Antithesis

The Death Of A Pope's Blog

2011-07-19T06:56:00.000-07:00

This is an "official" farewell to my friend-in-internet, the Protestant Pope. To his blog, particularly.

Goodbye! And cheers!

Hope you'll find my selection of your exquisite works interesting, timely, and edifying!

Regulative Principle of Worship? (Protestant Pope)

2011-07-19T05:21:00.001-07:00

Please see these posts (modern songs) from Daniel Chew and his contradictory post.

Coming from a person who disdains New Evangelical Calvinism (NEC) as seen in his "thesis" on the Credo500 blog, Daniel is playing right into the hands of the very people he has criticised!

This is how Daniel Chew describes himself
"I am a Reformed Christian standing firm on the Scriptures alone who owes much to the legacy of the Reformation, and desires to build further upon that firm foundation solidly expounding the Truths of Scripture. As a guideline, I subscribe to the 6 forms of unity (the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Canons of the Synod of Dordt, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms). To God be the glory alone!"

What "legacy of the Reformation" is Daniel talking about? The 5-points of Calvinism only?

Furthermore, Daniel makes the audacious claim to "subscribe to the 6 forms of unity" (very rare!) and hold to the "Regulative Principle of Worship"

How does that measure up with his love for modern songs, which are borrowed from the charismatics? I know the New Evangelical Calvinists are very much into that sort of thing (Piper and co.), wanting the best of both worlds - and doing very badly in both!

Some hard questions Daniel Chew need to address:

1) What 'regulates' his worship? Scripture or tradtion or taste?

2) 'Beautiful music' is how he describes his latest post under the heading 'song:'. Is that not the Church of Rome's position and the modern wishy-washy Christian? So what so unique about his brand of worship?

3) By the way, does his pastor/church (a supposedly PRCA supporter) approve of his form of regulative principle of worship?

Daniel has played right into the hands of the NECs and he is no different from the NECs. He talks about Biblical Separation, but rarely practice that. Except with those who are "watchmen of watchmen" (and all his "former friends"). If that is not double standards, what is?

A Rant about Another Rant... (From The Protestant Pope)

2011-07-19T05:18:00.000-07:00

Dear Readers of this blog,

I have seen another attack from Daniel Chew, through his Credo500 blog. As much as the Credo500 blog has its good uses, the name of Daniel Chew co-organising has given it a bad name. Pity, the other contributors are good people.

Reminds us... "Moreover, he must be well thought of by outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, into a snare of the devil." 1 Timothy 3:7 (ESV)

The leader (or wanna-be leader, as is the case of Daniel Chew) must be "well thought of by outsiders". Daniel Chew is not well thought of by "insiders" - let alone "outsiders". Daniel Chew ought to take heed to his opponents, as well as his 'supporters'. I fear that his 'supporters' are mainly faceless characters on blogsphere - whom he would happily call them FRIENDS, but reject his numerous Former Friends and opponents, calling them HERETICS, APOSTATES, etc. One wonder what standard he is using? Is that the Bible's standards for friends?

Back to the Credo500 blog conference. This last paragraph in Daniel's conclusion caught my attention -
"Right from the start, the conference was overshadowed by the specter of a few hate-filled bigots who continually post cowardly and slanderous comments using multiple pseudonyms. Through posting many times and under various pseudonyms like "Antithesis", "A Reader", "The Reader", "A friend", "Ming Liang", "Luther Lim", "Calvin Chan", "Anonymous" and possibly others ("Monica C", "Eng Kiat","Pistevo"?), these few people attempt to give the illusion of a large number of people. These few people continually violate our blog conference rules and persist in attempting to post comments even after being banned and having their comments deleted. They even try to turn brothers against each other, and nearly succeeded. In this respect, I am thankful to God that most people saw through the anti-Christian attitude exhibited by these bigots, and refuse to have anything to do with them. This episode also shows us the dangers in having such an open and public conference whereby heretics of all stripes can enter and attempt to hijack the conference. As we have heard through feedback, the presence of these people do deter others from commenting so as to avoid the toxic environment and at the same time avoid being targeted by these bigots. In the event that another such conference would be planned, we would most definitely take this into consideration so as to prevent a repeat of such attacks of the devil by his minions, and thus create a godly environment conducive to the discussion of the doctrines of God's Word."

A clear example of a person who should not be a pastor. Also a clear example of a bad writer (never mind that he has 'publish' a book and called himself an 'author'). Yes, yes, someone would say (prob Daniel himself) "A pastor must expose error!"... we can agree on that. But there is an occasion for that sort of thing. A conclusion to a conference (or manuscript) is to summarise the whole events, pointing out positives and providing encouragements. Problems encountered should be summarised and provide ways of improvments. To have a mud-slinging paragraph like the above, without knowing the people involved, or the issues dealt with (or left untouched, as is the case normally is!) is totally out-of-order.

Who are these hate-filled bigots?
Are they a few - with multiple pseudonymns?
How on earth does Daniel know these - as facts?
To delete comments because Daniel does not know the answer or feels it embarresses him - is also out-of-order. We have seen that during the Credo500 conference. Don't bother looking for these comments for proof - they are deleted, duh!

"They even try to turn brothers against each other, and nearly succeeded."
Actually, I can say that Daniel has turned against his own brother. The rest of us (AT and company) have done ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to turn brothers against each other!

Daniel Chew himself has already made a brother into another "former-friend". Welcome to the club, former friend of Daniel Chew.

[More to come]

Caught in the Act (aka How to be Inconsistent!) - From The Protestant Pope

2011-07-19T05:16:00.000-07:00

[This issue is brought to my attention through one of the anonymous commentors. Thank you, whoever you are!]

This is quite embarressing. After all the serious Credo500 blog and all that talk about being "REFORMED" and "PURITAN" (even naming his blog "puritanreformed") , I see Daniel has just shot himself in the foot.

If you need more proof, read this - a description of himself...
"I am a Reformed Christian standing firm on the Scriptures alone who owes much to the legacy of the Reformation, and desires to build further upon that firm foundation solidly expounding the Truths of Scripture. As a guideline, I subscribe to the 6 forms of unity (the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Canons of the Synod of Dordt, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms)."

6 forms of unity! This makes Daniel more Reformed than Reformed, more Puritanical than the Puritans! With that in mind, please read on!

Daniel Chew is part of CERC, a church closely associated with the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA). You can call PRCA to be the right-wing (conservative) of all Calvinistic denominations. In fact, some have accused them of being Hyper Calvinistic (rightly or wrongly, I leave it to the consciences of my readers). That could explain why Daniel Chew has become one of their members. So far so good...

However, being the inconsistent person that he is, I believe Daniel Chew is quite fond of Redemption Hill Church. Look at this very short post. He called the pastor "My friend Simon" - oh dear, name-dropping and a friend... watch out Simon, he might find something unclean about you and you will be his "former-friend"!

Check out this post as well and its comments. This is the hilarious part - if you actually download the sermon and listen at around 17:53 you will hear this:

"Can someone give me a smile at the back there. Daniel Chew, why don't you give me a smile? Thank you... All right, make me feel a bit better." (this is also cited by a commentor, Beng)

This is hilarious! So Daniel was there at Redemption Hill Church on Sunday 8 March 2009! Does his Pastor at CERC know about this? What about the Elders at CERC?

He even mentioned in his post that he has met Pastor Simon Murphy over lunch (see the name-dropping?)... ah, fame at last!

Do my readers not see something wrong here? Has Daniel Chew ever promoted CERC's sermons? They exist, all nicely catalogued here. But why has Daniel Chew not said anything about his own local church's sermons? Has he ever done a bit of name-dropping of his OWN PASTOR? Is he a member of CERC or not? Perhaps I am missing something here! I feel sorry for Pastor Paul Goh, who is labouring faithfully for the Lord - only to have a member who is running around promoting some other church.

By the way, Daniel said that Redemption Hill is "a new church plant in Singapore which is properly Gospel-centered and part of the global resurgence in Calvinism." Really, is that so?
Is RHC the new bastion for Calvinism?
Is it consistent with Daniel Chew's beliefs (6 forms of unity and all that!)?

