Do refer to this post of his – his language will reveal to you what kind of person he truly is.
As a large portion of his post is merely reiterated ad hominem attacks without reasonable evidence or logic (e.g. I’m immoral, unsaved, hell-bound, a liar etc), I would only point out a few things for the benefit of our readers.
Watchman Chew Daniel Huicong: WC
Antithesis: AT
WC: The first order of the day of course was to attempt to use my church and my pastor, Rev. Paul Goh, against me (and related allegations by WC thereafter concerning a “Mr Lee”).
AT: No I didn’t. I have no idea who Mr Lee is. Bare assertion ad nauseam. The only contact I have with his pastor is a comment on the pastor's blog.
WC: It can be seen through this episode that AT and gang have no qualms about lying, misrepresenting other (me) [sic], and taking God’s holy name in vain.
AT: I do not lie about you or your writings; what you wrote is on your blogs and articles, and is available for all readers to see. I also do not misrepresent you; your writings are pretty clear about various issues. Lastly, I do not take God’s name in vain. Again, bare assertion ad nauseam.
Do you think you can make an allegation true simply by asserting it?
WC: In a post titled “According to Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, All Churches Involved in Festival of Praise are Blaspheming God and Condemned to Hell”, AT starts his spin machinery by totally misrepresenting my position.
AT: It becomes apparent to the reader that I have not misrepresented his position in all of my posts. For example, these are the very words of WC, “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.”
It is clear from his wording, “may he grant the people involved repentance unto eternal life,” that the “people involved” in the Festival of Praise ought to repent in order to receive eternal life i.e. “unto eternal life.” It is easy to see what WC meant, that these people do not have eternal life to begin with. If these were already saved, why the need to repent “unto eternal life?”
It is true that even Christians need to repent of their sins, but only hell-bound unbelievers need to repent unto eternal life simply because these have no eternal life to begin with. Therefore, according to WC – all churches, pastors, leaders, and church members involved in the Festival of Praise are going to hell unless they repent “unto eternal life.” In the meantime, they are hell-bound.
So who is really using his “spin machinery” to make black “white and white black?” I am merely reporting what WC has originally written.
WC: Such people are the wicked [sic], and unless they repent of their wickedness (and their heresies), they would be judged by God and damned to eternal hellfire.
AT: Isn’t it true that WC thinks he is a little god? He actually claims to know what God thinks about me! That’s incredible! Well, God alone would judge my eternal status, not that little god WC.
May God bless his soul and make him more charitable to his brethren-in-Christ.
PS: It really doesn’t bother me as to how he treats me. Look at how he ‘trashed up’ his very own brother-in-Christ, Jason Loh. Brother Jason defended WC right from the start, and will the readers see for themselves how Jason is being shamed by WC now. (Chew may have deleted some comments that would work against him, but we have saved all the web pages for further references in future.)
Truly, one has never seen a better actor than Daniel Chew Huicong.
As a large portion of his post is merely reiterated ad hominem attacks without reasonable evidence or logic (e.g. I’m immoral, unsaved, hell-bound, a liar etc), I would only point out a few things for the benefit of our readers.
Watchman Chew Daniel Huicong: WC
Antithesis: AT
WC: The first order of the day of course was to attempt to use my church and my pastor, Rev. Paul Goh, against me (and related allegations by WC thereafter concerning a “Mr Lee”).
AT: No I didn’t. I have no idea who Mr Lee is. Bare assertion ad nauseam. The only contact I have with his pastor is a comment on the pastor's blog.
WC: It can be seen through this episode that AT and gang have no qualms about lying, misrepresenting other (me) [sic], and taking God’s holy name in vain.
AT: I do not lie about you or your writings; what you wrote is on your blogs and articles, and is available for all readers to see. I also do not misrepresent you; your writings are pretty clear about various issues. Lastly, I do not take God’s name in vain. Again, bare assertion ad nauseam.
Do you think you can make an allegation true simply by asserting it?
WC: In a post titled “According to Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, All Churches Involved in Festival of Praise are Blaspheming God and Condemned to Hell”, AT starts his spin machinery by totally misrepresenting my position.
AT: It becomes apparent to the reader that I have not misrepresented his position in all of my posts. For example, these are the very words of WC, “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.”
