Blogging: Never before have so many people with so little to say said soThe 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.)
much to so few.
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.”
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.”
Then Q = They are true Christian leaders.
If P, then Q.
Another formulation is as follows:
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."
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!”
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.”
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.”
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.”