Redemption Hill Church http://redemptionhill.sg/
In their website, under their FAQ section you read this...

"7. How are you different from other churches that identify themselves as being reformed?
A helpful way to summarize our convictions is that we hold to a reformed view of salvation. We believe that God is sovereign over all things, including the salvation of individual sinners, and that all things, including salvation, have as their ultimate goal the glory of God. Such a perspective keeps the gospel central and grace amazing. While we believe that traditional reformed theology generally represents Scripture well, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. Theology is the pursuit of God that must lead us to deep reverence of Him, and love for Him. We certainly do not hold to some of the traditional reformed views, such as infant baptism and the cessation of the gifts."

So RHC is aa 5-pointer in salvation and that is it. Great! Is our Daniel "6 forms of unity" Chew happy about the lack of emphasis on Scripture ALONE and Infant Baptism? Goodness!

RHC also claims to be "...accountable to a team of men and women known as ‘New Covenant Ministries International’ (NCMI)."

What about the NCMI? To put it in a nutshell, they are an organisation that will sort out all the ills of the world and 'church'. Read their website - see for yourself. And they call themselves an "Apostolic/Prophetic team"! And Daniel has no problems with that? Goodness!

So on one hand, Daniel is against the "Neo-apostolicism" movement and the "New Evangelical Calvinism", YET he is very much involved with them! Is that INCONSISTENT OR WHAT!

PS: I have nothing against RHC and its pastor Simon Murphy. I applaud their work for Jesus in Singapore. My issues are with Daniel Chew who is very inconsistent, yet expects consistency from all Christians!

Misapplied verse: Ezekiel 3:17 (Protestant Pope)

2011-07-19T05:08:00.000-07:00

"Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel. Whenever you hear a word from my mouth, you shall give them warning from me..." Ezekiel 3:17

I am no exegete, or theologian (even if I was, I would not say it in this blog!) - so I can only offer questions and possible answers to the verses that ODMers love to cite to justify their actions.

Is this watchman specific for the nation of Israel & for a specific time?

The ESV heading for this verse is "A Watchman for Israel". Strictly speaking, the watchman is specific for the nation of Israel during the OT. A cursory look in the bible will show that the word "watchman" only appears in the OT, for the nation of Israel. The watchman is to stand on a tower and call out if enemies (physical, literal) are close-by - like a guard on sentry duty. ODMers need to ask themselves - Is there scope for the NT to have watchman?

Is the watchman a term for specific Christians or for all Christians?

Daniel Chew has called himself a watchman in a letter that he wrote to the Campus Crusade community in the National University of Singapore.

He wrote "As someone who has been called by the Lord as a watchman, I would like to warn all of you of the incoming tide of heresy encroaching into the churches under the guise of ‘tolerance’."

Antithesis has in the past wrote a funny post about Daniel Chew's antics and his now infamous "NAME CARD"

Daniel is not alone in this matter.

Years ago, there was another famous Christian man who decided not only adopt the title of Watchman, but he actually changed his name to Watchman - Watchman Nee. Again, Watchman Nee also had similiar views about himself in his biography found on the Watchman Nee website:

At the moment of his salvation, all his previous planning became void and his future career was entirely abandoned. He testified, "From the evening I was saved, I began to have a new life, for the life of the eternal God had entered into me". Later, after being raised up by the Lord to carry out His commission, he adopted the new English name Watchman and the new Chinese name To-sheng, which means "watchman's rattle," for he considered himself a watchman raised up to sound a warning call in the dark night.

Note, the Lord promised His Spirit who would guide us into all the truth (John 16:13). Not some earthly Watchman - to warn us about the Lord's coming.

Ah, the ODMer will say - but what about pastors and teachers (Eph 4)? Do we dispense with them?

NO! Jesus appoints the means of saving people from their sins (preaching of Gospel and Work of Holy Spirit) and ALSO the means of keeping them from falling. How? By the Word of God (Bible) and the Pastors/teachers appointed in the church (Eph 4) to preach and uphold it. NOT some imaginary "Watchman".

Next, the ODMer will say, but what if the pastor/teacher is a heretic?

It is deplorable that churches have pastors/teachers who are heretics (or hold known heresies). Pastors are appointed by the Christians in the church to guard the flock of God, and for the church to realise later that the pastor to be a heretic is tragic. However, the Lord who builds His church will also guide His church. We know of men and women, who realising their pastor is a wolf in sheep's clothingm, have either left the church, and joined better churches OR brought it before the elders who may question and if necessary, remove the pastor who are teaching known heresy.

However, it is not the place of individual self-appointed watchman (or watchwoman) from outside stir up trouble (on blogs or discusssion boards) in other churches, just because they heard from so-and-so about the pastor in question.

If anything, the "watchman" should be within the church in question, who knows the pastor in question personally and deal with the issue with maturity, kindness, love - always seeking to restore, help, assist, rather than cause trouble.

Is there a ministry for the watchman?

There are those who believe that Christians ought to be watchmen. Some like Herescope would have us believe that there is a "ministry" for the watchman. For e.g.

"In case you get the impression from the previous articles that I am against any form of apologetics or discernment ministries – I am not. The ministry of a watchman is vitally important to the church. But, unfortunately, many have brought discredit to a crucial ministry by their bad attitude." Killing the Messenger, Herescope

"Watchmen who warn about impending danger have an important role throughout the Bible (Ezekiel 3:17, Acts 20:28-31). BUT, there is a huge difference between a watchman and a gossip. A watchman takes no delight in reporting the threat, while the gossip enjoys telling and re-telling the juicy stories of sin and failure. These gossips are just like the godless Athenians who “spent their time in nothing else but either to tell or to hear some new thing” (Acts 17:21). Some who style themselves as “defenders of the faith,” take extreme delight in rehearsing the latest error. I have seen the glint in their eye as they play the latest DVD or as they sit around the table seeking to tell of some greater error than the previous speaker. Some rush to the keyboard to publish the latest juicy morsel as quickly and as widely as possible" Watchman or Gossip, Herescope

At least Herescope pays lip service to the fact that there is a difference between a watchman and a gossip. Personally, I think there is a very fine line between the 2, and the "watchmen" of today do not know (care about) the difference.

I have yet to find in the NT the ministry of a watchman. True Christians will have inbuilt discernment, as the Lord Himself has promised. Although we freely acknowledge that there will be some who for one reason or another lack discernment, the Lord's promise still holds true. To imagine that there is a specially (self-) appointed person called to be a watchman, like the OT prophets, is at best self-delusion.

Even the OT prophets did not come amongst the people of God with a shout "I am a Prophet, called of God!". They simply said "Thus says the Lord" and the God's people simply responded - some favourably, many unfavourably.

The problem with ODMers is their own lack of discernment, love or concern about the NT people of God. They latch onto some verses, imagined that God has appointed them to be a watchman, and then run along to churches creating trouble. Or they use their blogs to be "teachers", "watchman", etc....

Antithesis latest article and some thoughts on modern ordination (Protestant Pope)

2011-07-18T22:55:00.000-07:00

Dear Esteemed readers of this blog (yes, both of you!),

Seeing how often Antithesis has hyperlinked my articles and vice versa, I thought I ought to keep this "tradition" going. But I do it, not out of obligation, but with the honest opinion that his latest article is very informative, good and thought-provoking.

Now, by saying so, I run into the following problem - AT might be Daniel Chew, and so I may have unwittingly given Daniel Chew a solid reason to enter the "solid"/"premier" Reformed seminary (his words, not mine!). AT, if you are Daniel in disguise, well....

At the risk of sounding like sour grapes, I offer more thoughts on Daniel's studies in the "solid" and "premier" seminary in USA. One has to make the assumption that Daniel hopes to be "ordained" - to have the prefix "Rev." - Rev. Daniel H Chew.

I hope to show that Daniel's route to ordination is at best, misguided - at worst, pragmatic.

