Saturday, March 14, 2009

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Watchman Daniel Chew Says God Appointed Him!

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong’s effort to discredit, slander, and destroy Pastor Joseph Prince’s reputation and ministry has resulted in almost one thousand comments on Chew’s personal blog.

I will not dwell further on his asinine post, but I would like to focus upon his most recent reply to a poster called Staub1212.(comment dated 14 March 2009 12:44AM)

The following is an abstract of the conversation:

Staub1212: Daniel, your proclamation of who is going to hell and who is condemned is frightening.

Watchman Chew: Really? Do you believe that non-Christians are going to hell if they continue to reject Christ? If so, then I think you should have a good look in the mirror. Your proclamation of who is going to hell (non-believers) and who is condemned (non-believers) is frightening.

Watchman Chew here makes a deliberate logical fallacy – a false analogy.

Staub1212 commented on Chew's perennial efforts in calling down fire and brimstone upon PROFESSING CHRISTIANS. Chew appointed himself as watchman, and then goes around judging who is saved and who is unsaved.

Here Chew attempted to retort Staub1212 by making a “judgment” analogy with PROFESSING UNBELIEVERS.

If someone claims that one is a Christian, WHO ARE YOU DANIEL CHEW HUICONG TO CALL THEM REPROBATES OR UNSAVED? You may suspect a person to be a false believer, but how dare you pronounce judgment upon a fellow brother or sister in Christ, calling down eternal damnation and reprobation upon this person?

Are you thinking that you are God?

On the other hand, unbelievers do profess themselves as non-Christians, and it is rational and reasonable to judge that these unbelievers are – unbelievers. At least for now, these are unbelievers, and that is what they claim to be.

But the most exciting comment from Daniel has yet to be displayed.

Perusing the conversation between Staub1212 and Watchman Chew a little further:

Staub1212: Be careful Daniel about how you "appoint yourself" as one to watch the watchmen

Watchman Chew: I do not appoint myself. God is the only one who appoints a person. If you have a problem with that, find God.

This is it! Do we need anymore evidence that Chew is probably mentally ill? Chew, plainly and clearly, makes the following proposition:

“I do not appoint myself. God is the only one who appoints a person. If you have a problem with that, find God.”

Chew claims the following:

1.He did not appoint himself as Watchman;

2. God did; and

3. “If you have a problem with that, find God,” which can be interpreted as, “If you do not believe that, then look for God and ask Him.”

Chew appointed himself as Watchman Chew. Then he turns around and claims that God had appointed him!

Logically speaking, this is called a bare assertion (which is a logical fallacy. Period.). Anyone in the mortuary or the mental hospital can claim that God “appointed” him as whatever (e.g. Pope, Watchman, Archangel Michael etc).

However, according to shrinks, this is clinically called visual and/or auditory hallucinations which occur in patients with mental problems like schizophrenia or paranoid delusion. It seldom occurs in patients with Asperger syndrome, but it is not considered very rare, especially if one is on medications.

Questions for Watchman Chew-The-Appointed-One

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, for Pete's sake, if God appointed you, was your Pastor Paul Goh there to witness your ordination as Watchman?

Were photographs taken with, say, a graduation gown-like thingy and a fatuous smile?

Did God appear on those photographs?

Most importantly, is Pastor Paul Goh and the elders from CERC under your spiritual "watching" as well?

Hear ye, hear ye, Watchman-Apostle-Pope Daniel Chew Huicong claims that God came down to earth, and anointed him as grand master Watchman!

“This is my beloved Watchman; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him.”

- Memoirs of Watchman Chew

PS: Dear Daniel, this is my last question for today, "What medicine are you on?"

Friday, March 6, 2009

According to Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, All Churches Involved in Festival of Praise are Blaspheming God and Condemned to Hell

There was a very interesting Report on the Festival of Praise written by the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong some time back. My friend Monica pointed it out to me; and could someone please explain to me why wasn’t I the least bit surprised.

The venerable Watchman closed his report with the following statement,

“May God have mercy on us all for this blasphemy conducted in the name of Christ, and may he grant the people involved repentance unto eternal life in our Lord Jesus Christ.”

