So what if I use a pseudonym, Phil Naessens?

A fellow named Phil Naessens defended Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong over at his website. I commented on his post; instead of publishing my comment in full, he mutilated my post, and now simply refuses to allow any comments by me (update - but after I wrote this post, he decided to change his mind and posted the comment; well, I'm impressed with his tactic. Sure knows how to "rebut" my arguments). And I had ONLY posted ONCE on his blog. Period.

I'm beginning to realize that this is the way intelligent Christian men respond to critics (just like what Watchman Daniel Chew does) – by deleting posts they couldn’t answer, refusing comments on their posts, or by banning your moniker or handle on their website.

I commented here (Phil “the Flash” Naessens took liberty to amend my comments, probably to create a straw man for his inept “rebuttal”).

I am now prevented from replying to his comments, so here is the short reply to Phil:

“Phil, your lack of any logic in thinking is really disturbing:

Phil: Yes, I believe they are….

>Bare assertion; irrational.

Phil: The fact you need to hide behind a fake name is all the proof I need….someone that isn’t a coward would have the courage to reveal his true identity…

> Non sequitur.

Phil: Just calling it like I see it…in your case that was a gimme….

>Bare assertion – now THIS is a gimme …

Phil: What “facts”? I think you should learn the definition of what slander is….and I didn’t slander you…..and we aren’t friends…..

>What “facts?” You don’t know and you want to “pretend” you do by defending the indefensible. I think you should learn the definition of what “logic” is … and I did expose your irrationality … and I take you as a friend contrary to your hostile unchristian attitude towards me.”

Epilogue

I have an issue with the fallacious logic of these “Watchman Chew” apologists (just as Watchman Chew regarded Richard Abanes as Rick Warren’s "apologist", I regard Phil “the Flash” Naessens as his apologist).

Somehow, Phil thinks that, if you use a pseudonym, you are being anonymous and cowardly; but if I give a name, that qualifies a blogger as an intrepid and honest critic (and a watchman?).

This begs the question, “What if I put a name on my blog. Would this guarantee my non-anonymity?”

Of course not!

I can put a graduation photo, an email address, and a name (say “Daniel Chew”) on my blog. And this means I’m being honest and open? What silly logic!

My name could be Mary Chew, but I put “Daniel Chew” on my blog; and I stick a photo of any Daniel Chews on my blog. So that proves that the blogger is “Daniel Chew?”

I can start a blog calling myself Chew Bah Kah, put a photo of a monkey-like-man with a graduation dress, and give you an email address. So now I am “qualified” to give my theological insights and critiques on blogosphere? I can now call myself the Watchman Chew. I now officially watch over pastors (including mine), elders, bishops, archbishops and popes in the full "honesty" of my real nick - Chew Bah Kah. Looks like my monkey can think better than such "watchmen" and "apologists."

This also explains why such “Daniel Chew” apologists i.e. Phil "the flash" Naessens can only rant on their blogs, and can never conjure up good, well-measured, intelligent arguments for their faith and idols (i.e. Daniel Chew).

So what if I use a pseudonym?

This is a red herring at best.

If you can’t answer the questions or criticisms, give a red herring and change the topic (like, “My gosh, you used a pseudonym! You must be a heretic and pagan! What’s your real name? Don't hide behind a nick; I call you out! Come out into the open, you devil!”).

You see, after all those “intelligent” rants, Phil has never addressed the real issue.

What about all my expose of Watchman Chew? He never addressed the real arguments; he has only spouted red herrings, ignoratio elenchis, ad hominems, and non sequiturs.

How intelligent of him.

Update: Another "Debating" Strategy From Our Watchman Chew Apologist: Threatening A Lawsuit.

Do read Phil's recent comment on this post. After a series of inane statements with so much sound and fury - but signifying nothing (i.e. no arguments made but only logical fallacies) - he made his move to "repudiate" my arguments. I must say I'm really impressed. This is what Phil "the flash" Naessen wrote:

BTW: Nice picture eh [referring to my usage of his nice photograph]? Are you aware that particular picture is trademark material and is owned by PhillyFlash Enterprises [translates to "are you aware that legally I owned it?"]...that means you need my permission before you use it [translates to "I'm not happy; I'll get my lawyer if you did not ask my permission] ... not very intelligent Mr. Antithesis [translates to "I have no clue how to refute you, but I can always sue you"]... please remove it within 24 hours [translates to "Haha! I can shut your mouth with my argumentum ad baculum i.e. appeal to the cudgel"].

Oh well, I'll just remove the nice photograph of the Watchman Chew Apologist and avoid the threat of getting sued by our wonderfully loving and discerning "Christian" man who happens to learn this debating strategy from the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 6:1-11). How godly and impressive.

Good job, Phil.

Sincerely,

Chew Bah Kah

Little “God” Daniel Chew Pronounces Anathema and Damnation Upon Many Souls

I had been having a field day elsewhere, but here I am again. I was browsing Watchman Daniel Chew’s blog, and did a search for the word, “anathema.” Wow. I’m amazed, but I’m not surprised. There are obviously numerous incidents where our Watchman Chew spoke like a god – or more appropriately, a little god – and pronounced damnation upon his critics, opponents, and fellow Christian pastors and teachers. I learned in Sunday School as a pre-school toddler that only God has the right to decide the eternal destiny of any soul. Apparently, Watchman Chew learned otherwise – as a university graduate.

It would be too lengthy and verbose to spell out every incident whereby he pronounces an anathema or curse upon his foes. You can always do a blog search for his blog. But I’ve learned that he is pretty fond of a phrase, namely, “Anathema Sit!” I did a search for this phrase, and found the following occurrences (see below).

I tried understanding what he meant by “anathema sit,” and finally concluded that he has a kind of delusional self-perception whereby his Alter Ego projects the authority of an apostle, while his Id is still trapped in an anal retentive stage. Probably he felt that, by his horrific, albeit detailed, pronouncements of “anathema,” his opponents might be intimidated to a “sitting” position – almost like a hunted animal. Hence, “anathema sit!”

Another theory is that, during his childhood, he didn’t have the opportunity to practice his closet-sadist inclinations with little pets and rodents, such as plucking out the legs of ants or pouring hot water upon hamsters. Thus, when he had his puberty, he finds great joy and stimulation while pronouncing curses, and calling down brimstone and fire from heaven, upon his frightened foes.

Be afraid, be very afraid!

Quotations from Apostle-cum-Watchmen Chew:

Watchman Chew prophesizes anathema against other prophets:

Since these false prophets like to prophesy lies, here is my prophesy against them: Repent of your heresies and your proclamation of your false 'gospel', or you will most defintiely face the wrath of the Lamb! You are hereby cut off from Christ and if you persist in your sins, anathema sit!

Watchman Chew declares all feminists unsaved and anathematizes all of them to eternal damnation:

To these feminists: Anathema Sit! Truly, Feminism is a heresy that is to be excised from bible-believing churches, in whatever form it may take.

Watchman Chew, in the place of God, condemns Rev Yap Kim Hao to eternal hell fire:

Enough said about this liberal heretic and unbeliever! 'Reverend' Yap, repent or face the wrath of God and the fires of hell in eternal damnation! Anathema sit!

So beware, my friends. Do not, I repeat, do not offend our Apostle-cum-Watchman Chew; he may just pronounce anathema upon your soul, and condemn you to eternal hell fire!

Daniel Chew Confesses That He Does Not Have Even “A Bit Of Knowledge” On Textual Issues

In a recent post, self-appointed Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong lamented:

“As it can be seen from this book, anyone with even a bit of knowledge on textual issues can see that there is a difference between the textual critical methodology as utilized by Westcort, Hort, Metzger, Aland etc, and the text-types (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western etc) contributing to the variant readings of the texts.”