It is clear from his wording, “may he grant the people involved repentance unto eternal life,” that the “people involved” in the Festival of Praise ought to repent in order to receive eternal life i.e. “unto eternal life.” It is easy to see what WC meant, that these people do not have eternal life to begin with. If these were already saved, why the need to repent “unto eternal life?”
It is true that even Christians need to repent of their sins, but only hell-bound unbelievers need to repent unto eternal life simply because these have no eternal life to begin with. Therefore, according to WC – all churches, pastors, leaders, and church members involved in the Festival of Praise are going to hell unless they repent “unto eternal life.” In the meantime, they are hell-bound.
So who is really using his “spin machinery” to make black “white and white black?” I am merely reporting what WC has originally written.
WC: Such people are the wicked [sic], and unless they repent of their wickedness (and their heresies), they would be judged by God and damned to eternal hellfire.
AT: Isn’t it true that WC thinks he is a little god? He actually claims to know what God thinks about me! That’s incredible! Well, God alone would judge my eternal status, not that little god WC.
May God bless his soul and make him more charitable to his brethren-in-Christ.
PS: It really doesn’t bother me as to how he treats me. Look at how he ‘trashed up’ his very own brother-in-Christ, Jason Loh. Brother Jason defended WC right from the start, and will the readers see for themselves how Jason is being shamed by WC now. (Chew may have deleted some comments that would work against him, but we have saved all the web pages for further references in future.)
Truly, one has never seen a better actor than Daniel Chew Huicong.
Note: Daniel Chew has since deleted all those shameful comments he made about Jason Loh. You can download the original UNDELETED comments and web page from here:
http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=8592b47662afcdbb1bee9a6e9edd9c76ea993602f8cfdf5782e3a934329c7a5e
46 comments:
Jason Loh is one in a long line of "former-friends" of Daniel. Readers will remember Boon Hian, Jenson, Jeremiah Blues and Vincent (all blogless). How many more countless 'former-friends' does Danie have?
When will the Daniel see his own self-righteousness before he accuses others or this and that? He is an immature person who hopefully will grow up to be a useful Christian man.
Fantastic post, AT. Your reply is priceless.
Cemetery of Daniel's "Former Friends'" Blogs
All these blogs are now closed or extinct, and Daniel Chew is the reason.
List:
1. Tan Boon Hian (blog still existing, but closed)
http://tanboonhian.blogspot.com/
2. Jenson Lim (blog extinct)
http://jensonesther.blogspot.com/
3. Jeremiah Blues/Edmund Lau (blog still existing, but closed)
http://jeremiahblues.blogspot.com/
4. Vincent Chia (blog extinct)
http://vivavoxdei.blogspot.com/
And now, add:
Jason Loh?
AT, you might want to contact them and investigate.
Hi guys
You may disagree with Daniel for whatever reasons.. which is not particularly surprising in itself
But I fail to see how this blog is in anyway edifying for God's purposes
I suppose you are in the same church as him? If you are not happy with him and can prove his sin, use the method found in Matthew 18:15-20 in love. Such conflicts should be settled in a proper way, not following the ways of the world, thus not through such a blog. (Principle in 1 Cor 6)
Is Daniel's blog edifying?
Is childish behaviour (yes that is what it is!) in the name of Christ edifying?
So if Daniel stops blogging, AT will also stop - right, AT?
I do wonder if his church members and pastor actually positively promotes his views?
This blog serves the punitive will of God. That IS edifying, from God's perspective.
"Is Daniel's blog edifying?"
- Definitely more than this blog
"So if Daniel stops blogging, AT will also stop - right, AT?"
- As I mentioned, why not approach him personally? Or approach the church personally
"This blog serves the punitive will of God. That IS edifying, from God's perspective."
- You sincerely think so? Care to explain what you think the will of God is and how is it that you are fulfilling it?
I am answering on behalf of anonymous as well; I am not Mr Anonymous
"Is Daniel's blog edifying?"
- Definitely more than this blog
=You sincerely think so? Care to explain why you think so and how is it that you know that which you think so.
"So if Daniel stops blogging, AT will also stop - right, AT?"
- As I mentioned, why not approach him personally? Or approach the church personally.
=Our friends offered to meet him up; he refused and deleted their comments. So how did you know that we didn’t try?
"This blog serves the punitive will of God. That IS edifying, from God's perspective."
- You sincerely think so? Care to explain what you think the will of God is and how is it that you are fulfilling it?
=You sincerely do not think so? Care to explain what you think the will of God is and how is it that we are not fulfilling it?