From his report and the aforementioned statement, the Watchman had accused the churches involved in the Festival of Praise of the following crimes:

1) All churches involved in the Festival of Praise are blaspheming God.

These include several large churches in Singapore namely City Harvest Church, Riverlife Church, Church of Singapore, and Covenant Evangelical Free Church. Pastors and church leaders specifically named by Daniel Chew Huicong include Rev Kong Hee, Canon James Wong, Worship leader Don Moen, and Rev. Ed Silvoso. Therefore, according to the Watchman-Pope-Prophet-Apostle Daniel Chew Huicong, all the above churches, church leaders, and pastors are guilty of blaspheming God Almighty. But that is not all.

Since Watchman Chew insisted that the blasphemy was committed by all those involved, this sin must be committed by the Festival of Praise Committee members as well as other attendees which include Rev. Chia Beng Hock, Pastor Ezekiel Tan, John Suan, Rev Dr Phil Pringles, Bob Fitts, Rev Mark Conner and many others.

2) All churches, pastors, leaders, and church members involved are going to hell unless they repent “unto eternal life.”

A bolder assertion by the Watchman Chew was this: these churches together with their leaders and members ought to repent of their blasphemy and pray to God that He will grant them eternal life. This is a pronouncement-cum-judgment that all churches, pastors, leaders, and members involved are hell-bound blasphemers unless they repent of their alleged blasphemy. And this “blasphemy” – which the Watchman had accused them of – is merely a joint worship of the Christian God within the Singapore Indoor Stadium.

All in all, according to the revelations and prophecies of the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, the entire City Harvest Church, Riverlife Church, Church of Singapore, and Covenant Evangelical Free Church together with Rev Kong Hee, Canon James Wong, Worship leader Don Moen, Rev. Ed Silvoso, Rev. Chia Beng Hock, Pastor Ezekiel Tan, John Suan, Rev Dr Phil Pringles, Bob Fitts, Rev Mark Conner and many others involved in the Festival of Praise are heading straight for hell fire and are summarily condemned for blaspheming God within the Singapore Indoor Stadium.

And thanks to the great Watchman Chew we now know which churches and pastors in Singapore are going to be damned.

Furthermore, according to Rev Mark Conner (the Senior Minister of CityLife Church in Melbourne, Australia), Festival of Praise 2008 was attended by over 142 churches in Singapore. But according to Watchman Chew, all these 142 churches involved in the Festival of Praise are likewise hell-bound and blasphemers of the most holy faith.

Do you know what these 142 churches are? Let's ask the Watchman for more details, shouldn't we?

Be afraid, be very afraid!

If Watchman Chew can condemn more than 142 churches, their pastors and all their members to eternal hell fire, couldn't he pronounce judgment upon your puny soul as well?


Here are some of those pastors and leaders condemned to hell and decreed unto reprobation by our venerable Watchman Chew:

Tuesday, March 3, 2009

Threefold Office of the Venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong – Prophet, Pope, and Punisher

Blogging: Never before have so many people with so little to say said so
much to so few.
The venerable Watchman Chew has written a brand new post on Hebrews 13:17. Little did he know that this will indict him further as Pope, God, and Watchman. What do we call this? It’s called backfiring – backfired by his immense hypocrisy and pretention. Let us examine his short post. (This is not a verse by verse commentary of Pope Daniel Chew’s writings.)

Chew: “I am NOT arguing that we should rebel against our leaders nor am I am arguing for forcing our personal preferences down the throats of church leaders and expecting everybody to conform to our idea of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. It is expected that my enemies would slander and libel me as stating any of such errors, but this is totally not the case, and I disavow believing any of these errors.”

Oh yes, oh yes, Watchman Chew reminds us that we shouldn’t rebel against our leaders, and not to force our personal preferences down the throats of church leaders. This he does extremely well via calling down hell fire and brimstone upon those who disagree with him (all of whom are church leaders), anathematizing those who differ from him in theological views (all of whom are church leaders), and by criticizing pastors, elders, churches, church organizations and fellow bloggers for their differing theological views.