The 'traditional' view of ordination is the local church identifies a man for the ministry (external call), who in turn has been exercise in his spirit, in that direction (internal call). The church/pastor encourages the man to preach (assess his gifts) and also observes him (assess his graces). This "check-and-balance" approach prevents those men who presume their calling, and encourages those who lack confidence in their calling. Once all that has been established, these men may be sent by the church to Bible college (optional, funds permitting), not just to receive instruction (that should be done daily, anyway, if the man is going to preach regularly) but also to instill a discipline and structure in the men, so that they are able to handle the rigours of the pastoral ministry.

After studies, the men are only just beginning - they still have to "earn their stripes", go out and preach to congregations, in the street corners, door-to-door work, visitations, etc. Perhaps then, some church might call him to be their pastor. They will be "ordained", "inducted" or "appointed".

Sadly, today this is largely turn on its head. Uncalled men can enter the ministry through the "back-door". Some Anglicans have done that in the past - middle-class Anglican families sent their sons to prestigious seminaries to pursue a BA/MA, as being a clergyman was deemed a respectable career choice (military and politics fall in the same category). Today, men who have yet to test their gifts and graces can enter the ministry using a similiar "back-door". I suggest the following route that Daniel Chew might take:

Daniel pours in his own money to enter a "solid", "premier" seminary
Daniel will ask his pastor to write an "reference" - which need not be one to demostrate the applicant's gifts and graces - just a reference to show that he can undertake a seminary degree course
Daniel enters seminary, and transfers church membership to a denomination that is linked with the seminary. After all, what better way to gain the "favour" of the church, by showing that he is a "seminary-student"?
Daniel preaches from time to time in various churches in the denomination - never mind the lack of unction from the Spirit, as long as he is a "seminary-student", he must OK, right?
After graduation, Daniel seeks ordination - the denomination tests him using the standard "ordination tests" that some place uses. Perhaps an interview or two, then hey presto! The now "seminary-graduate" is a "REV."!

Rev. Daniel H Chew leaves USA, returns to Singapore, and tells all these poor-ignorant Singaporean Christians why they must believe what HE believes... or else...

See what I mean by getting ordained using the "back-door" method?

Letter to Daniel Chew (Protestant Pope)

2011-07-18T22:50:00.000-07:00

I really don't see a point in having a Twitter account and Blogger account when they are both doing the same thing - attacking fellow Christians online.

Chew: "Meet the New AODMers- Annoymous cowards sniping behind the safety of their keyboards, all inspired by that buffoon Antithesis."

I see the Christian LOVE oozing out of that one, don't you?

"New AODMers?" We are as new as the ODMers yourselves!

"Annoymous cowards sniping behind the safety of their keyboards..." - so are Online Discernment Ministers (including yourself, Daniel) any braver sniping behind the safety of your keyboard?

"...all inspired by that buffoon Antithesis." - what made you think people like myself are inspired by Antithesis? Who inspired you then?

Perhaps Daniel Chew has not read this yet?

For this is the message that you have heard from the beginning, that we should love one another...
Everyone who hates his brother is a murderer, and you know that no murderer has eternal life abiding in him...
Little children, let us not love in word or talk but in deed and in truth...
Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love....
No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us....
There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. We love because he first loved us. If anyone says, "I love God," and hates his brother, he is a liar; for he who does not love his brother whom he has seen cannot love God whom he has not seen. And this commandment we have from him: whoever loves God must also love his brother.

(All taken from 1 John 3-4, ESV)

Exegete all you like, in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Chinese, whatever.... The plain old English says it clearly enough.

Dear Mr. Daniel Chew, I started this blog, not in partnership with Antithesis. I am trying to point out to you the follies of your Online Discernment Ministry - which is unbiblical, and not helpful to Christians - well, at least to the average Christian in general. Only fellow ODMers will support you, pat you on your back and love you for your "writings" - though most of us are confused and need help, guidance and prayer support.

As a fellow Christian, I will love you as a brother, even if you dislike people like me. But if you believe that Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 4:5) (people like myself... and you!) - then you might wish to reconsider your behaviour on blogsphere! If I cannot love a person like yourself, then it is best that I drop the "badge" of Christianity and live like a apostate - at least they have more "fun"!

With Christian love this Christmas season,
Protestantpope

Daniel Chew's former friends (Protestant Pope)

2011-07-18T22:38:00.000-07:00

As Daniel Chew is not writing anything controversial (or useful for that matter!) at the moment, I decided to re-read one of Antithesis's blog post, entitled "A Very Short Reply to Daniel Chew Huicong".

An anonymous comment (1st comment) wrote in that post that Daniel Chew had a number of former friends. A follow up comment pointed out the number of one-time friends of Daniel Chew who have since disappeared - after having some "debates" with the Watchman, Author, Apologist of the Christian world (AT - Daniel's original post with his infamous name is now removed).

I decided to scan the blogsphere to look out for Daniel's former friends. My case-study is this blog - THE LIFE OF WORSHIP, by Wenxian - a Singaporean who no longer blogs. Let us follow - chronologically, their friendship and then falling out... it is a pattern between Daniel and his 'former-friends'. I have included some quotes in italics.

1) This is Wenxian's first post when he endorsed Daniel Chew's Blog - April 2006
"This is my friend's blog entry. I support what he has said in his blog entry. Daniel knows what he is saying and i have did my checking as well."

2) In June 2006, Wenxian and Daniel Chew were still FRIENDS!
"I thank the LORD... He has sent 3 people, filled by the Holy Spirit, to affirm me in my battle and help me affirm up my faith, to encourage me on this hard road of life i choose to walk in the LORD. I am thankful for brothers cyberranger and hedonese and daniel. Thank you LORD!"

3) From this post in Nov 2006, Wenxian had (or still is?) attended the same church as Daniel Chew. I wonder if he left it once he realise what kind of a character Daniel Chew is!
"Went to visit Daniel's church, CERC today. I must say that i am pleased with whats going on."

4) Here Wenxian states - in Aug 2007, what everyone suspects all along - that Daniel is a hypercalvinist! I sense the trouble has already before this post...
"Daniel a type-3 hypercalvinist?
http://www.spurgeon.org/~phil/articles/hypercal.htm
I'm simply calling a spade a spade here. Failure to understand God's perceptive will and decreptive will? Thats really sad. What makes it really sad is that he (likely) became a type-3 hypercalvinist because he wants to oppose everything Rick Warren said in his 40day PDL book, which begins with: [God desires your salvation... God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life]... Either that or he can't bear to see himself wrong in in his angelfire website.. other reasons exist of course."

5) I am not sure about this post - dated Nov 2007, but it was obvious Daniel Chew had said something to offend Wenxian. But I was not going to pursue that line...
"I recently visited Daniel's blog and honestly, i quite regretted visiting it. yet i was also quite happy too. Its strange but being correct is a much more overwhelming feeling that being insulted/character-assasinated online. I simply proved the assessment i had of daniel all along. Of course i will not say it here, but its not good. I'm quite appalled a reformed christian actually behaves in this manner to a well-worded comment. It was neutral in stance in everyway. I couldn't believe it when i wrote the comment without a single fiery word."

6) Also this by Wenxian - dated Nov 2007. Here is clear that Wenxian has left the church that Daniel Chew attends, due to theological differences. Was it really due to theological differences or did Daniel's behaviour put him off?
"Anyway, as a personnal aside to daniel, if you won't listen to Brother Jenson, who has attended more church than you, served more than you and is much more mature than you - even IF [lets assume i am not] i am attending a church at the moment, you will not repent from your foolishness. So because you deny Brother Jenson's arguements (which i totally suscribe to), you deny yourself the same right of arguement against me when you use [the assumption that that i do not attend church, i.e. your ''i have done more than you so u don't have authority arguement''] against me.

Another thing. I am very grateful i didn't attend your church. I don't want to imagine myself trying to pull out from your church purely because of baptismal theological differences. This was my benefit of not attending church at that time. Imagined if i had committed to churches of your sort without analysis? I'll be doing it the same things as my previous church again! I was blind but now i see. I have no wish nor rush to jump back into blindness."

7) Finally check this out by Wenxian. Amazingly, in May 2008, Wenxian was sounding the call to watch the watchman! I have included Wenxian's entire post.

"I've been reflecting about 'watchmen' in certain protestant, reformed churches today. I was wondering what is it about 'watchmen' such as Daniel that made him call out Jenson as someone who disparages Scripture, even when:

1) Jenson affirms the full and sole authority of Scripture. (sola scriptura)
2) Jenson was clearly taken out of context and slandered.