But as I have exposed quite a while back, Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong does not even know what a “critical text” is. He confused critical texts (which are eclectic texts collated by committees that examine a large number of manuscripts in order to weigh which reading is thought closest to the lost original) with extant manuscripts such as Aleph and B. And he actually dared to debate me ferociously on textual issues, thereby exposing himself to be a dunce (no offense).

Anyone who doesn’t know what a critical text really is shouldn’t even attempt debating textual issues. And I suppose Clark’s book “Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism” is perhaps the very first baby book he touched concerning the issue. But again, who would study textual criticism from a non-textual critic i.e. Gordon Clark – except a dunce?

The truth hurts, doesn’t it? There is apparently a prideful dunce who persists in his errors in Singapore.

Anyone with even a bit of knowledge on textual issues would know what a critical text is.

Period.

Clarkian Daniel Chew Denies The Aristotelian Law of Non-contradiction

After indicting the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA) and Herman Hoeksema - the theologian associated with Chew’s own church (Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church) – of heresy, the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew goes further and calls this a “recent assault on the idea of the Covenant of Works.” Various critiques of the “covenant of works” e.g. by Hoeksema and Murray are deemed as an “assault.” And whether his pastor, Rev Paul Goh, would be happy with Daniel Chew’s rabid insistence that Hoeksema is a heretic (as he denies the covenant of works) is a question for Chew to ask his pastor.

This post would focus on Daniel Chew’s typical self-contradictory, double-talk rhetoric.

Chew wrote, “[It is a] biblical idea that the Law has the innate potentiality to save (not that it can save or was meant to save).” Here, we would take the “Law” to mean the Law as taught by Prophet Moses, Jesus Christ, and Saint Paul.

I suspect no one but Daniel Chew would be able to cough out ridiculously inane and illogical statements such as, “the Law has the innate potentiality to save, [but] not that it can save or was meant to save.”

Let us play with his (silly) language a little further.

Supposed he said:

“The woman has the innate potentiality to give birth, [but] not that she can give birth or she was meant to give birth.”

By substituting “law” with “woman,” and “save” with “give birth,” we can immediately see the self-contradictory nature of his fatuous logic. (And he proudly claims to be a Clarkian, and believes that the Bible is logical in its statements).

If it is not the case that she can give birth, then how can we say that “the woman has the innate potentiality to give birth?” Doesn’t “innate potentiality” simply mean the potential to or the ability to? That is, if certain conditions are met, the woman can certainly give birth, because she has the potential to. The woman having the potential to give birth doesn’t mean that she will, but she definitely can (if certain conditions are met). Notice that Watchman Chew uses the word “can,” not “will.”

In like manner, if the “Law has the innate potentiality to save,” and if the required conditions are met, the Law can save. So there is (according to Chew) a possibility that the Law can save. But Daniel Chew contradicted the first part of his statement (the antecedent) with the following, “not that it can save or was meant to save.”

Surely we should take “not that it can save” to mean “it cannot save.” Furthermore, not-P and P are contradictories. If P = “It can save”, then, not-P = “not that it can save,” which is logically equivalent to not-P = “it cannot save”.

P and not-P cannot be both true. Either P = “The Law can save”, or, not-P = “The Law cannot save”.

What do we have here? The venerable Watchman Daniel Chew insists on following Gordon Clark when it comes to logic, but denies the very same Aristotelian Law of Non-contradiction (which he worships) when it comes to the exegesis of Scripture.

So on one hand, Daniel Chew insisted that the Law can save, and within the same breath he exclaimed that the Law cannot save and hereby contradicted the antecedent of his statement.

Remember James 4:8 saying something about being “double-minded?”

According To Daniel Chew, His Church Is Associated With Heretics!

In a comment, Daniel Chew the Watchman wrote:

Antithesis, thanks for showing us your ignorance of doctrine once again. Question: Have you ever read any good theological book like Dr. Robert Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith? Better question: Are you even seminary trained? Denial of the Covenant of Works (which you are doing) is in fact hetero-orthodox at best and heretical at worst. Of couse, not to mntion you don't even know what the Covenant of Works actually is? [Sarcasm] Is it something you can eat? Or maybe it actually teaches synergism - a Covenant relationship whereby God tells Man to work for his salvation "with fear and trembling"? Ha! /Sarcasm

It seems that the joke is on him.

Watchman Chew has no idea what the covenant of works is, at least within the Dutch Reformed theological framework his church is associated with.

Watchman Chew wrote, "Are you even seminary trained? Denial of the Covenant of Works (which you are doing) is in fact hetero-orthodox at best and heretical at worst."

But according to many Reformed theologians, the “covenant” of works is not really a covenant, but a bond or contract. Shane Lems wrote:

"Those within the Dutch tradition who have reformulated or denied the covenant of works have had little influence outside of their respective circles. The most notable are Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965), Simon de Graaf (1889-1955), Klaas Schilder (1890-1952), Anthony Hoekema (1913-1988),and G.C. Berkouwer (1903-1996). These five, we must add, are quite recent theologians in Dutch Reformed history." - The Covenant of Works in Dutch Reformed Orthodoxy, Shane Lems

So according to Watchman Chew, all the above theologians i.e. Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965), Simon de Graaf (1889-1955), Klaas Schilder (1890-1952), Anthony Hoekema (1913-1988),and G.C. Berkouwer (1903-1996) are HERETICS because they deny the “covenant of works.”

Well done, Chew!

With his abysmal knowledge of "Reformed Christianity," he is a shame even to his own denomination. According to the links from his church's website, his church is associated with the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA).

But doesn’t he know that the PRCA e.g. Herman Hoeksema DENIES THE COVENANT OF WORKS?

And according to Watchman Chew, his church is associated with HERETICS (because the PRCA denies the covenant of works), and “denial of the Covenant of Works … is in fact hetero-orthodox at best and heretical at worst.”

Watchman Chew, shouldn’t you be honest and simply tell your pastor Paul Goh that the PRCA are considered heretical according to your doctrinal standards?

Let us peruse something more edifying from Rev. Angus Stewart in The Covenant with Adam—A Brief Historical Analysis. This brief article – unlike the insane ramblings of the self-appointed Watchman Chew – would explain why it is unscriptural to believe in the Covenant of Works, and worse, that salvation via works is even a possibility in pre-fall Adam.

Quoting Stewart:

But why did [Herman] Hoeksema (correctly) reject the concept of the covenant of works and the possibility of “salvation” through this “covenant” even in pre-fall Adam?

Though Calvin (wrongly) held that Adam could have attained to heaven, he (rightly) rejects all notion of Adam meriting with God. Peter Lillback writes, “Calvin’s theology permits no merit in the prelapsarian context.” He explains,

Calvin’s rejection of merit in the pre-fall context is partly motivated by a desire to refute the Roman Catholic theologians’ connection of merit and the justification of the sinner. But his antipathy to merit is deeper than this. For Calvin, no creature of God [including pre-fall Adam and the elect angels], even though perfect, could merit anything from God the Creator.

Lillback cites Calvin’s commentary on Romans 11:35:

Paul not only concludes that God owes us nothing, on account of our corrupt and sinful nature; but he denies, that if man were perfect, he could bring anything before God, by which he could gain his favour; for as soon as he begins to exist, he is already by the right of creation so much indebted to his Maker, that he has nothing of his own.

