Thursday, August 12, 2010

ON SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS: Dedicated To Pseudo-Rev Daniel H. Chew


by Edwin F. Kagin
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 48
Union, KY 41091

self-righteous: confident of one’s own righteousness, esp. when smugly moralistic and intolerant of the opinions and behavior of others. - Webster’s New Universal Unabridged Dictionary

Pretty soon I wanted to smoke, and asked the widow to let me. But she wouldn’t. She said it was a mean practice and wasn’t clean, and I must try not to do it anymore....And she took snuff too; of course that was all right, because she done it herself. - Huckleberry Finn
The self-righteous are everywhere, trying to control our lives. With the zeal of reformed nymphomaniacs peddling AmWay, they freely vend their negative judgements on the behavior and opinions of others. Unable or unwilling to control themselves and their unhappy lives of frustration, insecurity, and despair, these petty dictators seek solace in desperately attempting to control others. For they are right. Those who disagree with their toxic tyranny are clearly and obviously wrong, if not evil. And they do attract followers, persons easily led, seeking certainty, and willing to praise, to flatter, and to sing unto them, How great thou art. Self-righteous leaders reward fidelity and elevate select obedient disciples, especially worshipful ones who are confused but shamelessly self-righteous, to CULT (Counseled Until Learned Truth) status.

The existence of such personalities is not new. Jesus is reported to have said, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" There are similar references, for self-righteousness is justly and frequently condemned in the bible ... Indeed, we recommend you read [the Bible]. The book is much better than the movie.

Self-righteousness and hypocrisy may be joined, as in the widow’s views on tobacco reported by Huck. But they are quite different concepts. Hypocrites, like the widow, do themselves that which they so freely condemn in others. Most hypocrites are self-righteous, but self-righteous persons are not necessarily hypocrites and may in fact practice what they preach. A priest who rapes little boys, and preaches against homosexuality and violence, is clearly both, while a practicing virgin, who moralistically urges this unhappy fate on others, is not. It’s all in how you study it. Many have rejected religion largely because it is home to lots of goodie-two-shoes type persons of self-righteous or hypocritical persuasion. Sometimes, in their attempt to live justly in an unjust world, the disillusioned seek solace from religion in the perceived rationality of secular humanism. And guess what?

This may come as a shock to some secular humanist readers, but the self-righteous are also to be found among the ranks of the supposedly rational, among those who look for meaning apart from the supernatural, among those who decry the artificial goodness of the godly. Bummer, ain’t it? Thus, instead of holier-than-thou, we have those who feel rationaler-than-thou, or skepticaler-than-thou, and who demean, abjure, reject, and avoid those they feel don’t quite measure up to their standards. Such are no less self-righteous than the widow.

Whether religious or secular, the self-righteous and the con-artist are sisters under the skin. Both become outraged if they don’t get their way. The slightest reasoned refusal to consent to manipulation or control is punished. The uncooperative mark may witness a presumably well meaning, but terminally self-righteous, friend go into an inexplicable rage, answering disobedience with irrational and unpleasant emotions, until the victim seems, as best worded by Shakespeare, "beyond reason hated." To further complicate matters, the person deluded by self-righteousness cannot understand when others are disinclined to share their hostility and fail to concede the justness of their attitudes and actions. The world as one conspires.

The self-righteous are troubled by democracy. Why debate or vote on any matter of behavior or morality when truth is available by decree, and when correct answers may be so readily had from those who know the answers beyond any need for question or discussion? To challenge such persons is, in their view, malum in se--in the vernacular, reprehensible, wicked, and wrong in itself--denoting a defect of character revealed in the very act of rebellion against ultimate authority. Thereafter, every action or motive of the errant sinner will be understood and punished as an indisputably vile thing--another example of evil attacking good. The psychological mechanism of projection, and the transparent narcissism of the self-righteous, is beyond the scope of this digression. The analogies to theology are scary. If afflicted leaders possess small power, they are merely annoying, comical, or pathetic. If they hold real power over nations or ideologies, the graveyards of history harbour their heritage.