Is it the correct way for Daniel to call out to Jenson and ask him to repent of something he did not do? Based on the sole proof that Daniel provided against Jenson in his blog, if taken into full context, Jenson was by no means disparaging scripture, even IF the clip (which Jenson remained silent) was sort of dispararing Scripture.

Is it therefore appropriate to assume the context of a person's heart and call the person to repent when in actual fact, the only thing Jenson did was that he did not follow Daniel's insistence to attack Edmund? [Daniel, why pray tell, must Jenson attack Edmund in the context of that post?]. Even if Edmund became rotten to the core later, it is not to be used as evidence against the 'fundamentalism is idolatry' post. Must a person attack another verbally in order to demonstrate allegance to the Lord?

Or has Daniel forgotten who Jesus chose: Mary or Martha? It is sufficient when people draw close to to the Lord.

Daniel has to learn to be humble and understand his position. While i do affirm the correctness of his analysis with Rick warren and the purpose driven movement, as well as against homosexuality, Daniel is not empowered by heaven or by powers on earth, to demand that 2 individuals speaking amongst themselves to fall out. Daniel is neither an elder nor a pastor (now). Even if Daniel is an elder or a pastor or a pope, it give him no right to bring two friends assunder (even if they associate on other terms and differ in theological opinions). That would clasify as 'Lording over the flock'.

I hope Daniel understands clearly that the reason why i dissociated from him, in retrospect, was not due to theology per se. Rather, it was his obnoxious behaviour and his willingness to interfere in events that have no need of his interference. In short, if Daniel had not interfered with my initial conversation with vincent and made his own comments, we would have parted amicably. Then again, i thank God i did not part with him well - i should stay clear of anything that pollutes me...

Additionally i hate people who have scant respect for other people's time. Such is a fruit of a person who thinks he is superior than other people and does not give people the benefit of the doubt nor respect.

I do not wish to be influenced by people who cannot inwardly manifest Christ in their lives. I have no wish to be a hypocrite. A person who cannot fix his inner man (ok thelogically its by god) but insists on not trusting God and trying to fix other men himself is in for a lot of trouble.

Another serious error is that he believes people can be neatly classified into various categories of heretics/etc. Erm no. Some may but mostly others will accept some things and reject others. To classify a person as a _________ and therefore use known arguements against this class of theology is plain foolishness! This means that Daniel has likely no wish to listen or discern if the person is (1) gently deluded (2) really believing in it (3) plain confused (4) not part of the theology at all! He once clasified me as a dispensationalist - yet John piper is a reformed theology baptist. Sighz.

If we go by the fruits of the spirit, Daniel sadly misses out on goodness, kindness, patience and self control. Well.. if God can make a Babylonian king eat grass, he can make fools out of people. Lets just leave everything to God for this guy. Honestly i had given up on him a long time ago.

Wouldn't it be better to just sit at the feet of Jesus and to draw close to Him? Isn't it enough?"

From the Protestant Pope: Daniel Chew's Transition

2011-07-18T22:28:00.000-07:00

Note: Since the Protestant Pope has recanted of his blog, I will re-post some of his best works in systematic theology.

So I was informed by an anonymous reader and from comments over at Antithesis' blog that Daniel Chew is going to USA to pursue a seminary degree. He has since written a post entitled "A Transition"

I have quote in full (replacing a portion of Scripture that he quoted with a link) and made comments in italics:

Observant readers of mine may have noticed that I have seen that my city of residence have been changed, although that would not actually take effect until about one week's time. The fact of the matter is that I am going for theological studies in a solid Reformed seminary over there.

Anyway, here is a short sharing which I have prepared for a dinner with some of my extended family last night. It has undergone major revisions since the script was not fully thought-out at that time. Anyway, here it is.

I do not know if his extended family include a number of saved people, but the subsequent "sharing" would make little sense to the unsaved. There was no clear Gospel message, although the opportunity was there. A little advice to the new seminary student/would-be pastor: when the opportunity arise to proclaim the good news, take it.

Is. 48:2-11

In just a couple of days time, I would be flying off to the USA for theological studies. Why have I decided to do that?

Being saved by the grace of God, I desire to know Him more and to live for Him, giving my all (Rom. 12:1) to the one who saved me purely out of His own free choice to do so. As I grow in my walk, I became burdened with the shocking biblical illiteracy even among Christians who are ignorant of basic biblical doctrines, which coupled with an attitude of anti-intellectualism results in failure to function as the salt and light of the world. Instead, we have epitomized the reality of Eph. 4:14 – being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine, and in this we glory in our shame, boasting to everyone of our ignorance by claiming to have “no creed but Christ”.

Those are not valid reasons to constitute a "call to the ministry". Does Daniel Chew expect to study for a MDiv/MTh and return to Singapore and deal with all the "Shocking biblical illiteracy" among Christians in Singapore?

Does one need to have a MDiv/MTh in order to function as salt and light of the world? Or to stop others from being tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine?

Daniel, have you discern within yourself if you have the "internal" call to the ministry?

In the past three years, I have felt the calling to serve God full-time. Yet the call of God is not something that is emotion but that is of the Spirit. Through prayer and awaiting God’s timing, I am convinced of God’s guidance into this area and my giftings in this area have also been noted by fellow Christians. It is therefore my desire to learn more about God’s Word so as to be able to teach it properly for the building up of God’s people.

Yes, Daniel, but how do you know? Growing in grace and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ is for every Christian, some grow faster than others. That does not constitute a "calling to serve God full-time".

How is Daniel convinced of God's guidance? Is his church recognising his gifts and calling? Has his pastor discern this as well? Have they given their hearty approval thereby providing Daniel with his "external" call? My guess is NO! That is probably a reason why he gave no indication of that.

His claim of "giftings" being "noted by fellow Christians" is questionable. Is that the church? His pastor? Or the 4-5 well-meaning friends who encouraged him along in his ambitions? Do his well-meaning friends themselves understand the Christian Ministry?

Yet in all this I must take note of the fact that service is ultimately not about me. God is totally sovereign and He does not need anyone to do His will. God does not need me or anyone else for that matter to do His work, for His arm is powerful to do all that He desires (Dan. 4:35). God can make a great nation from Moses without the need for the Israelites if He so chooses to (Ex. 32:10), and He can raise up children of Abraham from inanimate rocks and stones (Mt. 3:9, Lk. 3:8). No matter the need, God is always in control and lacks nothing from us.

We must not therefore think that God needs our services otherwise His plan will fail. Rather, God condescends to use us for His own glory, and it is our privilege to joyfully submit to Him and do His will for us.

God’s will is ultimately for His glory – for His name’s sake (Is. 48:2-11). God’s glory is of supreme importance to Himself, and it is because of His glory that He saves us, just like He promises to saves the rebellious Jews during the time of Isaiah. I must therefore also remember that the goal of all service is that God be supremely glorified, not about how much service I have rendered to God or how many people may benefit from what God may do through me. The prophet Jeremiah has little to show for His labor, yet He glorified God by proclaiming His Word as judgment against Judah for their rejection of God’s authority and His Law. Likewise, all that we do must be centered on God and His glory, not the needs of men, the Church or the World. What matters is faithfulness, not results.

So (1) God does not need me, and (2) God does not treasure what I can do (as if apart from the Lord I can do anything anyway). Yet it is my privilege to follow and offer my life up to this great God and my Savior, knowing that He will use this flawed life for His purpose, and that His purposes will stand. Amen.

The remainder of his post is rather abstract. No connection with the crux of the matter. Several questions just came off the top of my head:

On what grounds is he studying at WSCal? Because he is an "informed Christian layman"? Or is it the fact that he is an "Apologist, Author, Watchman" (his infamous name-card post is now off his blog, but I think the name-card is still in existence)?
On what grounds did WSCal accept his application?
Did his pastor provide a reference, and if so, on what basis? Daniel's (real or imaginary) calling to the ministry? Or did his pastor just wrote a reference to say that Daniel is capable of studying theology?
What about character reference? Who provided that? Is Daniel's character one that exemplifies 1 Tim 3, Titus 1?
Has Daniel proven to himself (not just to others) that he has the gifts AND graces to enter (and stay in) the ministry?
Has he (on an informal basis) taught the members of his church the doctrines of Scripture?
Has the church given their hearty approval to those gifts and graces?
Has God's Providence opened doors to him to preach/teach?

