity irrelevant.
Here's the part almost nobody sees.
For two centuries, capitalism has had a marketing problem. Its gains are real but slow and invisible. 2% growth a year doesn't feel like anything. Your life gets better over 30 years and you never connect it to the system that did it. Meanwhile, the left's promises feel immediate and concrete: a check, a subsidy, a benefit. That's why the left wins on promises even when it can't deliver them. Capitalism produces the wealth, socialism takes the credit.
Robots break that asymmetry.
When productivity doubles in a few years instead of a few decades, people will see it. Things get cheaper, services get better, opportunities appear, in real time. For the first time in history, people will connect capitalism and their rising standard of living directly, almost instantly. The causal chain becomes visible.
And that changes everything politically.
So there are two scenarios.
Scenario one: we stay in the current inertia. No breakthrough, or a breakthrough we regulate to death. The debt wins. Living standards stagnate, then fall. A frustrated electorate turns to whoever promises the most, and that pushes toward a hard collectivist left. But collectivism fails, as it always does. And when it fails, the most organized, most disciplined collectivist force left standing isn't the old left. It's radical Islamism. Bankruptcy, then communism, then something worse.
Scenario two: robots win. Abundance arrives, and it arrives visibly. The link between free enterprise and prosperity becomes obvious to everyone. And this is the key point: it becomes obvious to everyone, including the minorities the left was counting on. Because their long-term incentive is the same as everyone else's. A kid in the suburbs gains infinitely more from a booming, abundant West than from a bankrupt state handing out promises it can't keep. Abundance is the most powerful integration machine ever built.
That's the Western renaissance.
The West doesn't need to win the culture war by arguing. It needs to win it by delivering. And for the first time, it has the technology to deliver fast enough for people to notice.
The race isn't left vs right anymore. It's robots vs bankruptcy.
He tried to reform the state from the inside. He failed. And he said it plainly: the government can't fix its own deficit. Nobody in power actually wants to cut. The machine protects itself.
So he drew the only logical conclusion. If the state can't be reformed, there are only two ways this ends.
Either global bankruptcy. Debt keeps compounding, interest payments eat the budget, and the system collapses under its own weight.
Or robots. AI and robotics grow the economy so fast that the debt becomes manageable, and abundance makes the old fights over scarcity irrelevant.
Here's the part almost nobody sees.
For two centuries, capitalism has had a marketing problem. Its gains are real but slow and invisible. 2% growth a year doesn't feel like anything. Your life gets better over 30 years and you never connect it to the system that did it. Meanwhile, the left's promises feel immediate and concrete: a check, a subsidy, a benefit. That's why the left wins on promises even when it can't deliver them. Capitalism produces the wealth, socialism takes the credit.
Robots break that asymmetry.
When productivity doubles in a few years instead of a few decades, people will see it. Things get cheaper, services get better, opportunities appear, in real time. For the first time in history, people will connect capitalism and their rising standard of living directly, almost instantly. The causal chain becomes visible.
And that changes everything politically.
So there are two scenarios.
Scenario one: we stay in the current inertia. No breakthrough, or a breakthrough we regulate to death. The debt wins. Living standards stagnate, then fall. A frustrated electorate turns to whoever promises the most, and that pushes toward a hard collectivist left. But collectivism fails, as it always does. And when it fails, the most organized, most disciplined collectivist force left standing isn't the old left. It's radical Islamism. Bankruptcy, then communism, then something worse.
Scenario two: robots win. Abundance arrives, and it arrives visibly. The link between free enterprise and prosperity becomes obvious to everyone. And this is the key point: it becomes obvious to everyone, including the minorities the left was counting on. Because their long-term incentive is the same as everyone else's. A kid in the suburbs gains infinitely more from a booming, abundant West than from a bankrupt state handing out promises it can't keep. Abundance is the most powerful integration machine ever built.
That's the Western renaissance.
The West doesn't need to win the culture war by arguing. It needs to win it by delivering. And for the first time, it has the technology to deliver fast enough for people to notice.
The race isn't left vs right anymore. It's robots vs bankruptcy.
1,920
4,506
27,406
4,043,595
RogerH retweeted
Scripture records times when God clearly disapproved of the leaders people appointed.
In Hosea 8:4 He says, “They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.” And in 1 Samuel 8 the people demanded a king and the Lord told Samuel they were rejecting Him as their king, even though He permitted it. Therefore, I don’t think it is accurate to say that a political leader is there because God desired it.
