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?”