To: Munchy
But I fail to see how this blog is in anyway edifying for God's purposes.
-You sincerely think so? Care to explain what you think the will of God is and how is it that this blog is not fulfilling it?
I suppose you are in the same church as him? If you are not happy with him and can prove his sin, use the method found in Matthew 18:15-20 in love. Such conflicts should be settled in a proper way, not following the ways of the world, thus not through such a blog. (Principle in 1 Cor 6)
-How do you know that we didn’t?
"You sincerely think so? Care to explain why you think so and how is it that you know that which you think so."
- This blog is not done in a loving manner. Its just taking anonymous potshots at Daniel. At least Daniel puts his name and reputation on the line, and he tries to address theological issues in general (as opposed to just attacking a single person)
"Our friends offered to meet him up; he refused and deleted their comments. So how did you know that we didn’t try?"
- If you tried good. If he wont listen to you, continue with the Matthew 18 method, together with church leadership, personally confront him with (whatever you deem to be) his sin
- If he doesnt at least know your identities, it is also for his personal safety to not meet up in person with you. If you reveal your identity (personally to him), I really think he would be more willing to meet up with you.
"You sincerely do not think so? Care to explain what you think the will of God is and how is it that we are not fulfilling it?"
- This blog is not done in love
"How do you know that we didn’t?"
- If you tried to confront him, good. But this blog is not done in love, and is evidence that conflict has not been resolved in a proper way
This blog is not done in a loving manner.
-"You sincerely think so? Care to explain why you think so and how is it that you know that which you think so."
At least Daniel puts his name and reputation on the line, and he tries to address theological issues in general (as opposed to just attacking a single person)
-“You sincerely think so? Care to explain why you think so and how is it that you know that which you think so. We can also say that Daniel put his name on his blog because he wants to show off. Why not?"
If you tried good. If he wont listen to you, continue with the Matthew 18 method, together with church leadership, personally confront him with (whatever you deem to be) his sin
-"You sincerely think so? Did he use the Matt 18 method with ALL the people he criticized i.e. did he meet up with them and their church leaders? This makes you a hypocrite for applying a double standard."
If he doesnt at least know your identities, it is also for his personal safety to not meet up in person with you.
-"You sincerely think so? Care to explain why you think it is unsafe and how is it that you know that which you think so. We can also say that it’s unsafe to meet up with him and apply the Matt 18 method; we don't know him as well. Double standards again.”
This blog is not done in love
-"You sincerely think so? Care to explain why you think so and how is it that you know that which you think so."
If you tried to confront him, good. But this blog is not done in love, and is evidence that conflict has not been resolved in a proper way.
-"You sincerely think so? Care to explain why you think so and how is it that you know that which you think so."
Munchy, thus far you have shown that you are applying a double standard. Wake up.
This is crazy. Why are you so defensive? Obviously this discussion is going nowhere.
I am quite curious too why the immense dislike for him. Why so emotional about it?
I tell you what, although I am not from your church (I am kinda assuming you and Daniel are from the same church) I am willing to attempt to mediate/arrange a meeting between you and Daniel. Since you say you tried to meet with him but failed. How does that sound?
We can discuss this over email or on the phone, to arrange a meeting between you (+ friends if you wish) and Daniel.
cheers
This is crazy. Why are you so defensive?
-I am only a reader of this blog. I am defending this blog because you are attacking it. I thought you would have known.
Obviously this discussion is going nowhere.
-Discussion takes time; it’s going somewhere.
I am quite curious too why the immense dislike for him. Why so emotional about it?
-We like him; that’s why we take the effort to correct him. I agree with Prophet that it fulfills the punitive will of God. Why not?
I tell you what, although I am not from your church (I am kinda assuming you and Daniel are from the same church) I am willing to attempt to mediate/arrange a meeting between you and Daniel. Since you say you tried to meet with him but failed. How does that sound?
-Sounds great. But I’m not the owner of this blog. Why don’t you ask the owner? For starters, ask Daniel to issue us his home address and phone number. We’ll contact him then.
Cheers
Great. For starters, you can contact me at marnchi@yahoo.com
I will then contact Daniel, and see his response
@munchy
I will then contact Daniel, and see his response
-Sounds great. But I’m not the owner of this blog. Why don’t you
ask Daniel to contact me, and I'll ask the blog owner.
dickisnotabadword@yahoo.com
For starters, ask Daniel to issue us his home address and phone number. We’ll contact him then.
