Thursday, December 17, 2009

All Infants Go To Hell According To Daniel Chew Huicong

In one of the latest posts by the most-revered, most qualified, venerable Watchman-Pope-Apostle-Prophet-Author (or Watchman-P.A.P.A. for short) Daniel Chew Huicong (BSc Hons, A Levels Certificate, O Levels Certificate, PSLE Pass), he wrote:

“Faith thus includes the idea of cognitio, or understanding the propositions of the Gospel, as the proof-texts also show. There is thus absolutely no way to be saved without knowing and understanding the Gospel, which is part of faith itself. Since that is so, it is anti-intellectual and blatantly unbiblical to say that "Prescribing a level of understanding for salvation is in fact salvation by works". To be saved, one must have a level of understanding of the Gospel, and such is not works but the way in which faith is expressed in the believer. …

Faith thus include [sic] belief in the propositions of the Gospel. As such, we can know for sure that all who do not believe in the Gospel, much less those who had not heard of it, cannot be saved. It is supremely irrational and unbiblical to state that those who have not heard the Gospel in false churches can be saved, of which the Roman Catholic church is the epitome of false teaching, with the Pope being the Antichrist.”

Unbeknownst to his followers and fans on blogosphere, Daniel has pushed forward a very pushy, albeit rational and logical, statement that P, where P is:

P = All who do not believe in the Gospel, much less those who had not heard of it, cannot be saved.

Watchman-P.A.P.A. Daniel Chew even clarified further that “Faith [thus] includes the idea of cognitio, or understanding the propositions of the Gospel,” and that “there is thus absolutely no way to be saved without knowing and understanding the Gospel, which is part of faith itself,” because in order “to be saved, one must have a level of understanding of the Gospel.”

In his detailed comment on his post, Watchman Chew also states the set of 5 propositions of the Gospel he feels is necessary for salvation:

1) an understanding and conviction that Christ died for them
2) that He did so "according to the Scriptures"
3) Christ was buried - i.e. He really died
4) He was resurrected after the third day.
5) that by receiving and holding fast to the Gospel we are saved (v. 1-2)

Behold, this is perhaps the set of propositions for “simple” people. Read further to find out!

Daniel continues,

“For simple people, a simple Gospel presentation is sufficient. Yet, actually this [sic] can be expanded as follows.

1) "Christ died for them" = ? Which "Christ" are we talking about here? What do we mean by the phrase "dying for them"?
2) Which "Scriptures" or part of "Scriptures" is authoritative?
3) Define "buried"
4) Define "resurrection"- Literal or figurative?
5) What does "receiving" mean? What does "holding on" mean?”

So for “simple” people, the first set of 5 propositions is perhaps sufficient. What about people who are not “simple”? Daniel states clearly that the five propositions should be expanded further to include more propositions, such as propositions which describe “which Christ,” and propositions which explain the terms “buried” and “receiving.”

In other words, the actual propositions required for salvation as defined by the venerable Watchman-P.A.P.A. Daniel Chew Huicong depend upon the Gospel recipient’s simplicity. More importantly, we will require Watchman Daniel’s evaluation of your simplicity level – which is likely to be a cline or continuum – before we can know the set of, or even the grammatical construction of or the number of, propositions you are required to accede to prior to God’s approval of your salvation status. And I’m sure Daniel Chew would show us the proof-texts, parsed and exposited, which explain how we can assess the simplicity level of a Gospel recipient.

Truly, Chew is the way, the truth and the life – only he would know the exact “simplicity level” of a human being according to Scripture, and he alone would know what number or sets of propositions to prescribe for the salvation of your soul according to Scripture.

Do you know your simplicity level?

Hey, ask Chew. Don’t ask me. I have no idea what your “simplicity level” is. You might need academic Hebrew and Greek to fully appreciate the propositions of the Gospel before you are admitted into the presence of God.

Burn, Baby, Burn

Also, if P is true (as Daniel had so pushed for it, and clarified the proposition that P so clearly, and, ahem, perspicuously for us), then it follows that the following persons are unable to be saved, as these are perhaps incapable of understanding Sesame Street, much less all the propositions of the Gospel as prescribed by Chew:

1. Infants and children prior to acquiring the ability to understand the propositions of the Gospel;
2. Unborn children;
3. The blind, deaf and dumb i.e. persons deprived of all the senses necessary for learning and comprehension;
4. Mentally retarded persons who have an IQ level which is inadequate for them to understand the propositions of the Gospel;
5. Old Testament Saints that do not know all the propositions of the Gospel as revealed in the New Testament (and this depends upon their simplicity level as well);
6. David’s deceased child (the one he had with Bathsheba) – so when David said “I shall go to him (2 Sam 12:23),” David meant that he was going to hell to burn with his infant son (according to Watchman-P.A.P.A. Daniel Chew).