What do you think?
In Hosea 8:4 He says, “They set up kings without my consent; they choose princes without my approval.” And in 1 Samuel 8 the people demanded a king and the Lord told Samuel they were rejecting Him as their king, even though He permitted it. Therefore, I don’t think it is accurate to say that a political leader is there because God desired it.
What do you think?
God‘s perfect, sovereign will is accomplished through the means that He ordains. Whoever sits in political authority is there because God desired it to be so. He directs the hearts of kings. Do not forget where your home resides and do not forget who your God is. Hope abounds!
8
8
54
1,317
RogerH retweeted
When I was Muslim, debate didn’t convince me of anything. A lot of online debaters won’t like this, but it's true.
It wasn’t an argument that changed my mind to leave Islam and become Christian.
It was a Person.
You see, I won plenty of debates as a Muslim, I had a riot out-arguing plenty of Christians in college.
Yet, I was still empty at the end of every one of them.
Then, here’s what actually happened.
I met Jesus in the pages of the Gospel, not a doctrine, a Person. A man who touched lepers, wept at graves, forgave His killers, and walked out of His own tomb.
You can argue about a doctrine.
You cannot argue with the pull of a Person who loves you more than you’ve ever been loved.
“Come and see,” Philip said. John 1:46. Not “come and win the debate.” Yes, come and SEE.
I came to argue with Christians.
Then, I stayed because I met Him.
The mind can resist an argument for years, but the heart can’t resist that kind of love forever.
It wasn’t an argument that changed my mind to leave Islam and become Christian.
It was a Person.
You see, I won plenty of debates as a Muslim, I had a riot out-arguing plenty of Christians in college.
Yet, I was still empty at the end of every one of them.
Then, here’s what actually happened.
I met Jesus in the pages of the Gospel, not a doctrine, a Person. A man who touched lepers, wept at graves, forgave His killers, and walked out of His own tomb.
You can argue about a doctrine.
You cannot argue with the pull of a Person who loves you more than you’ve ever been loved.
“Come and see,” Philip said. John 1:46. Not “come and win the debate.” Yes, come and SEE.
I came to argue with Christians.
Then, I stayed because I met Him.
The mind can resist an argument for years, but the heart can’t resist that kind of love forever.
38
88
526
9,713
RogerH retweeted
Far too many people feel overwhelmed by the barrage of secular material on the Internet and so fear that arguments in support of Christianity have been refuted, even if they cannot specify any particular objection that succeeds in doing so.
shr.link/nszi9
shr.link/nszi9
15
7
51
3,046
RogerH retweeted
Here's another point worth considering in this discussion.
Interestingly, it was the same Peter who warned of false teachers who would deny “the Lord that bought them” and bring upon themselves “swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1). Think about that. Peter speaks of people bought by the Lord who nevertheless deny Him and face destruction. Hebrews 10:29 likewise warns of someone (an unbeliever) trampling the Son of God underfoot and treating the blood of the covenant, by which he was sanctified, as an unholy thing.
These passages raise serious questions about restricting Christ's redemptive provision exclusively to those who will ultimately be saved. Scripture says Christ tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9), gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6), and is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). I understand these passages to teach that Christ died for all, while salvation is received through faith. His sacrifice is sufficient to save every sinner, yet Scripture still warns of people rejecting the Lord and perishing.
Why should it be difficult to understand that God patiently gives sinners opportunity to repent before judgment? Aren't we who believe today beneficiaries of that same patience? Not everyone believed the gospel the first time they heard it. Imagine if judgment had overtaken Paul while he was still persecuting the Church. How many of us who now confidently speak of being God's elect would have perished if God had not patiently endured our ignorance and unbelief?
Paul himself understood this. He said he obtained mercy as a blasphemer and persecutor, and that Christ displayed His longsuffering in him as an example to those who would afterward believe unto everlasting life (1 Timothy 1:13–16). He also tells the unrepentant sinner that God's goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering are intended to lead him to repentance, even while warning that continued hardness stores up wrath (Romans 2:4–5).
And consider why the gospel is still being preached throughout the world. People do not all hear it at once, neither does everyone believe the first time they hear it. This is why we continue reasoning, persuading, and pleading with sinners. Paul says, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11). He then explains that God has entrusted us with the ministry of reconciliation, through which we appeal to men, “Be ye reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:18–20).
