How to Meet the Evils of the Age 

welcome - Ive been listening to one a day for a long time

I know right !!!!

You are likely correct. BUT, for me, the 'reform' Luther is recognized as starting could be and may have been considered 'progressive.' As a student at a Roman Catholic elementary school I completed the requisite rituals thru confirmation but now some 50+ years and many trying experiences later, except for what I now know is the grace of God, I would look back and say what a waste. Luther remained a Catholic. When I talk with acquaintances in the Catholic Church they insist if a person was baptized Catholic they die Catholic. I don't acknowledge this as even meaningful. Also in Luther's time it may have been 'Anabaptists' who introduced 'believer's baptism' which seems a 'reasonable' and likely Biblical symbolism. Anabaptists may have been considered progressive and some history may be that another, possibly progressive, group led by Huldryk Zwingli attempted to eradicate them. Possibly, today, just as people in OT times were generally blinded as to much of what was revealed in the NT, many people in NT times, including present days, are also blinded to some Biblical truths. Again you are likely correct, and unfortunately accurate in your statement about the word progressive and we need to be wary when we hear progressive used but what of 'reform'?

Yes, progress is a kind of science in which people still understand it, but cannot afford and realize it by themselves. Whereas modernity, is a step further it's utilising science without understanding it anymore. People become users of technology instead of owning it intellectually and practically. And this mainly concerns applied science, meaning engineering or the way to use & transform matter to produce goods. It's materialistim. And people who control money production, also control the money related market system. So there is a difference between natural science, applied science and human sciences that refer to concepts and ideas. And when an idea wants itself to be collective into action, it becomes an ideology. Imposed ideology + materialism = prejudice + greed = conflict, war.

@@MrWookie21 Ecclesiastes 3:11 paraphrased; 'He made everything appropriate for its time and put the sense of time in man but no man can understand fully God's works'. Spurgeon points out that some men of 'science', which derives from Latin, 'scire', meaning 'know', try to 'know' 'God's works'. Like Isaac Newton and today John Lennox, a mathematician, is doing his best to help people understand how 'SCIENCE' should be studied and understood in light of the Bible. I think Paul, in the NT had some revelation regarding this as he advised not to get distracted by speculative matters but at his time science was likely only known as philosophy. In some ways it may be today's science is reverting to philosophy as your remarks point to this in the sense that today we only look at immediate 'benefits' in the applied science's. Maybe an example of this is leaded gasoline. The second advent may occur before we ever know the true impact of lead in gasoline. Makes me think we should point to our brothers and sisters in Christ of the Amish, Old Order Mennonites, Hutterites and maybe the Coptic Zeballeen and possibly the Armenian Church as the most earnest in 'seeking first the Kingdom of Heaven'. Trying to be succinct makes these remarks rather disjointed.

Mrwookie's reply adds some substance to your comment and still there is so much to a teaching by Spurgeon that resonates ad infinitum it seems. And so; Spurgeon, as Proverbs mentions, like a lion had the Spirit of fearlessness, confronting all issues of evil in his day. However, it seems he may have underestimated the insidious nature of Darwinism'. And he was likely disadvantaged in his efforts to confront this so called theory being published soon after he began teaching. I.e. 1859 published and 1850 or 1851 at age 19 Spurgeon preaches 1st time. Also, it seems that rather than being heartily welcomed by 'could have been mentors' he was object of some 'ridicule' or possibly envy with which he had to contend. And so, Darwinism has become a deep rooted non-theory in my understanding of theories. I.e. observation, hypothesis, experiments and conclusion. But with Darwinism it seems there is no method for or even suggested for experimentation. Possibly the hypothesis is also irrelevant to what today is accepted as the conclusion. Put another way, what people today accept as conclusive evidence of Darwin's theory is not based on relevant experimental evidence but is pure speculation and or assumption.

@@ClifRonczka Indeed. Darwinism is a sham. Darwin was a kind of novelist of anticipation of the past. Or a science fiction historian whose notoriety was promoted mainly through finance owned lobbies and media who supported him to publish and spread his exotic fables. Evolutionism and darwinism are examples of ideologies and how an idea becomes collective into action. It is by impregnation or spreading (ie advertising) of an idea into the public's mind that an idea becomes collective. But the active part of the process, relays on accepting it into one's mind. So the aim is to convice people to accept it ; but the means aren't necessarily based on a valid scientific demonstration as it is the case with Darwinism and Evolutionism. Since a scientific demonstration has to demonstrate experimentally the link between the cause and an effect. That's why they desperately seek after the 'missing link' they regularly claim that would have been found... This sham is deliberately entertained like all other uncountable counterfeits targeting all Biblical spiritual truths in every aspect and respect in order to distract people from knowing how they can be saved through Jesus Christ. Materialism is related to humanism and merchandising capitalism. These false doctrines don't depart from the existing to demonstrate the existence of God to explain the origin of Creation. Natural science is based on the study of the existing that is sacred because created by God. Humanists reject God, they claim to put man at the center of their concerns instead of God. They are atheists. Therefore they don't depart from the existing to explain natural reality. This idea is horrifying for them. But they start with imaginary ideas and concepts they can demonstrate by producing their material existence through an engineering process. So it's a non scientific, biased and reversed process of demonstration pretending "what WE can do becomes existant and part of reality". But it's artificial. It's not genuine Creation because they don't depart from scratch. They need matter and life to play their sorcers games. They cannot see or admit they can't create matter ex nihilo, nor are they able to create life. They are bewitched and think they're Gods but intrinsically not wanting to depend on Him. It's the essence of sin. Rebels.

@@ClifRonczka There are 2 kinds of proofs ; the one departing from the cause to demonstrate an effect, and the one departing from the effect to go back to the cause. The first is called a priori and the second a posteriori. The hypothesis in Darwinism is claiming natural selection is the essential factor explaining species transformation. This postulate has never been proven experimentally by any valid reproductible demonstration. The cause and effect link demonstrating this relationship has never been established. Maybe this is why ironically, they desperately seek after the "missing link" the media regularly claim that would have been found... Even the mutation hypothesis suffers countless uncertainties. Most of so-called evolution examples of experiments have shown numerous biases or lack of rigorous methods for demonstration. To my understanding, the main issue about Darwinism is the fact it departs from a concept to explain reality, instead of trying to explain a natural phenomena related to a causal effect and opening the door to all kinds of empirical fantasies.