I am afraid Daniel Chew is heading in the direction of where many men who imagined a call to the ministry has gone:
1) seminary studies (Which isn't cheap!);
2) wait for years for a church to call him as pastor;
3) if no calling, study to become a RE teacher in a school

OR

3) if a calling a available...
a) pastor for few years, dry up (i.e. no more materials)... move onto next pastorate
b) pastor for few years, split church several times
c) pastor for few years, introduce modern gimmicks
d) people fed-up with poor spiritual preaching...leave
e) etc...

Daniel needs to realise that a MDiv/MTh is no guarantee that he will be a pastor, let alone a GOOD & FAITHFUL pastor. There is a lot more in the Christian Ministry than just trying to obtain a seminary degree.

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

2010-08-12T17:19:00.000-07:00

ON SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS

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.

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

2010-08-08T21:27:00.000-07:00

“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.”

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

2010-07-28T18:16:00.000-07:00

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.

Daniel H. Chew and his Superego

2010-07-22T21:06:00.000-07:00

"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.

A Watchman or A Fool?

2010-07-06T18:57:00.000-07:00

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?"

Truth and Degeneration

2010-05-23T21:26:00.000-07:00

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.
P.
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.
¬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.
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?

Free Lifetime Membership For Watchman Chew!

2010-05-20T17:54:00.000-07:00

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.

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

2010-05-18T08:19:00.000-07:00

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.

Watchman Chew Is Serious ...

2010-05-13T21:43:00.000-07:00

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.

Good Old Charlie Brown Should Emulate Watchman Chew

2010-05-10T23:16:00.000-07:00

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.

Watchman Chew Is Right, Yeah ...

2010-05-05T23:13:00.000-07:00

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.

Watchman Chew "Watching" His Classmates In School

2010-04-29T19:05:00.001-07:00

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.

Before You Burn That Heretic On the Stake

2010-04-27T22:59:00.000-07:00

Arguing On The Internet About Theology

2010-04-27T22:53:00.000-07:00

But that's the way Daniel Chew Huicong likes it ...

More Misapplied Verses By ODM-ers: Jude 3

2010-01-01T02:20:00.000-08:00

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)

Great posts on ODMers

2009-12-27T18:06:00.000-08:00

Great links here.

A Song For Daniel Chew Huicong

2009-12-22T04:02:00.000-08:00

PS: Inspired by the Protestant Pope

A Song to my brother, Watchman-P.A.P.A., author, apologist, Daniel Chew Huicong. Sung in the tune of "Have Yourself A Merry Little Christmas".

Lyrics

Dear Daniel Chew Huicong,

Have yourself a blogging-watching Christmas,
Let your hate be light
From now on,
your skeletons wouldn’t be out of sight

Have yourself a blogging little Christmas,
You damn to hell the Gay,
From now on,
their troubles will be blogged away.

Here you are in your judgment chairs,
Happy judging days … of yore.
Ske-le-tons that are dear to us
Out of clo-sets once more.

Through the years
Your blogs will gather together,
If “Blogger” allows
Hang Da-mo-cles sword above your balding brow.
And have yourself a blogging-watching Christmas now.

The Tares

2009-12-22T00:27:00.000-08:00

Some more interesting links on ODM-ers:

Satan's Pawn

The Tares

Some Misapplied Verses By ODMers

2009-12-19T19:49:00.000-08:00

Read the following posts by The Protestant Pope ... hear ye, hear ye!

Ezekiel 3:17

2 Timothy 3:12

And here's another update by the Protestant Pope himself.

Even more skeletons found in Daniel Chew's closet. Truth will out!

PS: The secret lives of ODM-ers ...

All Infants Go To Hell According To Daniel Chew Huicong

2009-12-17T07:13:00.000-08:00

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.

One of These Things is not Like the Others

2009-12-01T19:36:00.000-08:00

Do you folks remember the Sesame Street song, "One of these things is not like the others?"

It's a fond little game we play when we're younger.

One of these things is not like the others,
One of these things just doesn't belong,
Can you tell which thing is not like the others
By the time I finish my song?

Now, which of these quotes belong to the label "Christian," and which of these do not?

A) Gollum, aka Mr Smeagol's preciousss - "They cursed us. Murderer they called us. They cursed us, and drove us away. And we wept precious, we wept to be so alone. And we forgots the taste of bread, the sound of trees, the softness of the wind. We even forgot our own name. My preciousss."

B) A Christian's Preciousss - "The kingdom of heaven is like unto a treasure hidden in a field. Which a man having found, hid it, and for joy thereof goeth, and selleth all that he hath, and buyeth that field. Again the kingdom of heaven is like to a merchant seeking good pearls. Who when he had found one pearl of great price, went his way, and sold all that he had, and bought it." Matthew 13:44-45

C) Daniel Chew Huicong, aka Watchman Chew's preciousss - "They criticized us. Watchman they called us. They blogged about us. Hypocrites they called us. They criticized us, and blogged about us all the way. And we wrote precious, we wrote on our blog while being alone. And we forgots the taste of love, the sound of humility, the softness of the heart. We even forgot our own name - 'Christian'. My preciousss blog, papers, book and theology. My preciousss facade before Man."

More Skeletons In The Closet!

2009-11-29T05:37:00.000-08:00

This post is reproduced here from The Protestant Pope Speaks

Hear ye, hear ye! The Protestant Pope Speaks AGAIN! You got to read this expose!

From the Protestant Pope:

This is quite embarrassing. After all the serious Credo500 blog and all that talk about being "REFORMED" and "PURITAN" (even naming his blog "puritanreformed") , I see Daniel has just shot himself in the foot.

If you need more proof, read this - a description of himself ...

"I am a Reformed Christian standing firm on the Scriptures alone who owes much to the legacy of the Reformation, and desires to build further upon that firm foundation solidly expounding the Truths of Scripture. As a guideline, I subscribe to the 6 forms of unity (the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Canons of the Synod of Dordt, the Westminster Confession of Faith and the Shorter and Larger Catechisms)."

6 forms of unity! This makes Daniel more Reformed than Reformed, more Puritanical than the Puritans! With that in mind, please read on!

Daniel Chew is part of CERC, a church closely associated with the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA). You can call PRCA to be the right-wing (conservative) of all Calvinistic denominations. In fact, some have accused them of being Hyper Calvinistic (rightly or wrongly, I leave it to the consciences of my readers). That could explain why Daniel Chew has become one of their members. So far so good ...

However, being the inconsistent person that he is, I believe Daniel Chew is quite fond of Redemption Hill Church. Look at this very short post. He called the pastor "My friend Simon" - oh dear, name-dropping and a friend ... watch out Simon, he might find something unclean about you and you will be his "former-friend"!

Check out this post as well and its comments. This is the hilarious part - if you actually download the sermon and listen at around 17:53 you will hear this:

"Can someone give me a smile at the back there. Daniel Chew, why don't you give me a smile? Thank you... All right, make me feel a bit better." (this is also cited by a commenter, Beng)

This is hilarious! So Daniel was there at Redemption Hill Church on Sunday 8 March 2009! Does his Pastor at CERC know about this? What about the Elders at CERC?

He even mentioned in his post that he has met Pastor Simon Murphy over lunch (see the name-dropping?) ... ah, fame at last!

Do my readers not see something wrong here? Has Daniel Chew ever promoted CERC's sermons? They exist, all nicely catalogued here. But why has Daniel Chew not said anything about his own local church's sermons? Has he ever done a bit of name-dropping of his OWN PASTOR? Is he a member of CERC or not? [Note by Antithesis: Daniel Chew Huicong is a FULL member of CERC] Perhaps I am missing something here! I feel sorry for Pastor Paul Goh, who is laboring faithfully for the Lord - only to have a member who is running around promoting some other church.