The sad part is that they don’t have to be like this. The self-righteous prigs can get over it, or get therapy for it. They don’t have to expose themselves to the misery. Misery is optional, for predator as well as prey, even if one thinks they have no free will. Rational beings don’t have to live with sustained rage, or with the chronic paranoia of waiting for some other imaginary shoe to drop. Those who live to control others could, using the power of reason they mock, come to realize that compromise and resolution of disagreements can be something more than capitulation or appeasement, and that, in some things at least, they just might be--as impossible as it seems--wrong. One is entitled to be smug, arrogant, and self-righteous only if one has figured out how not to die. The outcast may well be the better person. That’s what the bible story of the good Samaritan is all about.

If we can’t avoid the self satisfied--the better option--we can laugh at them. A healthy person loves to see the pompous taken down a peg or two, and delights in mocking their phony goodness and proper ways. This is why the common folk laugh when a stuffed shirt slips on a banana skin. But what about self-righteous secular humanists who, in hardening their hearts and softening their minds, do real harm to those who actually favor free inquiry? Maybe we should create a Secular Humanist Hall of Shame. Here could be enrolled and acknowledged those whose actions have earned them the herein proposed SHAME (Secular Humanist Arrogantly Making Enemies) Award.

As adolescent fantasies are best left to adolescents, so childish needs to have one’s own way are best left to children, who will hopefully outgrow them. Adults should, to borrow again from the bible, "put away childish things." It would be sad to die without growing up.

For everything there is a season,
For every act there is a reason;
As a garden reflects its seeds,
Deeds of life tell that life’s needs.

Sunday, August 8, 2010

Prophecies for Watchman: Quotes From C S Lewis' Mere Christianity

“If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastely as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.”

“According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride… it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.”

“As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”

“For Pride is spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense.”

“If you think you are not conceited, it means you are very conceited indeed.”

Wednesday, July 28, 2010

Daniel H. Chew’s Confusion Concerning Baptism: Burn Baby Burn Part II

I have previously noted Daniel H. Chew's rabid hatred for infants and retarded individuals who are unable to give conscious assent to the Gospel of Christ. As analyzed in the previous post, Chew has to logically concede that all infants who die in infancy (prior to their ability to give conscious assent to, or to believe in, the Gospel) are reprobates and destined for hell fire.

In his recent post, Chew reiterates his belief concerning infants and other humans who are unable to have conscious belief:

“Heb. 9:27 is the final nail in the coffin for the heresy of Inclusivism. Judgment comes immediately (not temporarily but experientially[sic]) after death, and thus there are no second chances for anyone to have a "postmortem conversion". Those who do not have conscious faith in Christ in this life do not have eternal life, and do not have any second chance to "gain" eternal life after their earthly life have passed.” - Daniel H. Chew
Infants cannot have “conscious faith in Christ,” and if they were to die in infancy, they “do not have any second chance to "gain" eternal life after their earthly life have passed,” so said Chew.

At baptism, the local church would not be able to know whether the said infant is going to survive beyond infancy. If the said infant of believing parents were to die prior to its ability to have conscious belief, then the infant is apparently doomed for judgment as a reprobate i.e. the infant is a reprobate. Therefore, it is baffling that the self-confessed pedobaptist Chew would argue that Scripture warrants/mandates the baptism of reprobates, given that Infant Baptism is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace.

Even Chew's own professor at Westminster would agree that:

“Baptism is a means of sanctifying grace and a gospel ministry to the people of God. It is a sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace illustrating what Christ has done for his people and sealing salvation to the same. Therefore covenant children of believing parents as well as unbaptized adult converts should be baptized. (Reformed).” - R. Scott Clark
Within the context of Chew's statements above, I couldn't imagine a greater tragic irony than that of infant baptism, where the said infant would die prior to acquiring an ability to give conscious assent to the Gospel. According to Chew’s previous statements, and by applying the simple laws of logic, such an infant is reprobate and predestined for hell i.e. “those who do not have conscious faith in Christ in this life do not have eternal life, and do not have any second chance to "gain" eternal life after their earthly life have passed (Chew).” Nevertheless, such a predestined reprobate must, according to Chew’s theology, receive the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace.

