The King Who Will Exalt Himself

"The king will do as he pleases. He will exalt and magnify himself above every god and will say unheard-of things against the God of gods. He will be successful until the time of wrath is completed, for what has been determined must take place. He will show no regard for the gods of his fathers or for the one desired by women, nor will he regard any god, but will exalt himself above them all. Instead of them, he will honor a god of fortresses; a god unknown to his fathers he will honor with gold and silver, with precious stones and costly gifts. He will attack the mightiest fortresses with the help of a foreign god and will greatly honor those who acknowledge him. He will make them rulers over many people and will distribute the land at a price. "At the time of the end the king of the South will engage him in battle, and the king of the North will storm out against him with chariots and cavalry and a great fleet of ships. He will invade many countries and sweep through them like a flood. He will also invade the Beautiful Land. Many countries will fall, but Edom, Moab and the leaders of Ammon will be delivered from his hand. He will extend his power over many countries; Egypt will not escape. He will gain control of the treasures of gold and silver and all the riches of Egypt, with the Libyans and Nubians in submission. But reports from the east and the north will alarm him, and he will set out in a great rage to destroy and annihilate many. He will pitch his royal tents between the seas at the beautiful holy mountain. Yet he will come to his end, and no one will help him.

(Daniel 11:36-45 NIV)

Let's examine characteristics and identifying features of the future physical Antichrist. Feel free to post your thoughts or studies on this subject.

Some have suggested that the "king" who exalts himself in this excerpt from Daniel is actually referring only and literally to the historical figure Antiochus IV Epiphanes. There are some serious problems with this interpretation, even if taken strictly literal (which is supposed method of interpretation here).

Matthew 24:15 also says, "When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand." KJV

It is not historically proven that the Abomination of Desolation has occurred. No such man has done what is prophetically required of him. No historical figure has set himself up in the temple, claimed to be God, and demand worship. Antiochus and others brought standards and other symbols in for worshiping other Gods like Jupiter.

D.S. Russell suggests the "king" or later "horn" is Antiochus as well, but also writes that "the human identity of this little horn is evidenced by its possession of human eyes and a mouth that speaks presumptuously."

Before we consider problems with that idea, I do recognize that there is also a spirit of Antichrist walking the world today. It is a spirit, as well, that has plagued many and still plagues many. I still contend though that this spirit, not of Christ but of the Devil, will be embodied or incarnated in a man who will serve as the physical anti-Christ who steps upon the Temple Mount and commits the Abomination of Desolation.


1. The historical data presented in Daniel 11: 36-45 are impossible to historically harmonize with Antiochus’ actual life.

2. This person, who exalts himself, will also be a ruler living in the last days themselves, immediately before the Second Coming (See v. 40). The Second Coming has not occurred since Christ has not appeared as He left, nor has He set up His millennial kingdom.

3. He is the same “horn” of Daniel 7:21 and the “ruler who will come” in Daniel 9:26.


Traditional historic interpretation, like Chrysostom, Jerome, Theodoret, Leupold, Keil, Archer, Walvoord, suggest this person is a future antichrist. Even amillenialist Jerome stated, “Those of our persuasion believe all these things are spoken prophetically of the Antichrist who is to arise in the end time.” He also said that the Antichrist would be "one of the human race, in whom Satan will wholly take up his residence in bodily form."

The physical antichrist, the one in who satan will incarnate himself, will go well beyond anyone in history has ever done before. He will catch the rising tide of Secularism sweeping our globe and use its energy to create a new government. One without religion. Historical leaders who have sought to do similar things have been Antiochus himself, Nero, Domitian, Stalin and Hitler. The reign of the Antichrist will be one which will strive to be free of all religious vestiges.


The Jewish Study Bible—JPS TANAKH Translation. © 2004 by Oxford University Press, Inc.
Pťer-Contesse, R., & Ellington, J. (1993). A handbook on the Book of Daniel. UBS handbook series; Helps for translators (180). New York: United Bible Societies.
Russell, D. S. (2001, c1981). Daniel. The Daily study Bible series (141). Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press.
Jerome, Daniel, 129.
Jerome, Daniel, 77; cf. pp. 81–82.