Luther’s deadly hatred of creaturely merit in all its forms is well-known. Other Reformed theologians, such as Thomas Goodwin and the Swiss Daniel Wyttenbach (1706-1779), also rejected the idea of Adam meriting with God, even if it was ex pacto (out of the covenant). …

Peter Mastricht (1630-1706) speaks for many Reformed and Presbyterian theologians: “all the essentials of the covenant of works are contained in the first publication of it [in Genesis 2:17].”[11] This covenant of works includes a “condition” (not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), a “penalty” for eating (death) and a “promise” (eternal and heavenly life). In his commentary on Genesis 2:16-17 and in his Institutes (2.1.4), Calvin uses words such as “test,” “threat” and “promise,” though he does not present the schematised theology of many later theologians.

However, not only is there no promise of eternal life in Genesis 2:17, this system also presents the pre-fall covenant as merely a means to an end. But the Bible teaches that the covenant is eternal and the end of God’s dealings with His people (Rev. 21:3), not merely a means. Moreover, if “all the essentials of the covenant of works” are contained in Genesis 2:17, then there was a time, after Adam’s creation and before God issued the prohibitory command, in which he was not in covenant with God! A “covenantless” existence for pre-fall Adam, even for a short time, is unthinkable!

The covenant with Adam was a bond of fellowship between the Almighty, Triune God and Adam His covenant friend-servant whom He created in His own image. Thus, as
Calvin notes, “In the very order of the creation the eternal solicitude of God for man is conspicuous, because he furnished the world with all things needful” for man (Comm. on Gen. 1:26). God gave Adam a “home” in “Paradise,” which Calvin further describes as “a place which he had especially embellished with every variety of delights, with abounding fruits, and with all other most excellent gifts … from the enjoyment of which he might infer the paternal benevolence of God” (Comm. on Gen. 2:8). Thus Adam was “in every respect, happy” for He lived as a recipient of the divine “liberality” (Comm. on Gen. 2:16). In His goodness, God gave Adam a wife with whom he lived in “sweetest harmony” and with whom he enjoyed “a holy, as well as friendly and peaceful, intercourse” as “the inseparable associate of his life” (Comm. on Gen. 2:18).

Another excellent essay is the one by Ralph Smith, "The Covenant of Works: A Litmus Test for Reformed Theology?" He wrote:

More respected among conservative Reformed people, though less well-known, is the theologian mentioned in the quotation above, S. G. DeGraaf, who altogether repudiated the notion of a Covenant of Works because he believed it created more problems than it could solve.[6] If Berkouwer is less than thoroughly Reformed in the eyes of some, the same cannot be said of DeGraaf. His eminence as a Reformed theologian is only reduced by the fact that so much of what he wrote is only available in Dutch. ...

The most famous example of a Reformed theologian denying the covenant of works is that of John Murray. Here we have a theologian whose credentials as a guardian of Reformed orthodoxy are unquestioned. Also, in distinction from the groups and men mentioned above, John Murray was a Presbyterian, holding to the Westminster Confession of Faith. He did not consider taking exception to the doctrine of a Covenant of Works a denial of theology of the Westminster Confession, though in general his approach to the Confession is strict.

So according to Daniel Chew, even John Murray is a heretic!

Watchman Chew Is Watching You!

I came across this hilarious post when I was enjoying the Puritan-Reformed fellow’s antics on his blog. (Update: Watchman Chew has since deleted his previous post, but he seems to have forgotten that the post is replicated in his personal blog diary here. Enjoy it before he deletes the evidence AGAIN!)

It seems that he has an official name-card.

He is not a pastor, elder, deacon, bishop, archbishop, or the pope (I think you would have guessed).

But he has an important office in the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This office puts him above all other offices. And his responsibilities are great and grievous.

No, he is not just a pastor.

No, he is not just the pope.

He watches over all pastors, elders, deacons, bishops, archbishops, and the pope himself.

Daniel Chew is the Watchman. More specifically, Watchman Chew.

A commentator on the post of his (by the handle of “MarkBark”) wrote:

Dear Watchman Chew (author AND apologist as well),

Your humble commentator here acknowledges your spiritual authority in pronouncing oracles against those whom you deem as heretics and deviants-in-Christ.

Watchman Chew (can I call you WC for short?), yours is a position of great responsibilities. As the uncle of Spiderman (in Spiderman fame) has said, "with great talents come great responsibilities."

So, WC, may you be encouraged as a Watchman to watch over and guard the universal church of God against deviant pastors, elders, bishops, and archbishops from every denomination, church and diocese on this planet.

What an awesome responsibility, WC!

yours-in-agreement,
Watchman of Watchmen,
Mark B.

In response, Watchman Chew (the most reverend, most high) pronounced a warning (ex-cathedra) to our friend MarkBark:

“I exhort you to repent of your pride and turn to God in humility for forgiveness of sins, otherwise I can tell you that you will face the wrath of God when Christ comes again, and contrary to what some may believe, it is NOT a pleasant thing. While you still have time, and while it is today, repent of your prideful attitude, name-calling and rebellion against God (Heb. 3:7-11), and do not spurn the kindness of God towards you.”

Oh, hide us from the wrath of Watchman Chew!

Oh, thou art most holy, Watchman Chew!

Oh, thou wouldst grant us mercy, thou most reverend Watchman Chew!


On retrospection, I have realized something concerning watchmen.

Watchmen like to watch over everybody else, but they abhor anyone watching them.

Watchmen watch over even the writings and pronouncements of the Pope, but he himself is above all such “watching.”

In other words, these watchmen put themselves above the Pope in terms of spiritual authority and office.

They watch over the pastors, elders, deacons, bishops, archbishops, and the pope himself, but nobody is supposed to watch over the watchmen.

Best of all, watchmen are self-appointed.

They are appointed by their conceited, narcissistic, vainglorious pride. And who are we to disagree?

But I have given myself a dreadful responsibility.

I would be watching over these watchmen, including the most reverend Watchman Chew.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye! Daniel Chew Declares That There Is Possibility Of Salvation Apart From Christ!

οὐ ἀθετέω ὁ χάρις ὁ θεός εἰ γάρ διά νόμος δικαιοσύνη ἄρα Χριστός δωρεάν ἀποθνήσκω (Gal. 2:21, Tischendorf 8th Ed.)

In his most recent post on the topic of the “Law and Gospel”, Daniel Chew – with his self-acclaimed Puritan and Reformed orthodoxy – makes the most heretical statement I have ever read in the blogosphere for a long time.

Let us peruse his very words with theological perspicacity. He wrote:

The Law: It can theoretically save.

Gal. 3:10 allows for the possibility of salvation by the Law if one obeys all of them perfectly … Verse 21 however informs us that the failure of the Law was that it could not give life, otherwise the Law could otherwise suffice for righteousness and salvation, thus showing forth the theoretical potential of the Law to save.

He concluded:

Thus, it can be seen that the Scriptures do teach that the Law have the potentiality for meriting salvation.

Exclusive Evangelicals (and unhappily for Daniel Chew, most if not all neo-orthodox theologians) have always agreed that there is no possibility of salvation or justification apart from Christ, who is the [only] way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6).

All Puritans and Reformers of Christendom have always declared that justification is only in Christ Jesus, and that there is no possibility of salvation (or justification) apart from Christ.

But Daniel Chew – with his self-acclaimed Puritan and Reformed orthodoxy – believes otherwise.

Daniel Chew asserts, “that the Scriptures do teach that the Law have the potentiality for meriting salvation,” that “Gal. 3:10 allows for the possibility of salvation by the Law,” and that “[Gal. 3:21 shows] forth the theoretical potential of the Law to save.”

We can derive the following with simple syllogistic reasoning:

A = There is the possibility of salvation by the Law alone.