Isn't it true that Chew's theology is suggesting that God is an omnipotent hypocrite? God says, “Hey parents, the promise is to you and your children. Oh yes, your infant ought to receive the sign and seal of My covenant of grace. Yep, he is special! Oh yeah, no kidding! On second thought, this one is actually My predestined reprobate, for I have predestined him to burn in hell for all eternity. But hey, what’s the big deal? Give him the sign and the seal of my gracious covenant. It’s just for show, you know? But do you see how gracious I am? I want him to burn in hell for all eternity, but I mandate that you give him My sign and seal of the gracious covenant.”

If Chew would attempt to draw a false analogy between baptized infants who die in infancy (and/or children who die prior to giving conscious assent to the Gospel) and baptized adult believers who later turned out to be false believers or apostates, then Chew is sadly mistaken. In the case of infants, they are baptized prior to them developing a perceived ability to give any conscious assent to the Gospel (or any propositions besides those involving basic primal needs [1] for that matter), whereas in the case of adult believers, these are able to profess conscious belief to the local church. If we cannot accept such conscious belief and subsequent professions of faith from adult believers when considering their baptism, what should we then consider as a testimony to their mental acceptance of Gospel truths? Should we then replace adult baptism with a “Reformed, Protestant” version of extreme unction? From this side of eternity, even adult “believers” who apparently bear spiritual fruits, and are subsequently baptized, might eventually turn out to be reprobates.

Again, Chew might rebut, “God commands all children of believers to be baptized. So it is not a matter of logical analysis, but obedience to God's commandments and mandate.” Firstly, it shall always be a matter of logical analysis, for Clarkian Chew cannot have it both ways: the peddling of Clarkian logic and the simultaneous denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction.

Most of our readers would agree that Reformed Theologians are still debating the issue of infant baptism, and perhaps none has ever claimed to conclusively prove the doctrine from Scripture. Now given that Chew can prove from Scripture that God has indeed commanded baptism for “you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call (Acts 2:39),” how would Chew argue that “children” refers only to infants, and not to older children who can indeed give conscious assent to gospel truths?

How would Chew draw the line of definition between an “infant” and a “non-infant”? How would Chew show from Scripture that a particular “age” defines an infant as opposed to that of a non-infant?
How would he then demonstrate that the household baptisms in the New Testament were those involving these infants i.e. children before they arrive at the non-infant age?

Lastly, why are only infants baptized in pedobaptism? Isn't it true that all children of believers are within the Covenant of Grace, and not just infants (whatever “infant” means)? Since Chew concede that children are in the covenant, why aren’t paedobaptists baptizing all children of believing parents irrespective of age? Again, how should Chew draw the line between an infant, child, the non-infant and the non-child?

[1] Arguably, infants are able to communicate to their carers needs in the lowest of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy, e.g. physiological needs, and perhaps even safety and love needs.

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Daniel H. Chew and his Superego

"There are different kinds of voices calling you to all different kinds of work, and the problem is to find out which is the voice of God rather than society, say, or the super-ego, or self-interest." - Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC

In the beginning, Daniel H. Chew (also known as Daniel Chew Huicong) self-appointed himself as apologist, author, watchman.

He was without fame and void, and darkness was upon his reputation. So, Daniel H. Chew self-published himself a book.

And Daniel H. Chew said: let there be a string of degrees behind my name, and so Chew gave himself the external call to the Christian ministry – apart from any involvement within a local church in Singapore. It was a "ministry" to study in seminary, and that's it.

Even a little of positive affirmation from his pastor (if any) would be good. But alas, does he even have a local church? Is he even an active member of any church in Singapore?

In the future, we keenly anticipate his self-ordination.

Do peruse this excellent post by the Protestant Pope.