The Dependency of Man:

~Trust in the LORD with all your heart and lean not on your own understanding; (Proverbs 3:5 NIV)~

Man, such a finite and feeble thing.

Man, with a heart deceitfully wicked

Man, hashing about the darkness of a thing.

Man, lost with hope neglected.

The Creator, such an infinite and marvelous thing.

The Creator, from whom flows light and truth.

The Creator, always dwelling in the light of a thing.

The Creator, your light and way since your youth.

Man, looking to the Creator and upon Him laying the blame.

Man, seeking reparation instead of repentance.

Man, forsaking the light of the Creator and rejecting His name.

Man, lost in his own way, and declaring his independence.

Man, tells God, “Why am I this way? You are the creator of my shame!”

God, tells man, “I did not create you this way, nor in such shame.”

Man, tells God, “I seek my own way, I declare my independence.”

God, tells man, “Your way you have found, and in your shame will you cry for independence!”

JN Anderson


Musings on Thanksgiving:

The photo above is one of my favorite works by Norman Rockwell. His ability to capture special moments in this way is what makes his works almost identifiable on first glance. The season above and most of you now is one of Thanksgiving. Just last week I enjoyed refreshing my memory on the very first Thanksgiving. I made it a project of mine to look into this further. The evolution of Thanksgiving from then until today is a captivating story. Here are some highlights from my notes.

Mary Had A Little Lamb?

The lady who penned, Mary Had A Little Lamb, was actually the same woman who petitioned Abraham Lincoln to grant a day of Thanksgiving during the Civil War. This led to government recognition, with some controversy, when Franklin Delano Roosevelt was president. It appears it was for purely economical reasons too. The idea was to expand the holiday shopping season. 

Always the Fourth Thursday:

Thanksgiving is always on the fourth Thursday of November EVERY year. Never the occasional fifth.

Atheism and Thanksgiving?

This day is actually a great day for Christians to spread the Gospel with family and friends. What is Thanksgiving Day about if not "giving thanks"? We give thanks to God, our Creator. What is the atheist to do on this day? To whom does he or she give thanks? Some will say, "I will thank myself for my hardwork". This is the difference. As believers, we give thanks to the Almighty Creator of the heavens and the earth. Our hands did not set the seasons nor fix the moon in the sky. We are to look outside ourselves and avoid living only in our comfort zones. We give thanks to the one Who has placed the sun and the moon in the sky and has given us seasons to enjoy. To see the changing of the leaves and the death of winter. Then to see life come back again in the Spring.


Most likely North American Indians used to do days of thanksgiving well before it was established by later European Christians. While not all men recognize their Creator a thankful, beating heart has always trodden the soil given him by his Creator. It is the duty of anyone who fears God/god. Psalm 65:2 says that all men pray. In this way we recognize a higher being than ourselves.

Giving Thanks:

In fact in the Genesis account God is already receiving offerings of thanks. The story of Cain and Abel is fitting here since they were returning to God the first-fruits  Giving thanks is worship, and God loves our thanks. As with the thanks of Cain and Abel however God is also concerned with our attitude. Or the subtle or hidden aspects of our soul. The spirit and attitude that God notices. Cain became angry before God. God inquired he was downcast and then God said, "If you do what is right, will you not be accepted? But if you do not do what is right, sin is crouching at your door; it desires to have you, but you must master it." God had mercy on Cain by warning him of his inner man. There is beauty in giving thanks. By giving thanks we demonstrate our free will by humbly and willingly yielding it to Him. It is impossible to serve two masters.

Giving thanks to God is profound and is in itself a powerful thing. To the gnostic, the atheist, or the unbeliever this day brings consternation. It should cry out for them to confront themselves. It is not about the Pumpkin pie (the Pilgrims didn't even have sugar. By that time their supply of sugar would have been depleted), or the Turkey. Did you know they probably ate seafood on first Thanksgiving Day? It is really all about giving thanks to God above. Thanking Him for his blessings and earnestly praying that He will continue to provide them with His sovereign hand.

Schleiermacher: Victor and Villain


The most influential theologian of the nineteenth century is often called the father of modern liberal theology or even the father of modern hermeneutics. Friedrich Daniel Ernst Schleiermacher was born in Germany in 1768. He was raised in Reformed Calvinism and educated in Niesky, Barby, and Halle. He would later become a theologian and philosopher that made lasting impressions on thought.