Which is theologically equivalent to:

A1 = There is the possibility of justification before God by the Law alone.

But if A1, then B1.

Where:

B1 = There is the possibility of justification before God by the Law apart from Christ.

B1 is another way of saying, “There is the possibility of salvation apart from Jesus Christ.”

So in essence, Daniel Chew is declaring that, “There is the possibility of salvation apart from Jesus Christ.”

Daniel Chew, who delights in declaring various theologians as heretics e.g. Karl Barth, has now committed one of the most grievous heresies of all time – by deviating from the exclusivist’s doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Eph. 2:8-9).

PuritanReformed’s heresy is joyfully embraced by his newfound bulldog – Joel Tay – when he reaffirms Daniel Chew’s heresy in his comment to Daniel’s post.

Joel exclaimed, “Excellent! Amen to that.”

And Joel Tay had the guts to call Trinity Theological College – where he is a student – liberal.

But I, Antithesis, together with the real Reformers, Puritans, Evangelicals, and the more “liberal” theologians (according to Daniel Chew and Joel Tay) like Bultmann (1), Hubner (2), and Sanders (3) declare that there is no possibility of salvation apart from Christ. Amen?

I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought. (ASV, Gal. 2:21)

References:

1. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 Vols (New York: Scribner’s. 1952) 1:264.

2. Hans Hubner, Law in Paul’s Thought (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1984), 119.

3. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 442-447, 474-511; idem, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 17-91.

I Want To Be A Real [Boy] Scholar, But I Can’t Stop Lying!

Some Christians Need To Learn Basic Honesty In Debates

The latest comment from Joel at the Puritan-Reformed fellow’s blog reeks of lies and deceit. That is one reason why I could not be bothered to engage him. If he could not brush-up his honesty and integrity when confronting his opponents, I doubt he would be prepared for any serious research.

He wrote:

Antithesis was not arguing from a Van Tillian view but from a Neo-orthodox position. Secondly, the language used is not consistent with Christian behaviour. Third, he is not very familiar with some of the modern Van Tillian writers when he said that modern apologists in the Van Tillian school do not use the argument from "impossibility of the contrary". (TAG argument)

I take issue with his second and third point.

He made the bare assertion that my language is not consistent with Christian behavior. What slander. Readers can read all that transpired between the both of us. It appears that anybody who is not a Clarkian would be labeled as either a heretic by Daniel Chew, or be slandered by his bulldog – Joel – as being unchristian.

He also asserted that, “[I am] not very familiar with some of the modern Van Tillian writers when he said that modern apologists in the Van Tillian school do not use the argument from "impossibility of the contrary". (TAG argument)”

Again, this young man is simply ignorant. I had already answered him in this post.

I wrote,

“The conceptualist’s argument for the existence of God (as described by atheist Quentin Smith) has much potential in the realm of dealing with atheologians; unfortunately, the tag (pun intended) of “transcendental argument for God” has been following this valid argument. By the way, Gordon Clark used the ontology of truth to develop an interesting “transcendental argument” in “A Christian View of Men and Things.” The late Ron Nash, a Christian philosopher heavily influenced by Clark, defends it in his lectures on Christian apologetics. Again, I’m certain you would have known this.”

[Joel] wrote, “I’m referring to Van Til’s argument which "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”. This is a basic mistake in Logic, as the video link in my earlier comments indicate. We should be arguing from the impossibility of the contradictory – not contrary.”

I further replied, "Er … the conceptualist’s argument is similar to the TAG you are reiterating here. Try googling for “conceptualist’s argument Quentin Smith?” But I’m sure you would have done this."

He obviously didn't do this.

My point is, both Van Til and Clark used the TAG. By the way, if you would research into this a little more, the TAG is logically valid (which points us back to my previous question – what qualifies as a “proof” for you?). There’s more to Aristotelian logic than this; Google is a useful tool.

I finally added:

Oh yes, before I forget – no contemporary philosopher who uses the TAG or the conceptualist argument "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”. Copi’s text (shown in that “enlightening” Youtube video) is for first year students; the folks I know don’t make that mistake. And surely if you would pick up a paper on this, you would find more than the square of opposition.

See my exact wording? I was referring to contemporary philosophers, not “modern apologists in the Van Tillian school.” Apparently Joel couldn’t conjure up sufficient honesty when he is out of rational arguments against me. And it is clear that he has no clue which philosopher(s) I’m referring to. (I hope he worked out what the "square of opposition" is.)

What is so amazingly ignorant of this chap is this: in philosophical journals, philosophers of religion use the conceptualist argument, which is a development of the TAG. The conceptualist argument does NOT argue from "impossibility of the contrary." And that is what I was pointing out to him in good spirit (read my original comment).

What's more, his idol – Gordon Clark – uses the TAG as well! So what is his problem? Why doesn’t he criticize Clark's TAG? Anyone smell the stench of hypocrisy here?

Lastly, my “neo-orthodox” label was given to me by the Puritan-Reformed fellow. So why can’t I use that label?

Another Debating Strategy From the Puritan-Reformed Daniel Chew: Censorship

PR commented on his blog:

Antithesis,

I do not need to "run from anything". Anyone who know even a bit of logic will know you are just blowing smoke. Besides strawman, ad-hominem, non-sequitur etc, what else can you come up with?

With regards to the Critical Text, you obviously do not know what I was talking about. Even THE Critical Text published by WH and later by UBS etc do give the varient readings among the manuscripts, so your point is moot.

If you continue to misrepresent my position clearly even after being constantly refuted, there is nothing more to add to this conversation. May God have mercy upon you and save you from the gutter of irrationality you are in.

Just btw, if anyone really wants to know, I can do a sentence by sentence deconstruction of Antithesis' posts which shows the many logical fallacies he has committed in them.

I replied with the following comment. Instead of replying to my rebuttal, Daniel Chew the Puritan-Reformed fellow from Singapore simply DELETED my reply, claiming that, “you are in violation of rule number 1. Your nonsensical comment would be hereby deleted.”

What a GREAT debating tactic it is! When you can’t answer the arguments, delete them.

Let's see what "nonsensical" comment I wrote. Daniel Chew has no integrity when it comes to debating.

This is what I wrote. (My comments follow the arrows)

PR:

I do not need to "run from anything". Anyone who know even a bit of logic will know you are just blowing smoke.

>Look who's "blowing" smoke? Anyone reading the posts you made will know you are simply self-deluded in believing that I'm "blowing smoke".

Besides strawman, ad-hominem, non-sequitur etc, what else can you come up with?
>Simple. Read my replies to you on my blog.

With regards to the Critical Text, you obviously do not know what I was talking about.
>Wow. You are a good liar. Well, the readers of your blog CAN read YOUR words on my blog where I expose your inanity. I'm sure they have brains to think with.

Even THE Critical Text published by WH and later by UBS etc do give the varient readings among the manuscripts, so your point is moot.
>Really? You sure you know what I'm talking about? YOU (yes, you) confused "critical text" with the minority family of texts e.g. A, B etc, and you are still insisting that you are right? See my expose of your confusion:

http://god-antithesis.blogspot.com/2008/10/someone-who-claims-to-understand.html

If you continue to misrepresent my position clearly even after being constantly refuted, there is nothing more to add to this conversation.

>I DID NOT "misrepresent" your position; I merely REFUTED your position (see my replies on my blog). Since when did you "refute" my position? Were you dreaming in Lalaland? Unless all the readers of your blog are like you, I'm sure they can think for themselves and see the kind of deluded liar you are.