Let us also peruse some interesting comments by my readers (Note: I do not stand by these comments):

Anonymous said:

I just found out that Watchman Chew is now a student of Westminster Ca under a prestigious scholarship called "My Daddy's Scholarship." As he has never served in any major capacity in any local church before, he is not supported by any church for his seminary studies. ...

As a self-serving student who aspires to quarrel and debate in blogosphere with a seminary degree, he would probably self-ordain himself as a reverend of a handful of rank-and-file blogo-fans. Would his pastor (if any) clarify these rumors?

Another Anonymous wrote:

Studying seminary in America is not cheap; in fact, it's like doing a professional degree overseas! Taken together with the moneys required to survive/live in USA, it's easily 100K USD or more. ...

May I know which board of elders had elected/appointed godly Chew to do seminary and to be ordained upon his return - given the fact that he hasn't served the local church in any capacity?

I'm sure Pastor Paul Goh wouldn't send Chew to Westminster given that the PRCA seminary is still functioning. Oh wait, Chew is no longer in CERC.

'A Friend' wrote:

To be fair to Daniel, he is greatly to be admired for not having any family commitments in any way. Both his parents are doing well and self-supporting, while Daniel himself has no emotional ties in Singapore.

By all means, he is his father's son, and his father can choose to "invest" in his theological education. At his age, most would be supporting a wife and kids, but in his case, perhaps it's more secure to continue living under his dad's roof.

It isn't easy these days for theological students to survive when supported by a local church; so isn't it great that he is supported by his dad and not by any local church?

I would have wanted my dad's support too!
Barry wrote:

He [Daniel H. Chew] is THE Chee Soon Juan of Reformed Scholarship! I like him!
John wrote:

Although Daniel does not have a church to go to, he serves God with his heart and mind like true prophets within apostate Israel. Churches in Singapore are so degenerate that even pastors are not saved. I see Daniel tells the truth bravely, and churches need to listen to him. How can such pastors lord over Daniel by telling him when he is prepared to go to seminary?
'Would be Pope' wrote:

Daniel needs to test HIMSELF (confirming his 'internal' call) and also prove to his CHURCH (confirming his 'external' call), BEFORE he should even embark on seminary studies.

Writing blogs about the apostate so-and-so, drumming up support from his friends, going to other churches to rub shoulders with the renowned Reformed men DO NOT constitute a call to the ministry.

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

A Watchman or A Fool?

The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. - Ecclesiastes 10:12

Dedicated to those who devote their time to endless disputes and debates in Blogosphere; please make yourselves useful for God's glory.

A word of advice from Matthew Henry to the Fool:

"Fools talk a great deal to no purpose, and they show their folly as much by the multitude, impertinence, and mischievousness of their words, as by any thing; whereas the words of a wise man's mouth are gracious, are grace, manifest grace in his heart and minister grace to the hearers, are good, and such as become him, and do good to all about him, the lips of a fool not only expose him to reproach and make him ridiculous, but will swallow up himself and bring him to ruin, by provoking the government to take cognizance of his seditious talk and call him to an account for it. ...

A fool also is full of words, a passionate fool especially, that runs on endlessly and never knows when to leave off. He will have the last word, though it be but the same with that which was the first. What is wanting in the weight and strength of his words he endeavours in vain to make up in the number of them; and they must be repeated, because otherwise there is nothing in them to make them regarded. Note, Many who are empty of sense are full of words; and the least solid are the most noisy [in blogosphere]. ...

[A fool] is full of words, for if he do but speak the most trite and common thing, a man cannot tell what shall be, because he loves to hear himself talk [or blog/write], he will say it again, what shall be after him who can tell him?"

Sunday, May 23, 2010

Truth and Degeneration

In a recent post, the most correct and logical Watchman-cum-Clarkian Daniel Chew Huicong once again proved himself to be deprived of not only logical mental faculties, but also good ol’ common sense – which is apparently not so common in his case.

Our most venerable Watchman Chew made the following inane proposition that P.

Proposition P: Unregenerate "biblical" scholars produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.