While at the University of Halle—in the early 1800’s—Schleiermacher started a translation of Plato that would become a standard in German literature. In 1809 Schleiermacher returned to his birth country—Germany—where he helped to found a new university—University of Berlin. One of his more famous students was David Strauss who wrote the highly controversial The Life of Jesus Critically Examined.

During tenure at Halle he also became familiar with the writings of Immanuel Kant. Kant was the opposite of objective rationalism to subjectivity, wherein God is beyond the access of reason. Schleiermacher would later write his famous work, “On Religion: Speeches to its Cultured Despisers.”

Today this work could be considered an apologetic against the criticisms of the Enlightenment. His work proclaimed that reason and objectivity are only a part of man and that feeling and emotions played a crucial role. Soren Kierkegaard was also a contemporary with Schleiermacher and their philosophies share affinity from Kantian revolution.

Making Sense, Since the Enlightmenment:

Philosopher Paul Tillich noted that Friedrich D.E. Schleiermacher attempted a “great synthesis in the theological realm.” To understand Schleiermacher one must understand the age or time in which he lived or the time in which he developed his epistemological structure. Schleiermacher stood out in his time because he was one who believed that a true philosopher could be a true believer. He was influenced by Pietism as he attended Moravian schools but was torn from those roots by questions from the French Enlightenment of the 17the Century. Schleiermacher was a Romanticist, existing just after a time when many “intellectuals had completely given up on Christianity as hopelessly outmodeled, irrational and superstitious.”
This sounds much like current times but then the only room for intellectual high-ground must be proven to be rational. Given this, Schleiermacher would go on to produce theological or religious works that constantly attempted to reconcile two opposing views:

1. Classical Protestantism
2. Enlightenment Criticism of the Seventeenth Century

It was not his objective to destroy or weaken true religion. It was his objective to prove its worth and value. To revive what was viewed as dead religion. Schleiermacher was one of the theologians that sought to bring respectability back to religion; to provide ample criticisms of the Enlightenment itself.

Experience Rules:

Schleiermacher may have erred in his fervor to rationalize his own subjectivism. It was the goal of his writings to “win the educated classes back to religion. Contending that religion was based on intuition and feeling and independent of all dogma.” The traditions and practices of Christianity only arise from expressions of monotheism. In his view, however, Christianity was not the only monotheists or the only “way”. In his work the Reden über die Religion Schleiermacher supports his thesis that “emotional experience forms the basis of religion, a conviction to which he adhered despite modifications contained in his later works. He considered creeds to be the expression rather than the foundation of religious experience,” In some sense, creeds are necessary but must be consistent with Biblical understanding. During the Enlightenment much of the violence can be attributed to revolt against dogma of the Catholic system that dominated France. Creeds then must be coherent for clear theological understanding.

Schleiermacher and Sabellianism:

Schleiermacher was also such a one who would defer conversation about the Trinity. In his scholarly work, God, Revelation, and Authority, Carl F. H. Henry notes that Schleiermacher “had an affinity for Sabellianism.” Sabellianism has been a common label, with modified forms, that has been placed on those who reject or press the envelope, so to speak, concerning the Trinity. I am not certain if Schleiermacher held this view, but Sabellius is said to have believed in patripassianism—meaning the Father suffered on the cross. Sabellius also believe that the manifestations of God appear in succession. He would deny a“trinity of essence and the permanence of the trinity of manifestation; making Father, Son, and Holy Ghost only temporary phenomena, which fulfil their mission and return into the abstract monad.”

The text of Scripture is quite clear though that it was the Son of God who suffered, died, and rose again. Sabellius did however reject the Trinity and his view has some affinity with that of Oneness theology held by many Pentecostal organizations, e.g. UPCI, ALJC, PAW.

Schleiermacher speaking of the Trinity, wrote, “there must still be in store for it (the doctrine of the trinity) a transformation which will go back to its very beginnings” Rightly so, his dissatisfaction with the Trinity was apparent.