By the way, Daniel said that Redemption Hill is "a new church plant in Singapore which is properly Gospel-centered and part of the global resurgence in Calvinism."

Really, is that so?

Is RHC the new bastion for Calvinism?

Is it consistent with Daniel Chew's beliefs (6 forms of unity and all that!)?

Refer to:

Redemption Hill Church http://redemptionhill.sg/

In their website, under their FAQ section you read this...

"7. How are you different from other churches that identify themselves as being reformed?

A helpful way to summarize our convictions is that we hold to a reformed view of salvation. We believe that God is sovereign over all things, including the salvation of individual sinners, and that all things, including salvation, have as their ultimate goal the glory of God. Such a perspective keeps the gospel central and grace amazing. While we believe that traditional reformed theology generally represents Scripture well, our ultimate theological commitment is not to a particular system of theology, but to theology that is biblical. Theology is the pursuit of God that must lead us to deep reverence of Him, and love for Him. We certainly do not hold to some of the traditional reformed views, such as infant baptism and the cessation of the gifts."

So RHC is a 5-pointer in salvation and that is it. Great! Is our Daniel-6-forms-of-unity-Chew happy about the lack of emphasis on Scripture ALONE and Infant Baptism? Goodness!

RHC also claims to be ".. .accountable to a team of men and women known as ‘New Covenant Ministries International’ (NCMI)."

What about the NCMI? To put it in a nutshell, they are an organization that will sort out all the ills of the world and 'church'. Read their website - see for yourself. And they call themselves an "Apostolic/Prophetic team"! And Daniel has no problems with that? Goodness!

So on one hand, Daniel is against the "Neo-apostolicism" movement and the "New Evangelical Calvinism", YET he is very much involved with them! Is that INCONSISTENT OR WHAT!

PS: I have nothing against RHC and its pastor Simon Murphy. I applaud their work for Jesus in Singapore. My issues are with Daniel Chew who is very inconsistent, yet expects consistency from all Christians!

Skeletons In The Closet

2009-11-26T06:49:00.000-08:00

My dear friend, the Protestant Pope, continues to write concerning some of Daniel Chew’s skeletons still kept hidden in his closet … until NOW.

Hear the Protestant Pope even as he speaks!

It is inevitable that Daniel Chew's former friends will continue to haunt the present.

Daniel Chew Huicong's Former Friends Haunt The Present

2009-11-21T20:06:00.000-08:00

Hey you all, you folks got to read this post by my pal Protestant Pope.

This is the TRUTH. You KNOW it is.

Will Daniel Chew's former friends please stand up and speak up?

Booooooohoooooooo ... ...

A Tiny Note On A Narrow Mind

2009-11-12T06:19:00.000-08:00

Note: This is a note on this post by Watchman Chew.

My friend Ivar has written an excellent post here regarding religious hypocrites. Ivar makes the excellent points that:

1. Hypocrites want to be honored by men. (Matthew 6:2).

2. Hypocrites love to pray standing in the Synagogues (and I guess Churches), and street corners. (Matthew 6:5)

3. Hypocrites want to boast of their religious duties, and tell others they are fasting (Matthew 6:16)

4. Hypocrites do not admit their own faults, but look for faults in others. (Matthew 7:5)

5. Hypocrites give a tenth, but neglect justice, mercy and faithfulness. (Matthew 23:23)

6. Hypocrites build tombs for the righteous, but denies that they themselves would have taken part in shedding the blood of the prophets. (Matthew 23:29)

7. Hypocrites honor Jesus with their lips, but their hearts are far from Him. (Mark 7:6)

In like manner, we can discern religious hypocrites from the blogosphere by the following characteristics:

(1) Religious hypocrites are desperate for recognition and want honor from Man. For example, they would appoint themselves with many offices (like author, apologist and watchman), and are desperate to be a teacher of others when they should be students of the Word;

(2) They love to pray (and blog) in full view of their followers. For example, they would pray to God for the anathematization of fellow Christians, pray to God to strike them dead and/or to send them to burn in hell forever. They would then be praised for their “discernment” and encouraged to fight the good fight of faith by fellow watch-bloggers;

(3) They love to boast about their religious duties and/or skills (e.g. watching and exposing errors, leading discipleship classes, attending violin lessons, spouting Greek words/grammar for which they have little knowledge of, etc);

(4) They do not admit their own faults, but constantly seek out the faults and errors of others (hence the office of Watchman). They abhor “watcher of watchmen” watching and exposing them, but they love to watch others. They detest advice from others suggesting that they are self-righteous and/or self-deluded;

(5) They might give a tenth of their income as tithe or a tenth of their precious time for blogging, or even a tenth of their time to publish a book so as to make a name for themselves, but neglect justice, mercy and faithfulness. We would neither hear of them visiting the orphans and widows in their afflictions, nor see them giving their lives to the mission fields in third world countries. We might read about them traveling to nice spots for holidays in the name of “mission” though;

(6) They honor Jesus with the lips (and blogs), but their hearts are far away from Him. These hypocrites are self-righteous, ostentatious, and love pre-eminence amongst Man. They are not after God’s heart, but are really craving for men’s admiration.

IMO, Ivar's post has successfully navigated between two extremes in this regard.

On one extreme is the self-righteous, self-deluded, self-perceived infallibility and parochialism of self-appointed “watchmen” and their blogs (e.g. Daniel Chew Huicong) "which litter the Internet like so many sewer pipes choked full with libel, all initially started mainly to defend some false teaching(s) or teacher(s) but which degenerates into the stinks they now are." (quote taken from Daniel Chew's post)

On the other extreme is the broadmindedness of religious syncretism and the likes of it. We hereby thank Daniel Chew for his thoughtful comments, which are perhaps better suited to describe his Watchman blog site. Typical of self-righteous, self-deluded "watchman" sites, the false teacher and watchman Daniel Chew failed to realize that he had likewise castigated all "watcher of watchmen ministries" with his recent post (cf. Daniel's comment on the Christian blogger, Tim Challies). Thanks Ivar for your excellent article.

In Praise of Satire – A Response To Daniel Chew Huicong

2009-10-31T21:10:00.000-07:00

Note: This post is a satirical response to this post by Daniel Chew Huicong. To show the kind of liar Daniel Chew is, here he writes, “This would be my last word on the cyber-terrorist, liar and anti-Christian watchblogger anonymously called "Antithesis".” But just two days later, he writes about “Antithesis” again. Does he even have a single iota of integrity as a self-professed Christian?

“Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices—mint, dill and cummin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law—justice, mercy and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former. You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence. Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, and then the outside also will be clean. Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You are like whitewashed tombs, which look beautiful on the outside but on the inside are full of dead men’s bones and everything unclean. In the same way, on the outside you appear to people as righteous but on the inside you are full of hypocrisy and wickedness.” Matthew 23:23-28

Nope, I am not praising Watchman Chew, and I am not out of my mind. I am merely praising the art of satire.

In our struggle against the flesh and the world, nothing ever comes close to practically surfacing the sinful desires of the flesh than trials and tribulations, especially when others wrong us and slander us without cause and without truth e.g. Watchman Chew’s relentless condemnation and anathematization of a multitude of churches, pastors, elders, worship leaders, and fellow brethren-in-Christ.

What shall we do then? We can attempt to fight fire with fire, and attack those who anathemathize us even more harshly and vociferously. After all, don't we all have a right to protect ourselves and defend our reputations, especially when the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong condemned so many of us to hell fire and called us heretics? Since the truth is on our side, victory is all but assured and we can thus steamroll all opposition, can't we?

To tackle this question, we must look at what the Scripture teaches about the topic of satire and mockery. In fact, there is an entire book written to defend satire within Christian writings and polemics. The problem with the usual approach is that it doesn’t go through the head of hidebound hypocrites like Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong.

But what is “satire” according to the Bible? It is written in this book, “A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking,”

“Satire treats the foibles of sinners with a less than perfect tenderness. “Satire is the exposure of human vice or folly through rebuke or ridicule. … It might consist of an entire book (e.g. Amos), or it can be as small as an individual ‘proverb.’” But nevertheless, if a Christian employs satire today, he is almost immediately called to account for his “unbiblical” behavior.” [1]

Hence, satire is defined as the “exposure of human vice or folly through rebuke or ridicule.” “Ridicule” would include the usage of mockery, humor, sarcasm, derision, teasing, scoffing and scorn, while “rebuke” would involve chastisement, criticism, censure, and castigation.