Chew’s context for P: “In the world,” presumably this possible world.

So let us examine this proposition for sanity’s sake.

If P = “Unregenerate "biblical" scholars”;

Then Q = “Produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.”

Allow us to first examine the acceptable logical forms, modus ponens and modus tollens.

1) Modus ponens

If P, then Q.
Therefore, Q

This would mean that, if “you were an unregenerate "biblical" scholar,” then “you would produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.” It could be easily shown that it is not true that "scholarly" academic theological articles and books are produced by all unregenerate "biblical" scholars. The very fact that a particular biblical scholar is unregenerate does not guarantee the production of "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.

There are many factors that might influence his intellectual fecundity. For instance, this scholar might develop a particular medical condition which deprives him of his ability to use his higher intellectual functions e.g. a major cerebrovascular accident. In this case, he might even require the use of adult diapers! Or he might be caught rioting with the Red Shirts in Bangkok and thrown into jail; in which case, he wouldn’t be very productive in academia thereafter.

2) Modus tollens

If P, then Q.
Therefore, ¬P.

This would mean that, if “you do not produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books,” then “you are not an unregenerate "biblical" scholar.” But an unregenerate “biblical” scholar might not be producing "scholarly" academic theological articles and books” for a myriad of reasons. And as explained above, he might have been thrown into jail in Bangkok for rioting, or is currently wearing adult diapers after having a severe stroke. This does not mean that he is suddenly a regenerate “biblical” scholar or Spider Man! On the other hand, he might have simply retired from being a tenured professor.

We now come to the fallacious logical forms of Chew’s proposition that P.

3) Affirming the consequent

If P, then Q.
Therefore, P.

This would mean that, if “you produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books,” then “you are an unregenerate "biblical" scholar.”

The foolishness of affirming the consequent would be clear for most readers, except for perhaps Chew. For example, John Fullerton MacArthur, Jr. does produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books. Does that mean that he is now an unregenerate "biblical" scholar? That goes for scores of godly biblical scholars who produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books on a regular basis.

4) Denying the antecedent

If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore, not Q.

This would mean that, if “you are not an unregenerate "biblical" scholar,” then “you will not produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.” Again, by denying the antecedent, Chew’s already screwy proposition is made even screwier. I believe it is obvious to the readers that one does not require to be an unregenerate "biblical" scholar in order to produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books. One can be a monk or an Islamic scholar or even a regenerate “biblical” scholar.

Perhaps all Watchman Chew wants to do is to hint to us that only "godly" self-appointed Watchmen produce “scholarly” theological articles and books that are generally not accepted by academia, and only such Watchmen qualify as “godly” and “regenerate.” So we should all preferably read only blogs, articles and books self-published by self-glorifying Watchmen like the most venerable, most correct Watchman Chew.

But the truth is – Chew’s reasoning faculties are indeed degenerating, and our prayers are with him.

PS: This is an analysis of only one sentence from Chew’s post, out of his many posts. Can you fathom the tomes required to analyze all of his fallacious thinking and writings?

Thursday, May 20, 2010

Free Lifetime Membership For Watchman Chew!

In view of the exceedingly impressive statements made by the Watchman Chew in his previous posts, I would offer an absolutely free, no-strings-attached, lifetime membership for Daniel Chew Huicong in the aforementioned club (i.e. see above).

There is also an exciting giveaway of an absolutely free template – only for the first 100 members – to print a name card with. The template outlines the following extraordinary credentials: apologist, author, watchman.

Please print your very own Member's Certificate here.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010

Watchman Chew's Best of Friends are Hell-Bound False Teachers - According to Chew of Course!