May God have mercy upon you and save you from the gutter of irrationality you are in.
>Like you called Barth a heretic, now you want to pronounce judgment on me? How prideful can one gets?

Just btw, if anyone really wants to know, I can do a sentence by sentence deconstruction of Antithesis' posts which shows the many logical fallacies he has committed in them.
>Try it then; I'll ensure you'll make a fool of yourself. You need a little shakin' up, you know, kiddo? Too much pride and self-confidence in yourself, mate. Want to see how silly your "logic" is when you tried to "deconstruct" my position?

Read this:

http://god-antithesis.blogspot.com/2008/10/clarkians-lie-just-to-look-good.html

Hope your readers are willing to read my replies instead of parroting your points. And BTW, your subject-verb agreement needs brushing up.

And since Daniel Chew couldn’t deal with the arguments I presented, he now hides behind his fellow bloggers.

Daniel Chew wrote, “Oh, FYI, I have taken the liberty to post this on an online Christian ministry blog of which I am a contributor to. You can be rest assured that the heresy you are advocating will be exposed before the wider Christian community and they will not be misled by false teachers like you.”

He calls my position heresy. Suddenly, various Evangelicals in Christendom who disagree with him, and who do not believe that language can convey propositions PERFECTLY are condemned as heretics.

Daniel Chew, do you want to burn me to death?

Clarkians Lie Just To Look Good

This is a roundup of the discussion with PuritanReformed and his bulldog.

The PuritanReformed guy had just written a post to distort and lie about the discussion we had. If you want the exact words used in this debate, read the original comments at my blog. I had saved every word he wrote on his blog.

PuritanReformed claims,

"If p refers to the ability of language to communicate perfectly, and q refers to the actual empirical fact of language being largely able to communicate truth perfectly, then the propositions "If p, then q" is most definitely true."

Considering one who claims to know basic logic, it is embarrassing to even expose such a self-deluded fellow such as he.

“If P, then Q” is sound only if the premises are true. Know the difference between “valid” and “sound?” An argument may be valid, BUT UNSOUND.

Let’s examine the premises.

PR claims, “If p refers to the ability of language to communicate perfectly,” then it follows that q = “the actual empirical fact of language being largely able to communicate truth perfectly.”

Q is a bare assertion; and if P then Q is a non-sequitur.

Since when do we observe that language is “largely able to communicate truth perfectly?” Where is that “empirical” or scientific proof or evidence? PR must be sitting in his room totally unaware of what is going on in linguistics, philosophy or even real life. P is overtly false.

Notice he used the term, “true” in his own words, "If p, then q" is most definitely true.” Syllogistic reasoning can only be valid/invalid and/or sound/unsound. He doesn’t even know this basic fact.

His claim that we commit the mistake of "If ~p, therefore ~q" or also known as denying the antecedent is therefore a straw man. His conditional, "If P then Q," is not even sound in the first place, and he doesn't even know that.

We insist therefore, "~q, therefore ~p," which is definitely valid.

But there's more!

His reasoning is actually fatally flawed, and he has no clue why. Let me explain.

Not only “if P then Q” is unsound, it is also circular when we consider the primary premises P and Q.

PuritanReformed claims, “If p refers to the ability of language to communicate perfectly,” then it follows that q = “the actual empirical fact of language being largely able to communicate truth perfectly.”

But Q (the consequent) already assumes as a matter of fact that language is “largely able to communicate truth perfectly,” which is exactly what we are investigating (i.e. the ability of language to communicate perfectly), thereby begging the question and making his conditional statement circular in reasoning. “Largely able to” refers to “ability to,” and this is rephrased as "ability of" and inserted into P as the antecedent.

How circular in his thinking can one gets?

Further Points of Note

1) PR asked the question, “Question: In your opinion, is there ONE meaning for any particular sentence made by anyone?”

He then concluded, “Antithesis totally misunderstand the question that I was asking, which was about a particular statement; a single statement, NOT two similar statements used in two different contexts.”

See how he twists the original question into another one – the fallacy of redefinition? (which only serves to emphasize the ambiguity of language)

He asked if there is only ONE meaning to a particular sentence.

I gave him one sentence – which is made up of only one word, “Great!” – and put that sentence in two different context.

Instead of honestly saying that the two sentences were the SAME – with EXACTLY the SAME word – he used the word “similar.” Now “same” and “similar” are used very differently in theology and philosophy.

You may have similar eyes to your dad’s, but they are not the same as your dad’s eyes.

Secondly, I didn’t misunderstand his silly reasoning. The example I gave is as follows:

Let’s consider the sentence, “Great!” in different contexts.

A boy got his exam results, and it is an A. He said, “Great!”

A boy got his trousers torn by his school bullies. He said, “Great!”

Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing? But according to you, they both mean the same thing. One meaning, right?

My example must be understood in the context of PR’s previous statement. PuritanReformed said,

“Language is used by individuals. If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words. That is all I mean by that.”

Since he made the fatuous statement that words have “official meaning[s],” I did a reductio ad absurdum on him:

I asked, “Ah, for the word “Church,” what is the “official” meaning? Most dictionaries would furnish more than 10 different meanings. So which is “official?’”

2) So in the context of our previous discussion on the “official” meaning of words – which PR had no reply thus far – I gave him the example of two sentences having exactly the same word used in two different contexts.

I had asked him the “official” meaning of the word “Church.”

PR said, “So? The meaning of a word as used in CONTEXT is only one, not the meaning of a word divorced from any context.”

I replied,

“But you haven’t answered my question. You claim that there is an OFFICIAL meaning for every word. Which is it for the word “church?”

Furthermore, even if you claim that context helps to interpret the meaning of each word, CONTEXT NEEDS INTERPRETATION AS WELL. So how do you interpret the context IN WHICH A PARTICULAR WORD APPEARS? Remember that “context” in language is ALSO MADE UP OF WORDS.

So which is the “official” meaning of a particular context? Infinite regress here?”

PR doesn’t seem to realize that, besides committing logical fallacies, he doesn’t even understand what these fallacies are all about. It is evident that he has no clue because he doesn’t address them AT ALL in his subsequent replies.

a) Firstly, PR claims that there is an official meaning for every word in language (see his words above), but is unable to give me THE OFFICIAL meaning for the word “Church.”

b) Secondly, he claims that context – which is likewise made up of words in the form of subject/predicate/complex predicate – decides what “official” meaning to use. But isn’t this infinite regress? So which “official” meaning of the context (which is made up of words) should we use to interpret the “official” meaning of the word “church?”

c) Thirdly, he begs the question when he wrote, “If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words.”

He claims that there is an official meaning for every word used.

But which “official meaning” of the word “official” should we use when we define his terminology of “official meaning of a word?” Obviously, he takes “the official meaning” to be numerous meanings, depending upon the context in which the word appears. So, is the "official meaning" of a word ALL the dictionary/lexical definitions for a particular word? And yet PR insists that language communicates truths perfectly and is unambiguous.

This just reinforced my point that language is ambiguous at times, which PR vehemently denied. I am not denying that language does communicate truths; it just doesn't do so perfectly at times. That is why we have so many different interpretations of Scripture.

3) PR claimed, “This failure to distinguish between sentences/phrases and propositions is a very fundamental error in logical argumentation — one which is covered in basic logic class within the first few weeks, and therefore it should not be made by those who have studied logic in any degree whatsoever.”

Going back to my example of the two sentences with exactly the SAME word.

Let’s consider the sentence, “Great!” in two different contexts.

A boy got his exam results, and it is an A. He said, “Great!”

A boy got his trousers torn by his school bullies. He said, “Great!”

PR just proved my point. Two SAME sentence with EXACTLY the SAME words, but conveying two different PROPOSITIONS.