I have emailed Daniel to see what he thinks of having a meeting.
In the meantime you can ask the blog owner too
I'm sorry Munchy to be a bearer of this sad news. If Daniel Chew continue like this, he and his blog will become a disgrace to the Gospel.
His arrogance is so blalantly obvious, his ignorance of the various issues is so clear to see, his research is so appalling, why support him? Leave him alone.
It is about time Daniel Chew grow up, move on and be useful in Gospel work.
So Munchy, this blog may not be edifying, but it has its uses.
By the way Munchy, Daniel started this thread first. AT was only acting in self-defence. Think about that!
Read Daniel's blog (or better still, don't!) - see who drew first blood? e.g. Richard Abanes, Tony Byrne, etc.
"If Daniel Chew continue like this, he and his blog will become a disgrace to the Gospel."
- And so will this blog
"why support him?"
- I regard him as a fellow brother in Christ. Flawed, but a brother nonetheless, even though I've never met him personally. And if you are truly Christian, I will regard you as one too.
"It is about time Daniel Chew grow up, move on and be useful in Gospel work. "
- Esp. if you guys are in the same church, spur one another toward love and good deeds. Just scolding someone from afar to grow up and move on, doesnt really work right?
"By the way Munchy, Daniel started this thread first. AT was only acting in self-defence. Think about that!"
- Well, this whole blog is dedicated to attacking Daniel and mocking him.. so.. hmm...
- I guess the posters here have an issue with Daniel's discernment ministry, which can be construed as needlessly attacking people from all over. But I'm sure you would at least agree with me that there is a place for discernment ministries done in the right spirit right?
Hello Munchy,
"If Daniel Chew continue like this, he and his blog will become a disgrace to the Gospel."
- And so will this blog
Why not ask both Daniel and AT to stop?
"why support him?"
- I regard him as a fellow brother in Christ. Flawed, but a brother nonetheless, even though I've never met him personally. And if you are truly Christian, I will regard you as one too.
On what grounds do you regard him as a fellow brother in Christ?
"It is about time Daniel Chew grow up, move on and be useful in Gospel work. "
- Esp. if you guys are in the same church, spur one another toward love and good deeds. Just scolding someone from afar to grow up and move on, doesnt really work right?
Why not ask Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church in Singapore to 'spur one another toward love and good deeds'?
"By the way Munchy, Daniel started this thread first. AT was only acting in self-defence. Think about that!"
- Well, this whole blog is dedicated to attacking Daniel and mocking him.. so.. hmm...
I have said already - Daniel attacks first. Why can't other practice self-defence?
- I guess the posters here have an issue with Daniel's discernment ministry, which can be construed as needlessly attacking people from all over. But I'm sure you would at least agree with me that there is a place for discernment ministries done in the right spirit right?
Yes, there is a place for discernment. Daniel needs to exercise some discernment himself.
However, where in the NT do we find a "discernment ministry"?
If yes, what are the duties, qualities, etc of the person involved and what is the output, goals, characteristics of that "ministry"?
Munchy,
"If Daniel Chew continue like this, he and his blog will become a disgrace to the Gospel."
- And so will this blog
= You sincerely think so? Care to explain why you think so and how is it that you know that which you think so. In any case, I can also say that your blog is unedifying too.
"why support him?"
- I regard him as a fellow brother in Christ. Flawed, but a brother nonetheless, even though I've never met him personally. And if you are truly Christian, I will regard you as one too.
=Double standard AGAIN. So why don’t you support this blog? It’s owned by Christians too.
"It is about time Daniel Chew grow up, move on and be useful in Gospel work. "
- Esp. if you guys are in the same church, spur one another toward love and good deeds. Just scolding someone from afar to grow up and move on, doesnt really work right?
=How do you know we are from the same church? Also, you are using DOUBLE STANDARD AGAIN. You support Daniel when he keeps “scolding someone from afar”, but you turn around and criticize this same methodology when we use it. Daniel failed in using Matt 18 when he criticized Pastors, Elders, Churches etc, and you demanded the Matt 18 standards from us.
Thou hypocrite.
"By the way Munchy, Daniel started this thread first. AT was only acting in self-defence. Think about that!"
- Well, this whole blog is dedicated to attacking Daniel and mocking him.. so.. hmm...