Consistent with the spirit of an authoritative, self-appointed Watchman, Daniel Chew Huicong has proclaimed the following in a previous post concerning false teachers:

“We can judge a person's teachings and his/her salvation through whether they teach false doctrines and whether they preach another gospel. This shows definitely that the act of teaching and preaching is a very serious affair, since the teaching of false doctrines would damn us. Note first of all that this teaching of false doctrines is something that happens consistently, that is when the people involved truly do believe in them and thus teach them. However, how are we to find out whether a person who teaches something truly believes in what he teaches, and does not do so honestly out of ignorance? We can discern what a person believes through exposing him/her to the truth, and then noticing the reaction of the person teaching serious errors. If the person is honestly ignorant, that person would immediately repent. If, however, that person remains defiant, and that happens for quite some time, we can know for sure that the person is truly a false teacher and is not saved at all.

In the event that his readers might have missed his point, he emphasized for us that, one of “the fruits by which we can discern heretics and even judge the salvation of others” is the “teaching of false doctrines.”

Well, by putting two and two together, we can derive the following from the infallible teachings of the most venerable, most correct Watchman Chew:

1. One of “the fruits by which we can discern heretics and even judge the salvation of others” is the fruit of “teaching of false doctrines.”
2. “The teaching of false doctrines would damn us.”
3. A genuine false teacher is one who “truly … believe[s] in [the false teachings] and thus teach them.”
4. If the false teacher is ignorant, he would “immediately repent” when exposed “to the truth.”
5. “If, however, that person remains defiant, and that happens for quite some time, we can know for sure that the person is truly a false teacher and is not saved at all.”

Using the aforementioned propositions as proposed and consolidated by the most venerable, most qualified Watchman Chew, we can derive the following fact – many of Chew’s own friends would qualify as a false teacher and are likewise damned to hell.

Why so?

Exhibit One – Joel Tay the Baptist

Chew: I believe pedobaptism is the truth. According to the Law of Non-Contradiction, credobaptism and pedobaptism cannot be both true. Hence, credobaptism is a false teaching. As I have shown from the Scriptures, you are now exposed for who you truly are. Do you immediately repent of the false teaching of credobaptism?

Joel: I truly believe in credobaptism and I teach it. So what’s your problem?

Chew: You have remained defiant, and that had happened for quite some time – at least for the last 5 minutes – so now we can know for sure that you are truly a false teacher and is not saved at all. Remember, the teaching of false doctrines would damn us.

Implication: All Baptists are false teachers and are damned to hell according to Watchman Chew.

Exhibit Two – Pastor Paul Goh the Non-Concentric Cessationist

Chew: Dear Pastor Paul Goh, I believe Concentric Cessationism is the truth. According to the Law of Non-Contradiction, Concentric Cessationism and Non-Concentric Cessationism cannot be both true. Hence, Non-Concentric Cessationism is a false teaching. As I have shown from the Scriptures, you are now exposed for who you truly are. Do you immediately repent of the false teaching of Classical Cessationism?

Paul Goh: I truly believe in Classical Cessationism and I teach it. Don’t you yourself follow the 6 forms of unity? Aren’t you more reformed than me?

Chew: You have remained defiant, and that had happened for quite some time – at least for the last 5 minutes – so now we can know for sure that you are truly a false teacher and is not saved at all. Remember, the teaching of false doctrines would damn us.

Paul Goh: But your good friend and fellow blogger Pastor Jonah Tang is also a Classical Cessationist!

Chew: Good. So likewise, he falls under the same condemnation as you! Repent of your false teaching immediately!

Implication: All Non-Concentric Cessationists are false teachers and are damned to hell according to Watchman Chew.

Since Joel Tay, Pastor Paul Goh and Pastor Jonah Tang had all remained “defiant, and that [happened] for quite some time, we can know for sure that [they are] truly … false teachers and [are] not saved at all.”

Of course, this is not my own conclusion. But what else should we logically conclude if we are to accept the venerable Watchman’s most correct and infallible teachings as shown above?

Surely Chew would agree with our conclusion, as he must accept the laws of logic as a Clarkian himself.

Thursday, May 13, 2010

Watchman Chew Is Serious ...

Yeah, we all know that Watchman Chew is serious about his claims.

And we also remember that he claimed that it was none other than God who had appointed him … as foretold.

