WWW.BROTHERAUSTIN.COM - Blog #SampleWWW.BROTHERAUSTIN.COM - Blog #Samplehttps://www.brotheraustin.com/blogs/tag/sampleTue, 20 Jan 2026 03:38:57 -0800http://zoho.com/sites/<![CDATA[RECOMMENDED BOOKS]]>https://www.brotheraustin.com/blogs/post/recommended-books

This page is also under construction.  It currently only features book recommendations.  More to come in the future.


BIBLES

I recommend that every believer have the following three Bibles.  You can get very far in your studies with just these three!

— A NKJV Bible (The Reader's Edition is best in my opinion)

— A NASB 1995 Bible (Just a simple NASB 1995, not a Study edition)

— A NETS Septuagint


Other translations which may be useful for comparison with the above three, include:

— A NRSV Bible

— An ESV Bible


The following are a list of books which are very edifying to the faith and walk of the Christian.  I do not necessarily endorse everything found within them.  But the central teachings and/or principles of these books are definitely good and sound.


FOR REALIGNMENT OF FAITH AND PRACTICE

— The Apostolic Fathers, by Lightfoot, or by Michael Holmes

— The Oldest Church Manual, by Philip Schaff (DOWNLOAD HERE)

— The Doctrine of the Trinity - Christianity’s Self-Inflicted Wound, by Anthony Buzzard
— The Parousia, by James Stuart Russell  (DOWNLOAD HERE) (OR HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL EDITION)
— The Christ has Come, by Earnest Hampden-Cook (DOWNLOAD HERE) (OR HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL EDITION)

 

FOR FAITH-BUILDING

— The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, by Gary R. Habermas and Mike R. Licona
— The Case for Miracles, by Lee Strobel

— George Muller of Bristol: His Life of Prayer and Faith, by Arthur T Pierson

— Darwin Devolves, by Michael Behe

— Carved in Stone, by Dr. Timothy Clarey

— Footprints in the Ash, by Dr. Steve Austin

— Frozen in Time, by Michael Oard

— The Design and Complexity of the Cell, by Dr. Jeffrey Tomkins

— Near Death Experiences As Evidence for the Existence of God and Heaven, by J. Steve Miller

— The Destruction of Jerusalem - An Absolute and Irresistable Proof of the Divine Origin of Christianity, by George Holford (OR HERE FOR THE ORIGINAL EDITION)

 

FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING BIBLICAL HISTORY

— The New Complete Works of Josephus, by William Whiston and Paul Maier

— Illustrated Manners and Customs of the Bible, by J.I. Packer and M.C. Tenney

— The Unseen Realm, by Michael Heiser


FOR PARENTING

— Dare to Discipline, by James Dobson

— Parenting is Not For Cowards, by James Dobson


]]>Sun, 24 Oct 2021 12:15:18 -0500<![CDATA[JESUS WAS (AND IS) NOT A SOCIALIST]]>https://www.brotheraustin.com/blogs/post/jesus-was-and-is-not-a-socialist

Jesus generally taught that people should sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor.  Does this mean that he condoned socialist economics?

Outside of money going from the hands of the rich to the hands of the poor, Jesus' teachings have nothing to do with socialism, at least in the way most people use the word.  On the contrary, the more socialist a society becomes, the more an individual becomes impeded from carrying out Jesus' words with regards to money and possessions.  The critical misunderstanding lies in the fact that the entirety of Jesus' teaching with regards to "giving to the poor" is always in the context of building reward with God, and God alone (not for the applause or favor of men).  This reward, or "treasure in heaven", comes from voluntary - and only voluntary - giving, which assumes individual ownership of property.   On the other hand, voluntary giving plays no significant role in any socialist ideology; rather, compulsory "giving" or "sharing" of property and wealth is the foundation.  Really, every teaching which Jesus gives with regard to money assumes individual ownership of property.  Likewise, the apostles believed in individual ownership of property ("While it remained unsold, did it not remain your own?" - Acts 5:4), while teaching, like Jesus, that reward comes from giving to those in need.