Even our own conduct toward unbelievers is expected to reflect this patience. Paul instructs Timothy to be gentle and patient toward those who oppose the truth, correcting them in the hope that God will grant them repentance (2 Timothy 2:24–26). We are called to endure with people, teach them, and give them opportunity to hear and respond to the truth. How much more should we recognize the significance of God's longsuffering toward sinners?
Now return to Peter. He had already described God's longsuffering in Noah's generation, while an ungodly world awaited judgment (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5). He then tells us that the Lord is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” and later adds, “Account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:9, 15).
What I find difficult to accept is the assumption that all this patience must be understood exclusively in relation to those unconditionally chosen for salvation. Peter's language concerning the Lord who bought people who nevertheless perish, together with the wider biblical testimony concerning Christ's death for all and God's patience toward the unrepentant, gives us substantial reason to question that restriction.
God's patience does not mean everyone will eventually be saved. It means judgment has not yet come, and sinners are still being called to repentance through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
We who have believed should understand this better than anyone. We were once among those who needed that patience.
Interestingly, it was the same Peter who warned of false teachers who would deny “the Lord that bought them” and bring upon themselves “swift destruction” (2 Peter 2:1). Think about that. Peter speaks of people bought by the Lord who nevertheless deny Him and face destruction. Hebrews 10:29 likewise warns of someone (an unbeliever) trampling the Son of God underfoot and treating the blood of the covenant, by which he was sanctified, as an unholy thing.
These passages raise serious questions about restricting Christ's redemptive provision exclusively to those who will ultimately be saved. Scripture says Christ tasted death for every man (Hebrews 2:9), gave Himself a ransom for all (1 Timothy 2:6), and is the propitiation for the sins of the whole world (1 John 2:2). I understand these passages to teach that Christ died for all, while salvation is received through faith. His sacrifice is sufficient to save every sinner, yet Scripture still warns of people rejecting the Lord and perishing.
Why should it be difficult to understand that God patiently gives sinners opportunity to repent before judgment? Aren't we who believe today beneficiaries of that same patience? Not everyone believed the gospel the first time they heard it. Imagine if judgment had overtaken Paul while he was still persecuting the Church. How many of us who now confidently speak of being God's elect would have perished if God had not patiently endured our ignorance and unbelief?
Paul himself understood this. He said he obtained mercy as a blasphemer and persecutor, and that Christ displayed His longsuffering in him as an example to those who would afterward believe unto everlasting life (1 Timothy 1:13–16). He also tells the unrepentant sinner that God's goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering are intended to lead him to repentance, even while warning that continued hardness stores up wrath (Romans 2:4–5).
And consider why the gospel is still being preached throughout the world. People do not all hear it at once, neither does everyone believe the first time they hear it. This is why we continue reasoning, persuading, and pleading with sinners. Paul says, “Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men” (2 Corinthians 5:11). He then explains that God has entrusted us with the ministry of reconciliation, through which we appeal to men, “Be ye reconciled to God” (2 Corinthians 5:18–20).
Even our own conduct toward unbelievers is expected to reflect this patience. Paul instructs Timothy to be gentle and patient toward those who oppose the truth, correcting them in the hope that God will grant them repentance (2 Timothy 2:24–26). We are called to endure with people, teach them, and give them opportunity to hear and respond to the truth. How much more should we recognize the significance of God's longsuffering toward sinners?
Now return to Peter. He had already described God's longsuffering in Noah's generation, while an ungodly world awaited judgment (1 Peter 3:20; 2 Peter 2:5). He then tells us that the Lord is “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance,” and later adds, “Account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:9, 15).
What I find difficult to accept is the assumption that all this patience must be understood exclusively in relation to those unconditionally chosen for salvation. Peter's language concerning the Lord who bought people who nevertheless perish, together with the wider biblical testimony concerning Christ's death for all and God's patience toward the unrepentant, gives us substantial reason to question that restriction.
God's patience does not mean everyone will eventually be saved. It means judgment has not yet come, and sinners are still being called to repentance through the gospel of Jesus Christ.
We who have believed should understand this better than anyone. We were once among those who needed that patience.
I find Pastor R.C. Sproul's interpretation of 2 Peter 3:9 difficult to reconcile with the argument Peter is making. Restricting the “any” and “all” exclusively to the elect seems to impose a theological framework upon the passage rather than allowing Peter's explanation of God's longsuffering to determine their meaning, especially when we consider how he draws upon God's dealings with an ungodly world in the past to explain why judgment has not yet come.