Monday, May 10, 2010

Good Old Charlie Brown Should Emulate Watchman Chew

Charlie Brown “just can’t get people to believe in” him. That’s because Charlie Brown haven’t read all about Watchman-P.A.P.A. Daniel Chew Huicong.

If good ole Charlie had simply:

1) Started a “Christian” blog on controversial and/or popular issues e.g. the latest theological quibbles, panegyrics of eminent theological personalities and idols, exposés of some megachurches and famous pastors etc;

2) Self-published a book (without peer review, of course) using some self-publishing tool like Xulon Publisher;

3) Acquired an obsequious, unthinking following by writing or speaking like an end-time “prophet” (“ believe this or be damned as a heretic!”) or “apostle” (“I proclaim unto thee Anathema Sit!”) … … all in Jesus name, of course;

4) Raised his own apparent social/academic standing within the theological and/or pastoral community by simply name-dropping as many times as he could;

5) Worn a BSc (Hons) graduation gown and post a picture of it on his blog – so as to appear erudite in theology; and

6) Self-proclaimed himself as the Patron Saint for the 6 forms of unity, all the while surreptitiously supporting/attending a neo-apostolic church while pretending to be against the neo-apostolic movement;

… … he would have been more successful in his cry for people to “believe in me.”

Poor old Charlie Brown.

Wednesday, May 5, 2010

Watchman Chew Is Right, Yeah ...

As usual, whenever the most-revered, most qualified, venerable Watchman-Pope-Apostle-Prophet-Author (Watchman-P.A.P.A.) Daniel Chew Huicong (a.k.a. the pseudo-evangelical Pope) declares any statement “ex-cathedral,” his cronies would accept it as “biblical” fact or truth. Such statements are frequently replete with logical fallacies and factual inconsistencies – which is actually the inbred mark of the self-glorifying ODMer’s “papers” and “posts.”

In a recent post, he wrote, “For those who have seen the disgusting anti-Christian spirit behind the AODMers, this is nothing new. Truth is not much more treasured by those in the New Evangelical and New Evangelical Calvinism camp anymore than in non-Evangelical and Emergent circles. Slightly more, but not by much.”

A simple analysis of the aforementioned propositions (which can be done by a primary school leaver) will expose the lack of logic (and intelligence) within the twisted mind of the self-acclaimed Watchman P.A.P.A.

Chew squealed, “For those who have seen the disgusting anti-Christian spirit behind the AODMers, this is nothing new.”

Fallacies: Ad hominem, bare assertion, dicto simpliciter. Where’s the proof? Where’s the data and research on all the AODMers existing on this side of eternity?

Truth is not much more treasured by those in the New Evangelical and New Evangelical Calvinism camp anymore than in non-Evangelical and Emergent circles.”

Fallacies: Ditto.

I can also yelp, “Truth is not more treasured by Daniel Chew Huicong than by the Beatles.” You see, when you are Watchman P.A.P.A., you can say whatever you want, whenever you want and appear to be well-researched and scholarly, or so he thinks.

Slightly more, but not by much.”

Fallacies: Ditto. How much more? “Slightly” as compared to what? Based upon what kind of scale or measurement is this conclusion derived? Ah ... ...

Enough said.

Chew is getting more self-deluded. Indeed.

Thursday, April 29, 2010

Watchman Chew "Watching" His Classmates In School

PS: Click on comic to view full cartoon!
To get a feel of Daniel Chew Huicong’s childhood, we would peruse a cartoon which describes how little “Watchman” would make all his friends a “former friend” in his life. Theology, indeed, is a good academic area for him to satisfy his urge for axe grinding and self-aggrandizement.

Friday, January 1, 2010

More Misapplied Verses By ODM-ers: Jude 3

Another great post by the Protestant Pope here.

And have a Blessed New Year.

He who have ears to hear,
let him hear here ...
in this New Year,
and not just for your ear,
my dear ... ...

Picture on right: The Venerable Watchman Daniel Chew (BSc Hons, A Levels, O Levels, PSLE, Kindergarten Certificate)