Horace Bushnell:

The Britannica Encyclopedia links Schleiermacher to another antagonist of the Trinity—Horace Bushnell (1802-76). Bushnell attended Yale Divinity School and served as a pastor and theologian in New England. He lectured at Harvard frequently. Britannica notes, “Bushnell stood between the orthodox tradition of Puritan New England and the new romantic impulses represented by Ralph Waldo Emerson, Samuel Taylor Coleridge, and especially Friedrich Schleiermacher.”

Like Schleiermacher, Bushnell’s beliefs and influence is varied. “Bushnell's book on Christian nurture has exerted more influence on theories of Christian education among Protestants than any other work of recent times. His ideas on religious language anticipated much that is now being said about the crucial role of myth, symbol, story, and paradox in the discourse of the religions of the world.”Bushnell is also accredited for soundly refuting the prevalent Calvinism of Jonathan Edwards and for his essay on “Science and Religion”, published in 1868, that indicates his resistance to Darwinian evolution.


Mathematics can be used for error and truth. This is reason enough for us to conclude that reason cannot be alone. Descartes cogito ergo sum does illustrate us as conscious beings capable of reason and rationality. This does not mean that organic matter is all that we are. Philosopher Mark Woodhouse has noted that “A neurophysiologist, while establishing correlations between certain brain functions and the feeling of pain, begins to wonder whether the “mind” is distinct from the brain.” This makes us aware of the belief that man is material and immaterial. Man is made in the image of God and therefore, even unregenerate, can exhibit the fingerprints of His Creator.

Religion is passive and static in society if it is a mere subjective feeling. Our feelings and emotion must not be ignored but they must be mitigated. Just as extreme rationalism is unwise, so is pure subjectivism. Schleiermacher helped weave Kantian subjectivity into Protestant theology. Germany and general hermeneutics have suffered from the influence of the victor over Enlightenment. In his stridence for victory he vilified what is sacred. Schleiermacher would later no longer hold the Scriptures as being infallible and to him “Christianity is not the only true religion, but the most complete.”

Apparently rationalism had taken a large influence upon free thought during the 17th Century. This era only pushed the proverbial snowball over the edge of the cliff. It was a hard jolt though because Romanticism screams to us that many had forsaken even the use of reason in theology and Scripture. To some Christianity was not intellectually honest. Today, Richard Dawkins would call us "stupid", and he means that quite literally.

The great atheist turned Christian C.S. Lewis, who wrote and debated during the early 19th Century, was compelled to state:

“To be ignorant and simple now - not to be able to meet the enemies on their own ground - would be to throw down our weapons, and betray our uneducated brethren who have, under God, no defense but us against the intellectual attacks of the heathen. Good philosophy must exist, if for no other reason, because bad philosophy needs to be answered.“

To every man an answer. I think Schleiermacher thought he was doing that, in a way. His theology perverted sound doctrine in some areas and possibly gave precedence for future dialog on matters like the Trinity. Indeed Tertullian, the one to coin the Latin term trinitas, (Trinity) notably held revelation above reason. In fact, Norman Geisler and P.D. Feinberg note, “It is true, nonetheless, that Tertullian exalted revelation above human reason. In one famous passage he cried out: “What indeed has Athens to do with Jerusalem? What concord is there between the academy and the church?”

There is danger in allowing revelation to exceed reason just as much as there is a danger in reason exceeding revelation. The two should be inseparably woven to complement each other.