One biblical approach to dealing with our enemies is to follow the example of our Lord Jesus Christ, and of course, his use of satire and mockery:

“The disciples were worried about the effects of the Lord’s rhetoric. Did you know the Pharisees were offended when they heard this? (Mt. 15:12). Yes, I did, He replied in effect. His mission was accomplished (v. 13). The Lord attacked the scribes and Pharisees for their long robes, sanctimonious geegaws, prayer habits, tithing practices, their ways of greeting, their seating arrangements, their hypocrisies, and so on. If the Pharisees had funny hairdos, like they do on TBN, we would have heard about that too.” [2]

In replying an opponent, the satirical exposé exposes the hypocrite for who he is, warts and all. This hypocrisy would include Daniel Chew’s two-faced notion of naming a post, “In Praise for AT,” and then turning around, pretending that he is a little god, and pronouncing eternal damnation upon my soul:

“He as a Neo-Orthodox heretic is not saved. Yet, to desire for his good means to desire for his salvation from his vain way of life. Seen in this light, I pity him. His emptiness has generated only hatred in him which he spews at people like me who proclaim the truth. He has nothing to offer; no Gospel to save him from his sins and he is on the road to perdition.”

This kind of “praise” would probably be the kind of praise Daniel Chew offers to God when he sings, “Praise God from whom all blessings flow” – the utter hypocrisy and his “fair show in the flesh” is clear to those who have eyes to see.

It is not within the scope of this post to discuss Daniel Chew Huicong’s long robes and graduation gown, his sanctimonious gewgaws, prayer habits, tithing practices, his ways of greeting (for example, he would commend you as a brother-in-Christ, then nitpick on your writings, call you a heretic, and condemn you to hell like he is God Himself), his seating arrangements in church (especially when he is late for service on the Lord’s Day – his pastor would know this), his hypocrisies, and so on. If Chew had a funny, twisted smile on his face – like he does on his graduation photograph – we would have heard about that too if this were a satirical exposé.

The English Puritan, George Swinnock, writes:

Sin reigning in the heart, is oftentimes more hurtful
than when it rages in the life. Such civil people go to
hell without much disturbance, being asleep in sin.
They are so far from being awaked that they are many
times praised and commended.

Example, custom, and education, may also help a man
to make a fair show in the flesh. They may prune and lop
sin, but never rip it up by the roots. All that these can do,
is to make a man like a grave, green and flourishing on
the surface and outside, when within there is nothing but
rottenness and corruption.

One purpose of satire is to awake such “civil people” who “go to hell without much disturbance, being asleep in sin. They are so far from being awaked that they are many times praised and commended.” Being constantly praised and commended by fellow bloggers for condemning so-called heretics and churches to hell, it is little wonder that such hypocrites or fools continue to be asleep.

The Bible discussed many ways of answering a fool. Sometimes, we answer not a fool according to his folly, lest we be like him (Prov. 26:4), but “in other situations a fool must be answered according to his folly lest he become wise in his own conceits. “Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit” (Prov. 26:5). In other words the Bible says that answering a fool does provides a temptation to the satirist, and so he must watch out. But not answering provides a temptation to the fool and allows him to marinate further in the juices of his own vainglory.” [3]

Indeed, the marinating juices of vainglory has got to one’s mind and soul, that it seems an almost impossible task of coating the slippery body with a crunchy, tasty breadcrumb crust of “Christ-likeness” so as to fry the fool within the oil of sanctification. Just look at what the Watchman Chew has written about himself:

“Through AT, whatever things that can be used against me has been dug out somehow, thus showing me my weak spots. Although all of AT's commentaries are outright lies, yet because he is by nature an enemy, he would endeavor to collect as much dirt as possible to smear my reputation. 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.”

What a self-deluded individual he is! Whatever little we have done, we do it out of our own leisure and free time. We have not even started dabbling in his appalling writings at Credo 500, his self-acclaimed “papers,” and his long blog posts – we simply do not have the time (like Daniel Chew has) to critique such unedifying “papers” and narcissistic blogging attempts. Of course, if we get paid a lucrative salary for doing it, we might just spend our precious time performing a thorough critique of all his writings. But it will not be an enjoyable task. And of course, Daniel’s assertion that we are lying is, indeed, a lie in itself (please refer to our previous post).

Daniel laments, “But whatever happens, the main thing we should remember is that faithfulness to God and His Word counts more than our reputations. Jeremiah's reputation wasn't very great in his entire life time [sic], and he was imprisoned many times for the truth. We should care less about our own reputations and more about the honor of God's name. Rather that we be despised by the world than for God to be dishonored.”

What an honorable aim in life for Daniel: to call down hell fire upon his opponents, to relentlessly pick on pastors, elders, teachers, church leaders and various denominations in order to condemn them as heretics. What do we say to Watchman Daniel Chew’s attempt at being a Watchman? This is our answer:

“Consequently, prophetic rebukes should come from seasoned prophets, from men called to the ministry of guarding those people who belong to the Lord. The work should be done by men of some age and wisdom, and not by novices, firebrands, and zealots. The work should most certainly not be done by the kind of man who practices on his mom, wife, or kids. … A man who has a need to cut others is a man who ought to be silent.” [4]

In conclusion, in our dealings with the enemy, let us seek to emulate the example of our Lord Jesus Christ. Let us have the courage to call the charlatan for who he truly is – a hypocrite. Towards a hypocrite who demands the Matthew 18 methodology in approaching a brother-in-Christ when we deal with him, while he himself indulges in calling down hell fire upon his opponents without ever bothering to even contact them, we would plead for the use of satire as laid out in the Word of God. God will judge in the end, and His judgment will be perfectly just according to the sins committed. May we learn therefore how to desire the ultimate good for our enemies, even through the use of biblical satire. Amen.

References

[1] Douglas Wilson, A Serrated Edge: A Brief Defense of Biblical Satire and Trinitarian Skylarking (Moscow, ID: Canon Press, 2003), p. 12, quoting Leland Ryken et al, eds., Dictionary of Biblical Imagery (Downers Grove, IL: IVP, 1998), p. 762.

[2] Ibid., 101

[3] Ibid., 103

[4] Ibid., 104-5.

A Very Short Reply To Daniel Chew Huicong

2009-10-28T22:29:00.000-07:00

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.

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

Of Parrots, Pablum and Pap

2009-10-24T06:42:00.000-07:00

Introduction

Meta-Ethicists have argued over the meaning of “moral culpability” or “moral blameworthiness” for eons (not really eons – a hyperbole, really), and there are probably as many understandings of “moral culpability” as there are meta-ethicists. We have heard of simple emotivistic (and hence subjectivistic) understanding that P, where P is “moral culpability,” for example:

Moral culpability (P) = An agent X is morally blameworthy for performing action A iff it is appropriate for a blame emotion – resentment, indignation, or guilt – to be felt toward X in response to X’s A-ing.

Or perhaps some of us have stumbled upon definitions by ethical objectivists (realizing that there are numerous versions of objectivism), including some theists, who believe in the existence of objective moral truths. For instance:

Moral culpability (P) = An agent X is morally blameworthy or culpable for performing an action A iff it is morally wrong for X to perform A.

Here, culpability or blameworthiness is not associated with what the agent believes or thinks is wrong, but with what is in truth objectively wrong, independent of subjective opinion. Notice that in the aforementioned proposition or definition of P, culpability is distinguished from wrongness.

Judgments of wrongness and judgments of blameworthiness or culpability have very different implications. Even where a moral wrong was committed, it does not follow that an agent X should be blamed or be culpable for the wrong. This is for the reason that there are factors that lessen or remove blame from X for a morally wrong act, but that cannot in any way make the wrong act right.