Jesus' agenda, in like manner, has nothing in common with the agenda of modern socialist advocates, who often spread their ideas under the guise of humanitarianism.  Jesus' teaching with regards to the poor is not at all a system put in place for the purpose of eliminating the poor.  Neither was it meant to be.  (Although it may eventually have the side effect of doing so!)  Rather, Jesus taught that the primary benefit of giving to the poor was the benefit for the giver ("It is more blessed to give, than to receive."), who has gained treasure in heaven - so long as the giving was done in secret ("But when you give to the needy, do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing, so that your giving may be in secret."), or at least not with the intention of being recompensed by any earthly means.  ("When you give a dinner or a banquet, do not invite your friends or your brothers or your relatives or rich neighbors, lest they also invite you in return and you be repaid. But when you give a feast, invite the poor, the crippled, the lame, the blind, and you will be blessed, because they cannot repay you. For you will be repaid at the resurrection of the righteous.")  Such giving is sacrificial, and expresses a trust in God as both the supplier of our earthly needs, and as our heavenly paymaster.  All of this, again, assumes that the giving was voluntary.  If someone "gives" by compulsion, what reward would they have?  Would God be impressed with someone who did something good or right because they had no choice?  Of course not.  Would Jesus have expressed that salvation had come to Zacchaeus' house if the Roman government had come by and taken Zacchaeus' money and handed it out to the poor?  Of course not.  Accordingly, the communal sharing found in the beginning of the book of Acts was voluntary, no doubt demonstrating the great amount of faith, hope, and piety of the individuals involved.  But nevertheless, it was most certainly not sharing done under compulsion by the apostles. 

Those who seek to paint Jesus as a mere humanitarian have eyes for the earthly, and nothing more. Jesus was given the power by God to create and multiply bread where there was none previously; he could have easily eliminated poverty across Israel in this way.  So why didn't he?  Wouldn't he rather be a poor example of a humanitarian to withhold from everyone such an abundance of benevolence?  The answer is simple: he did not have a typical humanitarian agenda.  He saw no heavenly benefit or reward from God in performing this task.  He did not have usual humanitarian interests. Jesus was interested in the heavenly, and gave commands which could only rightly be carried out by looking upward.  He sought to propagate a heavenly mindset to men.  Who gave more - the widow with her two coins or the rich men?  According to the earthly mind: the rich men.  According to Jesus: the widow.  She gave sacrificially, with her eyes toward heaven.  For this reason, Jesus praised her.

If one is looking for earthly economic principles sanctioned by God, they can look to the Torah - The Law of Moses.  The basic principles by which a nation should operate can be found within.  (And in the Torah there are very few principles a socialist would find appealing.)  But Jesus is quite obviously not concerned with offering a different set of principles by which earthly governments should run.  He is one with his Father.  Rather, he is concerned with teaching and expanding upon the faith-based ethic and responsibility of the individual. 

Yet, if the collective morality and ethic of a nation is not upright, then no amount of government laws and regulations will ever rid the people of poverty.  In any kind of economic issue (or any issue at all, really), are we looking upward, or are we simply putting our hopes in government laws?  It would be foolish to think that we can bring God's blessings upon a nation without any repentance.  God does not allow things to happen for no reason.  Socialism is just another attempted shortcut to utopia, like the rest.

It is ignorance to say that Jesus promoted socialist economics. Jesus taught love for your neighbor and giving from the goodwill of the heart.  I would encourage anyone who wishes to understand these issues more clearly to read the entire gospel of Luke and also Matthew chapter six.

There is only one Messiah, and it is important that we understand him correctly.  But because there are many temptations out there in the world for a righteous man to deviate from his path, I feel compelled to continue on a related issue.

Jesus also certainly upheld the Ten Commandments, which include "Do not covet....anything which belongs to your neighbor".  "Coveting" involves pursuing the acquisition of someone else's property against their wishes, and like the rest, only makes sense if people own things individually.  If a member of "the 99%" in America wishes to acquire the wealth of the richest 1% against their wishes, whether by means of physical violence, or by lobbying the government, they are coveting.  A righteous man, however, does not seek to gain anything from his neighbor against his wishes.  And what he does not wish to be done to himself, he does not do to another.  The world may have an unfavorable and adverse attitude toward the rich in one generation or toward the poor in another, depending on the social climate of the era.  But the pure in heart do not show partiality to any economic class at any time.

A disciple of Jesus does not pursue the acquisition of even a penny from his neighbor against his will, and does not join with "a multitude to do evil".  That which he would not wish to be done to him, he does not do to another.  He guards his actions so that he does not to show partiality to any class of men, or "turn aside after a multitude in order to pervert justice." He does not carry in his bag "differing weights, a heavy and a light" or in his house "differing measures, a large and a small." He does not pursue one standard for himself, and a different standard for another, so that he can come into possession of another's wealth against his wishes.  The law of God demands that he does not "show partiality toward a poor man in his lawsuit" against a rich man; he certainly must then leave a rich man alone when there is no lawsuit whatsoever.  If there is a specific injustice or crime being committed against a poor man, then a disciple can fight for his cause.  But if there is no specific kind of wrongdoing happening, then whatever gain a rich man is receiving or is appointed to receive, should not be pursued by another against his will.

"Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few."

]]>Fri, 18 Sep 2020 22:53:00 -0500