1) Shedd, W. G. T., & Gomes, A. W. (2003). Dogmatic theology. "First one-volume edition (3 vols. in 1)"--Jacket. (3rd ed.) (968). Phillipsburg, N.J.: P & R Pub. See also: Elwell, W. A., & Elwell, W. A. (1997, c1984). Vol. 1: Biographical entries from Evangelical dictionary of theology. Biographical entries from Evangelical Dictionary of Theology. (electronic ed.). Baker reference library; Logos Library System. Grand Rapids: Baker Book House.
2) Tillich, Paul. A History of Christian Thought. Copyright © 1967, 1968 Hannah Tillich. Published by Simon & Schuster, Inc. pg. 388
3) "Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst" The Concise Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church. Ed. E. A. Livingstone. Oxford University Press, 2006.
4) Schleiermacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst" The Oxford Companion to German Literature. Henry Garland and Mary Garland. Oxford University Press 1997.
5) Henry, C. F. H. (1999). God, revelation, and authority. Originally published: Waco, Tex.: Word Books, c1976-c1983. (5:213). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
6) Schaff, Phillip P. Schaff's History of the Church, PC Study Bible formatted electronic database Copyright © 1999, 2003, 2005, 2006 by Biblesoft, Inc. All rights reserved
7) Schleirmacher, Friedrich Daniel Ernst. The Christian Faith, 172, p. 747
8) Bushnell, Horace." Encyclopædia Britannica. 2008. Encyclopædia Britannica Online. 27 Nov. 2008 .
9) Crosby, Donald. "Bushnell, Horace." Encyclopedia of Religion. Ed. Lindsay Jones. Vol. 2. 2nd ed. Detroit: Macmillan Reference USA, 2005. 1337-1338. 15 vols.
10) Woodhouse, Mark B., A Preface to Philosophy, Wadsworth Publishing. Pp. 25-26
11) Mr Stephen Priest "Schleiermacher, Friedrich Ernst-Daniel" The Oxford Companion to Philosophy. Oxford University Press 2005.
12) Lewis, C. S. The Weight of Glory. Harper Collins Publishers. pg. 50
13) Geisler, N. L., Feinberg, P. D., & Feinberg, P. D. (1980). Introduction to philosophy : A Christian perspective (262). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Book House.


Discovery Institute: Science Education Experts Recommend Strengthening Students’ Critical Thinking Skills by Retaining “Strengths and Weaknesses” Lang

Three of six experts selected by the Texas State Board of Education to review a proposed update of the Texas Essential Knowledge and Skills (TEKS) for science have recommended that the TEKS retain controversial language calling on students to examine the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific theories in order to strengthen students’ critical thinking skills.

“Some activist groups are pressuring the State Board to cut that language from the TEKS in order to artificially shield Darwin’s theory from the normal process of scientific inquiry,” said Casey Luskin, an education policy analyst at Discovery Institute. “However, as these three experts point out, examining the strengths and weaknesses of scientific theories is a core part of the scientific process, and abandoning such critical analysis merely to satisfy ideological demands of Darwinists harms students by giving them a false view of scientific inquiry.”

“Science education that does not encourage students to evaluate competing scientific arguments is not teaching students about the way science actually operates,” emphasized expert reviewer Dr. Stephen Meyer in his written report submitted to the Texas Education Agency (TEA). Meyer added that the need for students to study the “strengths and weaknesses” of scientific explanations has been noted by the National Research Council, a sister organization to the National Academy of Sciences.

Meyer directs the Center for Science and Culture at Discovery Institute. A Cambridge-trained philosopher of science, he was formerly a geophysicist with ARCO in Dallas.

Meyer was joined in recommending the preservation of the “strengths and weaknesses” language in the TEKS by Baylor University chemistry professor Dr. Charles Garner and University of Wisconsin-Superior biology professor Ralph W. Seelke, whose laboratory research investigates the ability of natural selection to produce new functions in bacteria.

In separate written reviews, all three experts advised the TEA that good science education should encourage students to learn the scientific facts and engage in more critical thinking than they would under the currently proposed TEKS.

Key recommendations made by one or more of the reviewers include:

* the TEKS should not only retain the "strengths and weaknesses" language, but strengthen critical thinking skills by explicitly applying this approach to the study of specific scientific theories and hypotheses, including biological and chemical evolution.
* the TEKS should not include pejorative or inaccurate language in their definition of science, but they should encourage students to understand how scientists think skeptically and critically and engage in scientific debate when solving scientific problems.
* the TEKS should encourage students to learn about the impact of science on culture and society, providing both positive and negative examples of such impacts.

Luskin noted that despite efforts by Darwin-only activists to inject religion into the discussion of the TEKS for science, the expert reviews of Meyer, Garner, and Seelke all focused on scientific and pedagogical concerns, not religion. “None of the expert reviewers are calling for religion in science classes, and any suggestions to the contrary show just how bankrupt the Darwinists’ arguments are for insulating Darwin’s theory from honest analysis. Whenever Darwinists can’t respond to scientific or educational arguments, they try to change the subject to religion. Students in Texas deserve better.”

Read from Discovery Institute here.

Adversus Trinitas

"...unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins." (John 8:24 ESV)