And yes, the venerable Watchman Chew does not rebel against “our leaders.” He only anathematizes them to eternal damnation and hell fire. That’s all.

What Chew Does Not Say

1) Watchman Chew is Pope and Apostle

Chew: “This line of argument is better known by its "sacred" form: "Thou shall not touch the Lord's anointed!" That Heb. 13:17 is not against criticism of churches, church leaders, Christian organizations and entire denominations can be easily deduced from Scripture.”

Oh yes, oh yes, I suppose by careful exegeses of relevant texts, we can deduce that we are called by Scripture to pronounce anathemas upon those we criticize, appoint ourselves as “watchmen” and pretend that we can decree anyone we “like” to eternal damnation and reprobation.

Chew: “The context in Hebrews already gave us one solution to this problem as it talks about Christian leaders who are keeping watch over our souls, and of speaking the Word of God. Therefore, those who are not keeping watch over our souls (in the sense of shepherding it) but are instead lording over the flock, and those who do not speak the Word of God, cannot be considered true Christian leaders (Modus tollens).”

What? Modus tollens of what proposition?

If P, then Q.

If P = Leaders teach the Word,

Then Q = They are true Christian leaders.
Modus tollens is:

If P, then Q.
Therefore, ¬P.

Watchman Chew is perhaps saying, “They are NOT true Christian leaders, therefore these leaders do NOT teach the Word.” So, by using modus tollens here, he makes a bare assertion i.e. that these leaders are “NOT true Christian leaders.” That is, not Q, therefore not P.

Another formulation is as follows:

If P = They are true Christian leaders,

Then Q = Leaders teach the Word.

Ah, this looks better, doesn’t it? If P, then Q; modus tollens would be:

"These leaders do NOT teach the Word, therefore they are NOT true Christian leaders."

Again, there would be much difficulty in accepting the Watchman’s formulation without further definitions and discussion.

What do you mean by the clause “teach the Word?” Do you mean an infallible interpretation of the Word, with the assumption that true Christian leaders teach the correct interpretation of the Word? If so, with so many Christian leaders out there within the orthodox and evangelical realm teaching so many different interpretations, all of them couldn’t be TRUE Christian leaders. John F. MacArthur and John Bunyan cannot be both true Christian leaders, because they both differ in some areas of interpretation of the Word, and two differing interpretations cannot be both true. Either MacArthur or Bunyan is a true Christian leader, but not BOTH. Is that what Watchman Chew is teaching here with his “modus tollens” formulation?

Furthermore, if the Watchman judges as to who is the “true Christian leader” according to their (the teachers’) interpretation of God’s Word, doesn’t it then suggest that the Watchman has access to the infallible or “correct” interpretation of the Word of God? This makes the Watchman Chew an evangelical Pope.

Isn’t this what the Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong has insinuated all along in his blogs? That “I am right, and you are wrong?” That “I know the truth, and the other leaders are in error or heretical?”

Chew: “We are exhorted in Scripture to judge and discern false teachers and false "christs" (1 Jn. 4:1; Jude 1:4), and such people will indeed enter the church (Acts 20: 29-30, 1 Jn.2 :18). We can see such episodes in the narrative of the early churches most especially seen in Paul's strong denunciation of the Judaizers in the epistle to the Galatians, and most certainly the Judaizers were calling themselves Christians, and Christian teachers and leaders at that!”

How Chew extrapolates those verses to his practice of pronouncing decrees of reprobation, anathemas, and in fact, calling ME (and my friends) a son of Satan, is most bewildering.

Furthermore, the fact that Chew had expressed the same or similar spiritual authority as the Apostle Paul means that Chew does think that he IS an apostle in the likeness of Paul of Tarsus, especially in the way he reiterates ad nauseam how the Apostle (and hence, Chew) had pronounced anathemas upon the Judaizers of old.

2) Watchman Chew is Prophet and Punisher of God

Chew: “To a certain extent, such has often been the case in the early church and the history of the church. Criticism and charges of heresy etc were often made by leaders within the institutional Church.”