Hence, if P is true (as argued for by Daniel Chew Huicong), then all babies will burn in hell. All retarded children – be they Down’s, Edwards, Patau, or Warkany syndrome etc – will burn in hell. All your miscarried children will burn in hell. All your children who die before they are born will burn in hell. All your children who die before they can understand the propositions of the Gospel will burn in hell.

P and not-P cannot be both true. If P = “All who do not believe in the Gospel, much less those who had not heard of it, cannot be saved,” then King David is burning in hell with his infant son (2 Sam 12:23). This is only rational and logical, and for Clarkians who ought to be rational and logical, this is the inevitable conclusion.

We thank Chew for his inspired, infallible, perspicuous, sufficient and excellent exegeses and expositions.

All hail, Daniel Chew, hail to thee, who declared that your miscarried child would burn in hell for all eternity.


Protestant Pope said...

Gordon Clark started that ball rolling and his followers - Daniel Chew included, have taken that idea one step too far.


Perhaps when Daniel Chew starts having children, he would modify his "position".

MarkBark said...

In a similar vein, it is difficult for Chew to defend his position on "that P" in view of this:

I questioned him before:

How would you draw the (age) line between an “infant” and a “non-infant”? As you would realize, paedobaptists baptize infants (without creedal affirmation) and not non-infants. Non-infants, if I’m not wrong, would need to profess faith first prior to baptism.

How would you scripturally show that this “age” defines the infant as opposed to the non-infant?

How would you show that the household baptisms in the NT were those involving these infants (before they exceed the non-infant age)?

Why are only infants baptized in paedobaptism? Aren’t all CHILDREN – and not just infants - in the covenant? Since you concede that children are in the covenant, why aren’t paedobaptists baptizing ALL children irrespective of age? Again, how and when do you draw the line between an infant, child, and non-infant and non-child?

I’m in my fifties; my son is in his twenties. I was recently converted to Christianity; how would you argue from Scripture that my son is not a child in my family and thus does not qualify for “infant baptism?” Why should/shouldn’t my son be baptized together with me (even though he does not – as yet – profess faith)? Don’t you believe that my CHILD is in the covenant as well???

I asked a genuine question; you don't have the answers?

So this is the best you can offer us readers.

You have my sympathy. :)

As you can see, he couldn't answer any of my questions.

Now that's a serious problem for his theological positions involving infants/children, including infant salvation and baptism.


Lim Yeew said...


That is sound and absolutely correct. As far as I'm concerned, I haven't heard or read of a satisfactory, scriptural answer to your questions.

It seems that infants/children are an arbitrary classification in theology.

You are expecting Chew to give you an answer? You'd do better by asking an ass's arse. Or even Balaam's ass or his arse for that matter.

Chew, as expected, dodged your questions by using ad hominems/red herrings. As expected of a Watch-P.A.P.A. idiot.

Betty Smith said...

Oh my poppies! I wonder if I'm simple or not simple! Which version of the Gospel should I believe in then? What set of propositions should I receive? Oh my dear Pete! Would I be sleepless tonight, or should I try not to worry too much about whether I'm saved, take a cup of hot milk and a good 'ol choco-chip cookie? Oh my dear heavens! What is MY simplicity level here, dear me dear me!

Lim aka Ah Boy said...

Whoa!This Chew is cocked up in his thinking man. How can all little ones all go hell lah! If what say he true then many baby go hell for the "glory of God." Wah lao, pervert.

Dean Chester said...

Another interesting post, and it exposes Chew's flawed thinking and put it under the spotlight of reason and logic.

Chew got to learn to think clearly and logically. What's laughable is this: he elevates Clarkian "logic", but denounces logic in all his "biblical" endeavors. That's academic hypocrisy of the highest order.

Anonymous said...

I am eager to hear from Clarkian Chew how P and not-P can both be true. If babies (any) can be elect/saved, then the law of non-contradiction must be false i.e. God can be God and non-God, good and not-good etc

And you can be saved and not-saved all at the same time. And Van Til must be right (and wrong) at the same time! Hahaha!!!

Cool Dude said...

CLARKIAN Chewy boy boy is killed by his own "logic." If P is true, then Not-P is false. Period.


There's no way he can squirm out of this MESS.

Haha! IQ is genetic I think; no amount of "reading" can improve that significantly.

Anonymous said...


The retard Daniel H Chew is now studying in seminary; did you check out his retarded writings in his latest posts and blogs?

Whoa, it would be nice if you could take the time to make a fool out of this RETARD.

IQ, I agree, is genetic. No amount of "reading" or seminary will make him brighter.

What a RETARD.