PR seems to understand this when he wrote:

1st boy: Great = I am happy to have accomplish this feat (of scoring an A)

2nd boy: Great = A terrible thing has happened to me (trousers torn by school bullies) (and I am being sarcastic about it)

SAME word in two SAME sentences, two different propositions expressed by the SAME word. What more do we need?

He has just (fatuously) proved my point that language cannot convey meaning perfectly, and is sometimes open to misinterpretation and ambiguity. But he STILL denies that language is ambiguous.

4) PR also claimed (to save his dignity?) that I had missed his reductio ad absurdum. But he didn’t seem to get that I was using a reductio on his reductio, a play on rhetoric.

5) We talked about textual criticism where I showed him that he didn’t have the words of the original autographs. He put on an air of knowledge concerning “critical texts,” but to our amazement, he doesn’t even KNOW what is a “critical text!”

6) Lastly, in my previous post, I asked him numerous questions which he cannot answer. He thinks that simple ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi can redirect the argument somewhere. I said:

You – PuritanReformed – claimed that language communicates the propositions of Scripture perfectly, but try and think a little. It's really not too difficult.

You don't even know which are the original words of "Scripture" as found in the autographs. So what you have is at best bits and pieces of the original Scripture.

What “perfect” propositions are you talking about? You don’t even have the original words of the “Bible.”

The language which you claim is able to communicate truths “perfectly” is indeed communicating whatever you claim is “perfect” from these eclectic texts which are not the original words of Scripture.

Geddit?

Finally, as I have asked you before and I’ll ask you again, why are there so many different interpretations of the same Scripture by regenerate men if language communicates truths so very perfectly?

Puritanreformed, at least practice basic integrity and try to REMEMBER what you had written? Fortunately, I saved all your comments, so there is no way you can run from what you had written.

How Clarkians “Debate” With Me

PuritanReformed newfound bulldog, Joel, has discovered an extremely effective and logical strategy to win the “debate” we had on his blog here and here.

It’s called censorship and double standards. He simply deleted all my posts, and left one single comment as “evidence.” When you have deleted the other relevant posts exposing your weaknesses, you can do whatever you want to conjure up such “evidence.”

Joel allowed his chum to rain unreasonable ad hominems on my posts, but only points out one single post where I responded with the slightest hint of getting “personal.” And I really meant it sincerely for his own good.

What’s more, disagreeing with them is called the “greatest” case of bigotry according to Joel. How bigoted can one gets?

This PuritanReformed fellow goes around (I got to glean this from reading some of his older posts, or you can try searching for the word “heretic” on his blog) calling various Christian pastors and teachers “apostates” and “heretics,” and he seems to get a kick by all this name-calling. Do you really think your position in Christ will be more secure, or that your reputation for “ministry” would improve, if you were to continue maligning Christian pastors and teachers?

And now he gets to own his new pet bulldog called Joel who parrots his every word.

That is how Clarkians debate when cornered – with ad hominems, censorship, and by deleting every post you had painstakingly written to discuss the issues.

They can’t handle anything except what they had read from Clark. Talk about being close-minded.

It's Like Talking To Beavis And Butthead

Discussing theology with Puritan-Reformed is like having a conversation with Beavis and Butthead.

PuritanReformed wrote:

"Antithesis seems to have so much time in his hands to attempt to communicate his "truths". Of course, since language cannot perfectly convey truth, who exactly knows what he is actually saying? Maybe when he says "it does speak a lot concerning your reasoning ability", we should interpret it 'literally' as a compliment instead, as in "your reasoning ability" = subject, "it does speak" = verb, "a lot" = quantity, therefore we should interpret this phrase as Antithesis praising Joel's great intellectual ability! Of course, since this whole thing is a silly discussion anyway, perhaps the adjective "silly" is meant to describe his tirades on my blog in wasting my time responding to his silly questions?"

Is this really beyond him?

PR whined, “therefore we should interpret this phrase as Antithesis praising Joel's great intellectual ability!”

You just proved my point again: language didn’t communicate whatever I want to say to you perfectly. This is not what I meant.

You – PuritanReformed – claimed that language communicates the propositions of Scripture perfectly, but try and think a little. It's really not too difficult.

You don't even know which are the original words of "Scripture" as found in the autographs. So what you have is at best bits and pieces of the original Scripture.

What “perfect” propositions are you talking about? You don’t even have the original words of the “Bible.”

The language which you claim is able to communicate truths “perfectly” is indeed communicating whatever you claim is “perfect” from these eclectic texts which are not the original words of Scripture.

Geddit?

Finally, as I have asked you before and I’ll ask you again, why are there so many different interpretations of the same Scripture by regenerate men if language communicates truths so very perfectly?

Someone who claims to understand textual criticism, and yet does not know what is a “critical text.”

This is my reply to the fatuous response by PuritanReformed:

Original discussion here. Words by Puritanreformed Daniel Chew in red.

1) LOL. How did you pass your reading comprehension in English language in the first place? I was talking about the irrationality of the creature which has nothing to do with the ability of language (an impersonal tool) to convey truths/thoughts perfectly. Talk about faulting the tool for the ineptness of the person yielding it.

>PR doesn’t seem to get it: the end result is – language CANNOT convey propositions PERFECTLY to man (be it the irrationality of the person, the inadequacy of the language etc). And he had previously (and confidently) claimed that regenerate man has a noetic structure that can enable him to understand the Bible perfectly well.

2) I gave him a valid example and asked, "Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing?"

PR wrote: “No, becuase they are two different sentences! Go brush up your logic!”

How can two sentences with exactly the same words – “great!”- be TWO DIFFERENT SENTENCES? (see my comments above)

HOW DESPERATE CAN ONE GETS? Who needs to “brush up [his] logic?”

3) Like the heretic Karl Barth, and all the postmodern deconstructionists? Why am I NOT convinced they are the right authority to appeal to?

>See how he jumps from one irrelevant authority to another (red herring)? I asked him to check with a logician; he claims that I asked him to check with Karl Barth.

Desperate fellow. And he resorts to ad hominem - Karl Barth is now classified as a heretic.

4) So what makes you so sure that that 1% or around there of imperfectness does not cause your message to be somehow lost or distorted? You may NOT argue from the fact that I understand you because that can be used to support my case.

>The existence of communication does not presuppose the existence of PERFECT communication. See how illogical a Clarkian gets when he is cornered?

He claims that he doesn’t understand me; but he insists on getting his feet wet with mud by posting such irrelevant and illogical replies. Seems that he is proving my point: language simply cannot perfectly convey my message to him.

5) I asked, "Oh, please enlighten me. What is “fully” preserved? How is that different from “perfectly” preserved?"

PR answered, “Fully preserved means that the very words of Scripture is preserved for us (which could include being preserved in the plurality of manuscripts). Perfectly preserved refers to any varient of the perfect bible theory which states that God has preserved the very words of Scripture in any single manuscript or tradition.”

>So you believe in perfect preservation of the autographs in the extant apographs. But how do you know which word – presuming that you are correct with the preservation theory you propound – is the “correct” word from the autograph from the thousands of extant apographs we have today?

So when you exegete “scripture,” how do you know whether you are exegeting genuine scripture or erroreous scripture (or even exegeting nonsense)?

Wishful thinking perhaps?

6) So now you know how to read my own words better than me? I think not!

>Proves my point: language cannot communicate proposition/information perfectly to Man.

7) I asked him the “official” meaning of the word “Church.”

PR said, “So? The meaning of a word as used in CONTEXT is only one, not the meaning of a word divorced from any context.”