In the early Church, charges of heresy were not made by self-appointed Watchmen acting independently, apart from the supervision of church bishops, elders, leaders or pastors. Heresy charges and trials were never made and decided upon in the early Church by lay individuals. There were events called church councils. There were proper administrative procedures guided by Scripture, orderly manners whereby charges of heresy were brought up to the appropriate church leadership, studied intensely by spiritual leaders and scholars, and then decided upon – not by self-appointed individuals with large egos – but by godly ordained men and spiritual leaders recognized by the Church.

Chew: “When one looks through the Scriptures and the historical record of the Church, one finds quite a few people who are not church leaders in the proper sense of the term. Old testament prophets like Amos were not of the priestly order for example, Amos being a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs (Amos 7:14). In church history, Peter Waldo was certainly not a church leader, while during the Reformation era, besides Luther, Zwngli and Calvin and maybe a few others, almost none of the non-Anglican reformers were ever Christian leaders until they started preaching and planting churches. An extreme example of such would be the Baptist preacher John Bunyan, who became a pastor simply by preaching and planting a church as people turned to Christ through his preaching. Yet he was never seminary trained or ordained in his entire life. This view is therefore not biblical and in error.”

The examples given by Watchman Chew are fraught with difficulties. Amos was an Old Testament prophet communicating the word of God to His people. Is Chew insinuating that he, likewise, hears God directly and communicates His infallible Word to His people? Are the Watchman’s words infallible like Prophet Amos’? Should the Watchman Chew act like he’s some Old Testament prophet pronouncing curses and damnations upon others?

Peter Waldo was accused of heresy and excommunicated, but as far as history goes, he did not pronounce curses, anathemas or damnations upon others. So what’s the Watchman’s point? That Peter Waldo’s charge of heresy justifies the Watchman Daniel Chew’s pronouncement of curses and damnations upon others (non sequitur)?

Chew says, “ … almost none of the non-Anglican reformers were ever Christian leaders until they started preaching and planting churches.”

This is again a non sequitur. Which “Christian leader” – be it Bunyan, Calvin, or Zwingli – was born a Pope, Bishop, Pastor, Elder or Deacon? All were “laity” prior to ordination or entry to “clergy-hood.” So what’s the Watchman’s point? That the fact that clergy was laity before becoming clergy justifies the Watchman Daniel Chew’s pronouncement of curses and damnations upon others?

Furthermore, John Calvin was involved in the indictment and burning of Michael Servetus, so in the tradition of “Calvin,” Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong is justified in his pronouncement of curses and damnations upon others? Should we then be grateful that he didn’t burn his enemies and “heretics” to death? Oh, how great thou art! How great is thine compassion, that thou wouldest spare us from thy wrath on the stake!

3) Watchman Chew Signs Church Membership Agreement So As To Disagree With The Leaders?

Chew: “To follow God's Word even in defiance of the dictates of any Christian leader is never a violation of Heb. 13:17, if we are indeed following God's Word and the leader is not. If however, both are within the bounds of Christian liberty, then we should of course obey our leaders in that respect.”

When Christians join a church as members, they sign a membership agreement stating that they will agree with the church’s teachings, obey their spiritual leaders, and at least acquiesce to their teachings. When Chew signs such a membership agreement, he is stating that he will do the aforementioned. If for any reasons you feel that the leaders are in error, and you cannot acquiesce to their doctrine, why then did you sign the membership agreement?

Is that a lack of integrity or willful prevarication? Is the membership agreement written in a tongue you do not understand? Did the leaders deliberately hide their convictions from you?

If you disagree and if you cannot acquiesce to the leader’s teachings, then simply refuse to join as member. Who is coercing you to join?


We have seen in some detail the teachings and the possible abuses of Heb. 13:17. May we therefore learn to properly apply this verse and have a heart to avoid pronouncing anathemas, eternal damnations and curses upon those we deem as being doctrinally in error. Most of all, let us acquire a spirit of humility, knowing that our interpretation of Scripture is not infallible like the Pope-cum-Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong. Let us refrain from pejorative comments and judgments like “Anathema Sit!” Amen.