=We do not attack anyone; we are merely FOLLOWING Daniel’s example in being a good Watchman. In fact, we are the Watchers of Watchmen.
Thou hypocrite.
- I guess the posters here have an issue with Daniel's discernment ministry, which can be construed as needlessly attacking people from all over. But I'm sure you would at least agree with me that there is a place for discernment ministries done in the right spirit right?
= I guess Munchy has an issue with our discernment ministry, which can be construed as needlessly attacking Watchmen from all over. But I'm sure you would at least agree with me that there is a place for discernment ministries done in the right spirit right?
Munchy, don’t you agree that people like you are using double standard for different folks i.e. hypocrites?
Thou hypocrite.
Daniel's friends seem to be like him - a GREAT hypocrite!
"=Double standard AGAIN. So why don’t you support this blog? It’s owned by Christians too."
- I have no idea who you guys are, which church you are from if from a church at all. You guys insist on remaining anonymous. It is not an issue (because this is the internet) except for the fact that you are criticizing him, his church and so on. Daniel's identity is known, so if anyone has an issue with what he says, they can take it up with him and his church. Same for me (I am from bethesda frankel estate church).
Daniel may scold people from afar, but his identity is known, and you can take up the issue with him and his church. Would you care to disclose your name and your church too? If you do not want to, then stop criticizing in the name of God while hiding behind your anonymity
Regardless, I will email you and attempt to arrange a meeting between AT and Daniel. Rem to ask AT!
I have no idea who you guys are, which church you are from if from a church at all. You guys insist on remaining anonymous.
-Anonymity has no relevance to the pertinence of our posts. You argument is at best ad hominem, and at worst an irrelevant conclusion.
Daniel's identity is known
-That’s because Daniel takes the trouble to try to show off his appalling research on his blog. How to show off when it’s all anonymous?
So if anyone has an issue with what he says, they can take it up with him and his church. Same for me (I am from bethesda frankel estate church).
-Thou hypocrite. When Daniel has an issue with the pastors, elders, teachers, churches and ministries he criticized and CONDEMNED TO HELL, did he take it up with them or to their churches? NO! You double tongued speaker ….
Daniel may scold people from afar, but his identity is known, and you can take up the issue with him and his church.
-Thou hypocrite. Why don’t you TELL DANIEL TO PRACTICE MATT 18 AND TAKE UP THE ISSUE WITH THE pastors, elders, teachers, churches and ministries he criticized PERSONALLY? You double tongued speaker ….
Would you care to disclose your name and your church too? If you do not want to, then stop criticizing in the name of God while hiding behind your anonymity.
-Totally irrelevant. When you push your double standard, do you expect us to listen to you kiddo? What’s wrong with anonymity? Why should WHO we are affect the validity and soundness of our arguments and posts?
Regardless, I will email you and attempt to arrange a meeting between AT and Daniel. Rem to ask AT!
-You brood of vipers; birds of the same feather …
Daniel's elders should address this again with the new evidence. Somehow they are overlooking things or maybe his squeaky voice is intimidating them.
"What’s wrong with anonymity? Why should WHO we are affect the validity and soundness of our arguments and posts?"
- If you are ever in a position of church leadership. You would understand then
"-You brood of vipers; birds of the same feather …"
- yeah you would think I get the message by now right? Anyway, I emailed the address you gave, I look forward to a response since you guys said you offered to meet up with him
"Daniel's elders should address this again with the new evidence. Somehow they are overlooking things or maybe his squeaky voice is intimidating them."
- I would think that if Daniel is guilty of all that you accuse him of, he should be in deep trouble with his church right? If not, then his church is deep trouble right?
Daniel is an angry person that is for sure, but theologically is he a hyper-Calvinist?
-Daniel's Friend
@Munchy:
I would think that if Daniel is guilty of all that you accuse him of, he should be in deep trouble with his church right? If not, then his church is deep trouble right?
>Munchy, what are the "accusations"? Are critiques of one's blogs "accusations"? Or perhaps Daniel is the Evangelical Pope, and his writings are protected from all criticisms.
What about the people he criticized and condemned to eternal damnation: are these in "deep trouble" too? If not, then their churches are in deep trouble, right?
No wonder Dick called you a two-faced double tongued hypocrite.
You are one, Munchy. You are a blind Watchman Chew supporter.