>But you haven’t answered my question. You claim that there is an OFFICIAL meaning for every word. Which is it for the word “church?”

Secondly, even if you claim that context helps to interpret the meaning of each word, CONTEXT NEEDS INTERPRETATION AS WELL. So how do you interpret the context IN WHICH A PARTICULAR WORD APPEARS? Remember that “context” in language is ALSO MADE UP OF WORDS.

So which is the “official” meaning of a particular context? Infinite regress here?

8a) I asked, "So is preservation of Scripture perfect OR imperfect?"

PR says: Preservation of Scripture is 'perfect' in the sense that it is fully preserved.

>Wishful thinking. You claim that it is fully preserved in extant manuscripts (bare assertion), but where is the proof?

Even if you claim that the Bible says so, isn’t this circular reasoning? How can you say that the “bible” says so if you do not have the original words of the Bible in the first place?

Circular reasoning:

a) The imperfect bible (which imperfect bible are you talking about?) says that the Words are perfectly preserved.

b) The words are perfectly preserved because I have faith in my imperfect bible (not the autographs) that it contains the words of the autographs, and since it says so.

c) And where does it say so? In the imperfect bible – which is believed to be the same as the autographs, but we don’t have the autographs, and we don’t really know which are the words of the autographs.

d) My ESV is not exactly the same as the autographs, but I use it for my imperfect “bible” studies, and of course, it may not be the same as the autographs, although I believe it to be the “words” of God – knowing that we do not really have the words of God which is in the mass of extant manuscripts. And I know that the words are in the mass of extant manuscripts because my imperfect bible – which is not really the exact words of God – says so.

8b) PR says: It is not perfect however in the sense that it is preserved in any ONE single manuscript or scribal tradition.

>So we don’t really have IN OUR HANDS/USAGE any perfect “bible.” So your “perfect” preservation is only theoretical. In reality, there is no such “bible” for us to exegete from.

So how do you know if you are not exegeting nonsense?

9) I said, "No, that’s not a straw man; I was ASKING a question. How can a question be a straw man? It’s not even a proposition. Know the difference between a proposition and a question?"

PR said, “Oh, so that wasn't a rhetorical question? Perhaps you may care to phrase your questions as questions and not insinuations.”

>Proves my point AGAIN: language cannot communicate proposition/information perfectly to Man. He now blames my “phrasing,” but I really feel the phrasing was perfect.

Circular reasoning again:

1) Since language is perfect as a tool for communication, it must be the phrasing that was bad.

2) Since it was the phrasing that was bad, it still remains that language is perfect as a tool for communication.

10) I asked, "Let me clarify: Is regenerate Man always perfect in his intellect/noetic structure when understanding Scripture, with no negative noetic effects whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?"

PR said, “Irrelevant. The topic is on the instrument of language, NOT on the person, as I have mentioned already earlier. The ability of language is the one YOU are attacking, not the capability of the person using the instrument of language.”

>Ah, it seems that according to PR, language can communicate APART from the person.

Propositions are understood with minds; language is able to communicate anything solely because of the existence of minds (humans in this case). So how is that irrelevant? You don’t seem to even understand the very basics of the philosophy of language.

11) I asked, "My question: So are all KJV/NKJV/TNIV users using those versions because they had studied the issues and come to a conclusion?"

PR said - Irrelevant.

>Bare assertion, isn’t it?

12) I asked, "And you haven’t answered, “What are the underlying Greek texts used to translate the ESV? What critical theory are these texts based on?”
And you CLAIMED that you do not support the WH theory of textual criticism"

PR insists, “Absolute non-sequitur. There is absolutely no logical correspondence between the WH theory of textual criticism and the usage of the critical texts. The critical texts were present even if Westcort [sic] and Hort did not examine them.”

>The ESV is translated from the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament 4th ed. and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Both are eclectic texts.

PR, you mean that these eclectic texts were already collated before Westcott and Hort?

PR, please do your homework before making a fool of yourself.

Furthermore, both the UBSGNT 4th edition and the NTG were all derived solely via WH theory. Have you studied this issue before? Seems like you use the ESV out of ignorance, my friend!

13) I said, "But the critical text is based upon the WH theory"

PR insists, “Nonsense! Is the Majority text based upon the textual theory of Desiderius Erasmus, or of Theodore Beza or Stephanus? One is a theory; the other is a physical text.”

PR doesn’t even know what a “critical text” is. In the case of the ESV, the critical texts used in translation were eclectic texts derived using the WH theory. They contain more than 1 family of Greek texts.

Wikipedia says, “The critical text is an eclectic text compiled by a committee that examines a large number of manuscripts in order to weigh which reading is thought closest to the lost original.”

For example, I purchase my critical texts online from Logos.

Quoting Logos, “What about the NA26 and UBS3? The NA27/UBS4 is only the latest "critical" edition of the Greek text. Prior to the release of this text, the critical text was the NA26/UBS3 text. Thus, the old Logos Library System had the NA26 text (NA26.lsf/NA26.lix). The NA26 is to the UBS3 as the NA27 is to the UBS4 text. So what changed between NA26 and 27 or between UBS 3 and 4? Not the main Greek text. The body of NA26 is the same as that of NA27. Likewise for UBS3 and UBS4. The difference between NA26 and NA27 is in the apparatus (see below). The difference between UBS3 and UBS4 is similar. That is, the changes are all in the apparatus, not the main body of Greek text. The apparatus changes in both editions are significant.”

Know what is a “critical text” now?

14) I said, "It’s almost like saying, “I trust the works of Jacques Derrida on language, but that doesn’t mean that I trust his theory of deconstruction.”"

PR again insists, “False analogy! Unless you are saying that WH created the Critical Text ex nihilo? Anybody who is willing to take the time and effort and expenditure can look up the original texts ie Sinaticus and copies of Vaticanus, Aleph etc and bypass WH altogether.”

>PR, I don’t know what to say to you! I’m talking about YOUR ESV here!

Your ESV is based upon the critical texts, which are derived using the WH theory. You are not reading A, B etc per se! As a reminder, your ESV is based upon eclectic texts - the critical editions of UBSGNT and the NTG.

Now I know you are really ignorant.

A Silly Discussion With An Apparently Dull Mind Part 6

Continuing the discussion:

(Daniel Chew's words in red)

Antithesis said...
Hi PR,

I'm going back home today (Sing is not my home, mind you), so I'll chat again when I have the time.

I read you post, but I'm not convinced. Anyway, thanks for the effort.

It's a pity I didn't have fun with conservative Joel. Hope he'll have fun in TTC. He'll learn much good there :)

My convictions?

See my brand new blog:

http://god-antithesis.blogspot.com/
7/10/08 12:42



Antithesis said...
Dear PR:

I do not have the time to comment fully, but for now, the following will suffice.

1) I wrote, "Again, if language can express truths of Scripture perfectly, why are there so many different interpretations of the SAME Scripture? "

You said, “How about sin, and traditionalism?”

And you claimed that language can convey propositions to man PERFECTLY? Self-contradiction here? You are tacitly admitting that sin and traditionalism had confounded Man’s ability/noetic structure to understand Scripture. There you go – you agree with me!

Conclusion: Language CANNOT convey truths/propositions perfectly to Man.

2) The argument is unsound because the premise "If p, then q" is false. However, my stated argument is soun because the conditional premise IS true.

>Nope. Your primary premise (If P, then Q) is false. So, your argument is unsound. See above.

3) You should go and be a lawyer; words seem to be mere putty to you. Question: In your opinion, is there ONE meaning for any particular sentence made by anyone?

Let’s consider the sentence, “Great!” in different contexts.

