Tuesday, October 21, 2008

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?”


Anonymous said...

Hi AT,

Interesting blog. I found you through Daniel Chew.

Just curious, but will you be writing something else, or will you spend all your time and effort tearing Daniel Chew down?

A friend
aka "a watcher of the watcher of watchman"

Antithesis said...

Hi A Friend aka "a watcher of the watcher of watchman,"

I have no intention to write incessantly about Watchman Chew (pluh-leese, use the correct respectful appellation. Watchman is an office deserving great honor and praise!).

I personally feel he needs a little shakin' up. And when the shakin' up is done, he'll be ... unchanged?

Isn't it the same sin as Lucifer - Pride?


Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Antithesis said...

ken e wrote, “It's your own pride or [are] you are are [sic] being overly obsessed with Daniel, because you didn't read it right.[sic]?”

Actually, Ken, your words fit your rabid knee-jerk response.

Let me ask you the same question (with correct grammar, of course):

Is it your own pride or are you being overly obsessed with Daniel, because you didn't read it right?

I quoted the words from DANIEL’S WRITINGS, NOT GRUDEM’S ARTICLE. So, yes, my comment was spot on and within the context of Daniel’s writings, NOT Grudem’s.

And I was criticizing Daniel’s heresy concerning his belief in the possibility of salvation through the Law for fallen Man, not Christ. See:


Jesus Christ is not mere man, unless you got your Christology all wrong. And Jesus was sinless, so He has no need to get saved (unless, of course, you are a heretic like Daniel Chew).

And pre-fall Adam is … pre-fall, so why does he need to be saved from sin? Oh, you mean Adam was made in sin? And the “covenant of works” was for Adam to get “saved?” Of course not.

So when Daniel claimed that there is a possibility of salvation through the Law, he wasn’t referring to pre-fall Adam or to Jesus Christ. Both of them do not need to get saved. Geddit?

Daniel’s belief is clearly heresy, but you are too obsessed with his lies to see the point.

By the way, I like your profile picture. You should have stuck your tongue out. That's cooler. :)

God bless you brother,

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Antithesis said...

Everyone likes that picture of mine, but you don't. You're just obsessed with Daniel.

>You got it all wrong. Like Daniel Chew, I am a watchman; a watchman of watchmen. My god-given responsibility is to watch over him and breathe down his shoulders all his life. I am my brother’s keeper.

When was the last time you shared the gospel with someone else?

>Well, when did you last share the gospel with someone else?

You should be living a Christ-centered life, instead of a Daniel-centered one.

>Oh yes, yes, I’m Christ-centered, therefore, I take my calling as a watchman of watchmen seriously. I am inspired by Watchman Chew’s enthusiastic watching.

My writing is horrible, like my speaking.

>Then you should bridle your tongue.

My speech is just as worse, I spent a good part of my life in speech therapy. I will test you..are you going to make fun of that also?

>When did I make fun of you?

Anonymous said...

It has been a week since you wrote anything. Are you going to write anything new?

An Interested reader...