"Munchy, what are the "accusations"? Are critiques of one's blogs "accusations"? Or perhaps Daniel is the Evangelical Pope, and his writings are protected from all criticisms."
- From Daniel's expose "The first order of the day of course was to attempt to use my church and my pastor, Rev. Paul Goh,
against me. Needless to say, my pastor was not at all impressed with the juvenile and unfounded
untruthful lies made about me. It seems that AT is particularly vicious and complained to the
session (of elders) in my church, who met to discuss the issue. After examination, they dismissed all
charges as being false, noting that AT does not even has the courage to reveal himself and therefore
does not even deserve any response whatsoever. All of this was conveyed to me by my pastor, of
which I am thankful. "
If Daniel has been examined and vindicated by his pastor, what else is there to say about it. Do you think that his church his heretical?
"If not, then their churches are in deep trouble, right?"
- There are many churches in deep trouble. I have visited some of them before. Even the bible contains descriptions of churches that are in deep trouble.
- I am not familiar with Daniel's church. Perhaps you are?
Munchy,
Quoting Daniel's article is useless. Haven't AT made it clear that Daniel's article is a misrepresentation of the facts?
Have you read THIS reply by AT?
Daniel is the one who should be brought to task for calling AT a liar, immoral, heretic, hellbound, etc
You still haven't state the allegations.
What allegations?
What trouble?
Aren't YOU the one making trouble here?
If Daniel has been examined and vindicated by his pastor, what else is there to say about it. Do you think that his church his heretical?
Munchy, I'm wordless!
Validated and vindicated about WHAT?
What?
What did AT complain about to the church session?
Can Pastor Paul Goh and the church session testify concerning what was brought against Daniel Chew before the entire church session?
Otherwise, Chew is a liar.
Hi Munchy
"If Daniel has been examined and vindicated by his pastor, what else is there to say about it. Do you think that his church his heretical?"
It is Daniel's words against ours. We do not exactly know what has been said between the elders of CERC and Daniel Chew. What was being examined?
"There are many churches in deep trouble. I have visited some of them before. Even the bible contains descriptions of churches that are in deep trouble."
We have no idea the spiritual health of CERC. What if the pastor/elders of CERC are just like Daniel? I would classify a church full of Daniel Chews as being in "deep trouble".
Some food for thought.
Dear my children,
I fully understand your feelings. In fact, I am used to seeing hypocrites applying double standards. My ministers treat me very differently from the way they treat you, my children. That is not very nice, but it does make my governance more convenient and efficient because then they only need to listen to me and things get done quickly. Being hypocritical have some practical value and even those who condemn hypocrites are usually hypocrites too.
So hypocrisy is not such a bad thing, but it is a pragmatic thing which you don't need to worry about. I myself am never concerned about it although I am surrounded by hypocrites all the way down. The biggest concern of our beloved nation is, as I have told Bush, population growth. How many kids do you have, AT? This is what you need to pay more attention to. How many heretics juniors do you have with Mrs Cult, Heretic? That's the solution to sustain our nation's prosperity. Also the rest of you, ladies especially, be more gentle in your words so that you can quickly find husbands and bear children for the future of our nation. And gentlemen, if you are over 20 and still single, waste no more time to quickly find a wife.
I not only manage the big issues of our nation but I also give advice on wise living for your sake, my children. See how busy I am?
"Validated and vindicated about WHAT?"
- I should think that the leaders of Daniel's church, such as his pastor, should probably be aware of Daniel's blog. If they are fine with his blog, then any charge against his blog for being inappropriate would be a charge against his church as well
Whow, Munchy.
You now speak for CERC's pastor and session!
Are you a session member too? If not, then please do not spew rubbish ... :)
Impostor Lee,
Do yourself a favor: use your time wisely instead of coming to this DUMP and talk "cock."
Munchy,
You said
"I should think that the leaders of Daniel's church, such as his pastor, should probably be aware of Daniel's blog. If they are fine with his blog, then any charge against his blog for being inappropriate would be a charge against his church as well"
How do you know if the session of CERC is fine with Daniel's blog?
"How do you know if the session of CERC is fine with Daniel's blog?"
- how do you know they are not? :)
AT,
Nice pic of danny boy ... hansum siah.
Now to the serious stuff.
Munchy,
Go MEET and GET to know danny boy .... will bet my last dollar you will you won't writing these stuff .... enough said.
Munchy,
"How do you know if the session of CERC is fine with Daniel's blog?"