A boy got his exam results, and it is an A. He said, “Great!”
A boy got his trousers torn by his school bullies. He said, “Great!”

Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing?

But according to you, they both mean the same thing. One meaning, right?

4) Appeal to authority?

>That’s logically valid, unless I appeal to the WRONG authority.

4b) For someone who argues against the ability of words to convey truths perfectly …

>Perfectly? I don’t think so. Straw man?

4c) … you sure are using a lot of words to persuade me, as if your words can convey your meaning perfectly.

>It doesn’t, but it does convey meaning albeit imperfectly.

5) I asked, "Which leaves us with: God did not preserve, partially preserve or perfectly/completely preserve Scripture. Which one will it be?"

You answered, ‘None of the options. Scripture is fully preserved; if you refuse to understand our position and constantly misrepresent it, then this particular area of discussion is done.”

>Oh, please enlighten me. What is “fully” preserved? How is that different from “perfectly” preserved?

And what is “our” position? Define it and I wouldn’t “misrepresent” it. Thanks.

6) I asked, “That’s so puzzling! You mean the same Koine Greek (as a language) used in NT/Scripture can express truths perfectly, but is unable to express truths perfectly elsewhere?”

You said, “Language is used by individuals. If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words. That is all I mean by that.”

>Go read your comment again. This is obviously not what you meant, not unless you agree that words can have more than one meaning.

>Ah, for the word “Church,” what is the “official” meaning? Most dictionaries would furnish more than 10 different meanings. So which is “official?”

7) Answer: Because the Scriptures tell us that its own words are preserved (cf Mt. 5:18).

>So what kind of “preservation” is that? Again, full versus perfect/imperfect preservation? Are all the words of the autographs preserved for us TODAY in your version of “full” preservation?”

So is preservation of Scripture perfect OR imperfect? This is not a false dilemma. There are really only these two options, as ‘perfect’ and ‘imperfect’ are contradictory terms in logic. You like logic, right?

8) I asked, "However, are you saying that regenerate Man is PERFECT in his intellect/understanding, with no negative noetic effect whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?"

You claimed, “Straw man again. I was saying that regenerate Man is able to be logical wrt the things of God, and whether they are so can be seen by them. I DID not say that they WILL always be logical.”

>No, that’s not a straw man; I was ASKING a question. How can a question be a straw man? It’s not even a proposition. Know the difference between a proposition and a question?

Let me clarify: Is regenerate Man always perfect in his intellect/noetic structure when understanding Scripture, with no negative noetic effects whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?

9) Give me a break! Are all KJV users believers in KJVOnly-ism? Or maybe they are all TR only-ists? Or how about the NKJV users? Are NKJV users supporters partially supporting the TR and partially supporting Westcort and Hort? And are all users of Inclusive Language versions like the TNIV egalitarians?

>My question: So are all KJV/NKJV/TNIV users using those versions because they had studied the issues and come to a conclusion?

I wrote, “Well, your preference and usage of the ESV speaks volumes about your textual convictions, unless, of course, you are using the ESV out of ignorance.” See the exception clause behind my sentence?

So you could be using the ESV out of ignorance, or for some reasons despite your convictions, chose to continue using the ESV.

And you haven’t answered, “What are the underlying Greek texts used to translate the ESV? What critical theory are these texts based on?”

And you CLAIMED that you do not support the WH theory of textual criticism.

Any thoughts?

10) Non-belief in the corruption of the Critical Text does not mean that I am a Westcort and Hort supporter, if you just but apply some basic Aristotelian logic to the issue.

>But the critical text is based upon the WH theory. That’s not even Aristotelian, that’s common sense.

It’s almost like saying, “I trust the works of Jacques Derrida on language, but that doesn’t mean that I trust his theory of deconstruction.”

Obviously, if you trust the critical text as the most accurate form of eclectic text, then you must trust the theory behind its derivation/construction – which is the WH theory.
7/10/08 14:13

This is where he starts to get hysterical and illogical. Watch these comments by the Puritan Reformed guy in Singapore:



PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:

1) "You said, “How about sin, and traditionalism?”
And you claimed that language can convey propositions to man PERFECTLY? Self-contradiction here? You are tacitly admitting that sin and traditionalism had confounded Man’s ability/noetic structure to understand Scripture. There you go – you agree with me!"

LOL. How did you pass your reading comprehension in English language in the first place? I was talking about the irrationality of the creature which has nothing to do with the ability of language (an impersonal tool) to convey truths/thoughts perfectly. Talk about faulting the tool for the ineptness of the person yielding it.

2) "Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing?"

No, becuase they are two different sentences! Go brush up your logic!

3) "That’s logically valid, unless I appeal to the WRONG authority"

Like the heretic Karl Barth, and all the postmodern deconstructionists? Why am I NOT convinced they are the right authority to appeal to?

4) "It doesn’t, but it does convey meaning albeit imperfectly"

So what makes you so sure that that 1% or around there of imperfectness does not cause your message to be somehow lost or distorted? You may NOT argue from the fact that I understand you because that can be used to support my case.

5) "Oh, please enlighten me. What is “fully” preserved? How is that different from “perfectly” preserved?"

Fully preserved means that the very words of Scripture is preserved for us (which could include being preserved in the plurality of manuscripts). Perfectly preserved refers to any varient of the perfect bible theory which states that God has preserved the very words of Scripture in any single manuscript or tradition.

6) "Go read your comment again. This is obviously not what you meant, not unless you agree that words can have more than one meaning."

So now you know how to read my own words better than me? I think not!

7) "Most dictionaries would furnish more than 10 different meanings"

So? The meaning of a word as used in CONTEXT is only one, not the meaning of a word divorced from any context.

8) "So is preservation of Scripture perfect OR imperfect?"

Preservation of Scripture is 'perfect' in the sense that it is fully preserved. It is not perfect however in the sense that it is preserved in any ONE single manuscript or scribal tradition.

9) "No, that’s not a straw man; I was ASKING a question. How can a question be a straw man? It’s not even a proposition. Know the difference between a proposition and a question?"

Oh, so that wasn't a rhetorical question? Perhaps you may care to phrase your questions as questions and not insinuations.

10) "Let me clarify: Is regenerate Man always perfect in his intellect/noetic structure when understanding Scripture, with no negative noetic effects whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?"

Irrelevant. The topic is on the instrument of language, NOT on the person, as I have mentioned already earlier. The ability of language is the one YOU are attacking, not the capability of the person using the instrument of language.
7/10/08 18:17

PuritanReformed said...
Antithesis:

11) "My question: So are all KJV/NKJV/TNIV users using those versions because they had studied the issues and come to a conclusion?"

Irrelevant.

12) "And you haven’t answered, “What are the underlying Greek texts used to translate the ESV? What critical theory are these texts based on?”
And you CLAIMED that you do not support the WH theory of textual criticism"

Absolute non-sequitur. There is absolutely no logical correspondence between the WH theory of textual criticism and the usage of the critical texts. The critical texts were present even if Westcort and Hort did not examine them.

13) "But the critical text is based upon the WH theory"

Nonsense! Is the Majority text based upon the textual theory of Desiderius Erasmus, or of Theodore Beza or Stephanus? One is a theory; the other is a physical text.

14) "It’s almost like saying, “I trust the works of Jacques Derrida on language, but that doesn’t mean that I trust his theory of deconstruction.”"

False analogy! Unless you are saying that WH created the Critical Text ex nihilo? Anybody who is willing to take the time and effort and expenditure can look up the original texts ie Sinaticus and copies of Vaticanus, Aleph etc and bypass WH altogether.