Peter is responding to scoffers who question the promise of Christ's return (2 Peter 3:3–4). He reminds them of the ancient world destroyed by the flood and warns that the present world is likewise reserved for judgment against the ungodly (vs. 5–7). He then explains that the apparent delay is God's longsuffering, “not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance” (vs. 9). The question is whether Peter's argument actually requires us to restrict this patience and expressed desire for repentance exclusively to the elect.
Consider Noah's generation. Peter had already written that “the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing” (1 Peter 3:20). Noah had found grace in God's sight and was righteous by faith (Genesis 6:8–9; Hebrews 11:7). He was preparing for the deliverance God had promised him, while an ungodly world remained under the threat of judgment. Peter also calls Noah “a preacher of righteousness” (2 Peter 2:5). God's patience was exercised during that period when the ungodly had not yet perished. It was not simply a matter of God waiting for Noah to become righteous or secure the salvation already promised him.
And this is the pattern we find throughout Scripture. God warned Nineveh of impending destruction, yet withheld judgment when its inhabitants repented (Jonah 3:4–10). His compassion toward that pagan city is unmistakable in Jonah 4:11. Through Ezekiel, He declared, “I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live” (Ezekiel 33:11; 18:23). He repeatedly sent prophets to rebellious Israel, calling them to turn from their wickedness (Jeremiah 7:25–26). Christ lamented over Jerusalem's unwillingness to be gathered (Matthew 23:37).
Paul makes the connection even clearer in Romans 2:4–5. Addressing an unrepentant sinner, he explains that God's goodness, forbearance, and longsuffering are intended to lead him to repentance, yet warns that his continued hardness is storing up wrath against the day of judgment. Here, divine patience is explicitly exercised toward someone who remains unrepentant. His refusal does not make God's kindness unreal or His call to repentance insincere.
The consistent biblical pattern is that God exercises patience toward sinners facing judgment, calling them to repentance before destruction comes. Some repent, as Nineveh did; others persist in rebellion, as Noah's generation did. Yet Scripture never treats their refusal as proof that God's expressed concern for their repentance was insincere.
Now return to Peter. Verse 7 speaks of the destruction of the ungodly; verse 9 speaks of perishing and coming to repentance; verse 10 announces the certainty of the Day of the Lord. Peter later adds, “Account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation” (2 Peter 3:15). The connection between God's patience, repentance, and salvation before judgment could hardly be clearer.
Those already in Christ have been sealed with the Holy Spirit as the guarantee of their inheritance (Ephesians 1:13–14; 4:30). They still need God's patience as they grow in holiness, but their salvation is not awaiting its first establishment through repentance. If the argument is that God delays judgment for the sake of elect sinners who have not yet believed, that is a different claim. It must still be demonstrated from Peter's words rather than assumed from the doctrine of election.
Certainly, Peter's phrase “toward you” in verse 9 provides a legitimate grammatical basis for relating “any” and “all” to his readers. But identifying the recipients of an epistle does not automatically settle the scope of every statement within it, much less establish that the people concerned must be an exclusively elect company. Peter's immediate context and the wider biblical testimony concerning divine longsuffering must also be considered.
Nor does affirming God's desire for sinners to repent mean that He has decreed the salvation of every individual. Scripture distinguishes what God commands and approves from what He sovereignly ordains (Acts 2:23; 4:27–28). But we cannot appeal to that distinction to diminish the force of His declaration that He takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked. We must allow Ezekiel 33:11, Romans 2:4, and 2 Peter 3:9 to speak with their full force, just as we take seriously John 6:44, Romans 9, and Ephesians 1.
Judgment delayed is not judgment denied. The patience of God is no indication that He has abandoned His promise to judge the world. It is a solemn expression of His mercy toward sinners who must repent before that judgment comes. To restrict that mercy exclusively to the elect requires more than a theological presupposition; it requires an exegetical argument that Peter himself sustains.
8
8
51
1,681
RogerH retweeted
'In Reformed theology we never ask, "am I elect?"'
Yeah, that's the problem. You should.
Because then you would realize you have really no way of knowing whether God prefers to save you or not.
Sorry to destroy your night's sleep.
Yeah, that's the problem. You should.
Because then you would realize you have really no way of knowing whether God prefers to save you or not.
Sorry to destroy your night's sleep.
In Reformed theology we never ask, "am I elect?" But we do say that we only come to new life and true faith by the unconditional grace of God."
heidelblog.net/series/how-did…
22
5
51
2,469