- how do you know they are not? :)
Very funny. This is the kind of reasoning that Daniel Chew enjoys using.
Fact is, both you and I do not know the answer - unless we ask the session of CERC.
I like Daniel's new post - "In praise of AT"
"It is in this regard that I strive to have a desire for AT's good. He as a Neo-Orthodox heretic is not saved.
How on earth does Daniel Chew know that? That means the likes of Barth, Bonhoeffer, Brunner, etc are not saved.
Also in what way does Daniel strive to have a desire for AT's good? Does he pray for his salvation daily?
He has nothing to offer; no Gospel to save him from his sins and he is on the road to perdition.
AT's blog is not an evangelistic blog - it is satirical.
Through AT, whatever things that can be used against me has been dug out somehow, thus showing me my weak spots.
Very good! Will Daniel learn and change for the better?
Although all of AT's commentaries are outright lies, ... In this regard, I am thankful for how little he can actually find, thus requiring the manufacture of entire sets of lies in order to malign my character.
Actually, AT's post are not lies - in that statement, Daniel is not being truthful.
AT can only go along with Daniel's posts. Imagine if AT could read Daniel's mind & heart? What sort of "character" would Daniel be?
More food for thought.
"Keep up the good work Jason Loh!
Daniel is not trained or formally educated in theology. So take his critic with a grain of salt or just some plain old 'reality' given his track record! Proof is always in the pudding as they say and Daniel has given out a lot of pudding to back his notorious reputation as 'just' a blogger without the temperament of a gospel minister or a student.
So please take note."
And
"Going out for a cup of coffee does not
solve all problems. =P"
"Don't act self-conceded Daniel, because email or
blogging will only further these arguments. Any
good pastor would advice less email/blogging,
because it's not healthy. More one on one ministry
is obviously needed here.
Do you think your online style has helped this
Daniel?
So instead of leaving it here and rectifying it with
Jason, you have further perpetuated it by blogging
it on your blog. What kind of ministry is that? It
really speaks loud of your immaturity in Christ as
a christian, let alone a leader or teacher."
I wrote all of that on CREDO 500 last night. It was either deleted or not approved so I posted again today.
Keep up the good work AT!
Bock Siew Joo
"Go MEET and GET to know danny boy .... will bet my last dollar you will you won't writing these stuff .... enough said."
- do you know him personally? how well do you know him? Just asking
Of course know him lah!
"Of course know him lah!"
- Do you know that little bit of info is perhaps the most useful info I have been able to discover from anyone that has posted in this thread so far?
until now i have no idea if the other posters know him personally or not. same church as him or not. the witness of a person who knows him well personally and is in frequent personal contact with him is obviously far more credible than someone who is not.
(IMO which is why I find it difficult to have any meaningful discussion on this topic with pple who are insistent on not revealing any single aspect of their unknown identities)
- i know this applies to me as well, that i have never met him personally before. But apart from regarding him as a fellow Christian (based on what he appears to profess), I am not claiming here to be any sort of credible witness on his character. My intention here is to put forth my opinion that this blog is not done in the right spirit. Even if Daniel is at fault, this is really not the Christian way to do things. It is a worldly way of doing things. And as Christians we ought to aim to follow a higher standard as opposed to basing our actions on that which we know or feel to be wrong.
Munchy,
There are some of us who have met Daniel personally (and I have), but will not divulge anything personal about him in a forum like this. It is just not appropriate.
"My intention here is to put forth my opinion that this blog is not done in the right spirit. Even if Daniel is at fault, this is really not the Christian way to do things. It is a worldly way of doing things."
Perhaps you can say that the same be said about Daniel's blog?
One of Daniel's former friend
Hi Munchy,
Do go ... I mean GO! ... and know Daniel Chew. Know him well. Chat him up. Find out what makes him tick, and what makes him sick.
THEN come here and talk.
GO NOW! Shooooo!
I know pple who know him. And I have argued with him before, it can really be quite irritating sometimes. If I have a friend like him, will I feel offended from time to time? I would expect so.
But I love the gospel, its message is beautiful. Because of this, I also cannot stand false teachers who pervert and/or dilute the gospel message. And there are really a lot of teachers/preachers/leaders who are guilty of this
Therefore even though I feel that Daniel still has much to learn in terms of tact, I also feel like I can often see where he is coming from.
Post a Comment