For instance, Tommy suffers from a factual ignorance: he doesn’t know that the bowl of soup contains arsenic. Jane, a very good friend of Tommy, has deceived him into believing that the bowl of soup was indeed nutritious and tasty. Out of good will and love, he gave the soup to his mother; and since there is only one bowl of soup left, he even thought that he was being modestly self-sacrificial in giving what he wanted to consume to his mother. In offering that bowl of soup to his mother, Tommy killed his mother! Assuming that this scenario constitutes non-culpable factual ignorance, Tommy is not culpable for murder. [1] But does this non-culpability make the action of Tommy right? Non-culpable factual ignorance only exculpates the moral agent; it does not make wrong acts right.

Or maybe we would have encountered a relativistic rendition of P, where:

Moral culpability (P) = An agent X is morally blameworthy for performing action A only if X has the belief that it is wrong for her to do A and this belief plays an appropriate role in X’s A-ing.

It is not our intention in this short post to discuss the various existing definitions of “moral culpability.” Nevertheless, we do owe a reply to Daniel Chew Huicong’s spanking new defender or apologist – Mr Jason Loh – who calls himself Augustinian Successor, and who had decided to answer Ming Liang on Mr Chew’s behalf.

Augustinian Successor Succeeds in Failing

From the above introduction, we realize that there are several conceptions of moral culpability. But I have yet to see a defense of the proposition that P1, where P1 is “moral culpability,” that is, according to Mr Jason Loh:

Moral Culpability (P1) = “to be accountable for one's actions”

Or rather,

P1 = An agent X is morally blameworthy or culpable for performing an action A only if X is accountable for A-ing.

It is truly amazing (and possibly culpable) that Mr Jason Loh, a self-professed “Prayer Book Anglican” – who is at the same time a member of the Lutheran Church in Malaysia and Singapore (LCMS) – believes that P1.

In his reply to Ming Liang, we recall that he wrote:

“Ming Liang and friend(s) are trying to argue that God must be morally culpable is [sic] the Creator of evil. God is not for the simple reason that God is not answerable to anyone but Himself. To be morally culpable is to be accountable for one's actions.”

So according to Mr Loh, “to be morally culpable is to be accountable for one's actions.” (P1). But P1 begs the question; in fact, P1 begs several questions, as we shall soon see.

What does Mr Loh mean when he allege that X is “accountable” for A-ing? From his previous statement, “God is not [culpable] for the simple reason that God is not answerable to anyone but Himself,” we can see that Mr Loh would understand “accountability” as referring to “answerability.” Hence, for Mr Loh, to be accountable is to be answerable.

But this begs the next question, “Answerable to what or who?”

If he were referring to the secular law of the land, then he would be submitting himself to the relativistic view of “moral culpability.” There are different secular laws with different values, sometimes even within the same country; for different moral agents (i.e. X1, X2, X3, etc) to be answerable to different standards of law would require moral relativism. This is not what Mr Loh as a theist desires, I believe. [2]

There are several fairly ridiculous options e.g. being answerable to your parents, to various authorities, or even to household plants, which we wouldn’t consider – unless Mr Loh chooses to differ with us on this.

As a theist, Mr Loh would probably mean this: being answerable to God. So, we can refine P1 to mean:

P1 = An agent X is morally blameworthy or culpable for performing an action A only if X is accountable or answerable to God for A-ing.

We had helped Mr Loh in defining his definition of moral culpability, and assisted him in teasing out his thoughts from his aforementioned statements. Even so, besides begging the question concerning the truths of Theism (e.g. the existence and character of a theist’s God), we can see that P1 is quite deficient, and lacks further thought.

Is Jason Loh, then, morally blameworthy for doing charity only if Jason Loh is accountable to God for doing charity? According to P1, he is. In fact, according to P1, he would be morally culpable or blameworthy for marrying a woman or even worshipping God, and P1 is also why he is morally culpable for even blogging (reductio ad absurdum).

In his understanding of P1, he has failed to distinguish culpability from wrongness (see my introduction above); this is the most fundamental error in his discussion with Ming Liang. The questions he begs also require further argument and analysis.

Denying the Law of Non-contradiction

Interestingly enough, according to P1, God would also be culpable for things He does! This is because God (agent X) is still answerable to God (Himself) for A-ing. [3] Therefore, his previous statement, “God is not [morally culpable] for the simple reason that God is not answerable to anyone but Himself” contradicts the latter, “to be morally culpable is to be accountable [to God] for one's actions.” If his understanding of P1 is such that, “to be morally culpable is to be accountable [to God] for one's actions,” then Mr Loh has just denied the Aristotelian Law of Non-contradiction. God cannot be P1 (morally culpable) and not-P1 (not morally culpable) all at the same time!

It is also noteworthy that Mr Jason Loh follows in the footsteps of Daniel Chew in denying the Law of Non-contradiction.

Augustinian Successor Succeeds in the Further Denial of Logic

We now peruse Jason Loh’s statements in his other reply to Ming Liang.

Jason: Circular reasoning is not neccessarily [sic] illogical.

AT: This is a bare assertion. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy. That's logic 101. Here are some exercises in logic that might be helpful.

Jason: Atheism is based no less on circular reasoning.

AT: Firstly, we didn't say we are atheists. Secondly, even if we are, your "argument" is a classic tu quoque fallacy. Fallacy again.

The Un-Provability of Non-Existence

The following illustrates how some theists resort to the common logical fallacy of “proving the non-existence” of something ad nauseam.

Jason: There is no God because there is no evidence of God. It begs the question, how do you know? How do you know that God has chosen not to reveal Himself to you (through His Word)?

AT: Another fallacy: you’re asking us to prove the negative i.e. that there is no God. It’s like the following scenario:

Jason: An omnipotent freakish squirming jellyfish exists.

AT: Prove it does.

Jason: Prove it doesn’t. There is no omnipotent freakish squirming jellyfish because there is no evidence of an omnipotent freakish squirming jellyfish. It begs the question, how do you know?

Here is what the The Objectivist Newsletter (April 1963) had to say on the logical fallacy of proving a negative:

“Proving the non-existence of that for which no evidence of any kind exists. Proof, logic, reason, thinking, knowledge pertain to and deal only with that which exists. They cannot be applied to that which does not exist. Nothing can be relevant or applicable to the non-existent. The non-existent is nothing. A positive statement, based on facts that have been erroneously interpreted, can be refuted - by means of exposing the errors in the interpretation of the facts. Such refutation is the disproving of a positive, not the proving of a negative ... Rational demonstration is necessary to support even the claim that a thing is possible. It is a breach of logic to assert that that which has not been proven to be impossible is, therefore, possible. An absence does not constitute proof of anything. Nothing can be derived from nothing. If I say, “Anything is possible” I must admit the possibility that the statement I just made is false. (See Self Exclusion) Doubt must always be specific, and can only exist in contrast to things that cannot properly be doubted.”

Jason: How do you know that God has chosen not to reveal Himself to you (through His Word)?

AT: Yet another fallacy – the plurium interrogationum. How do you know that you haven't stopped beating your wife yet?

Jason: Because you are confusing logic with contents.

AT: Bare assertion. No, we are not.

Jason: Scripture alone gives the information necessary to know the one true and living God.

AT: Bare assertion. Barely asserted, not argued for.

Conclusion

There were a couple of things that we perceived as being odd, to say the least.

Firstly, why would anyone use the picture of John Calvin for his own blogger profile? For a moment we almost thought that Jason Loh looked like John Calvin, or does he?

Secondly, Jason Loh calls himself “Augustinian Successor.” But in what way does Jason Loh succeed the early church patriarch, Augustine of Hippo? Was it in his logic, analysis and thinking? Or was it in the flatus, fetor, and flamboyance?

But what impressed us the most are the similarities between the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong and Mr Jason Loh, his new apologist. Both are males. Both have plenty of free time to blog and to comment on blogs. And both are adept at using logical fallacies and senseless rhetoric to answer their opponents.

It is little wonder that George Bernard Shaw coined the term “theological parrots” in “The Quintessence of Ibsenism,” and Wayne A. Detzler used the same expression to refer to the liberal, albeit unthinking, rationalistic Christian scholars of the nineteenth century. [4]

There is only so much the theological parrot is capable of. Beyond the regurgitation of their alma mater’s dogmas, or the restatement of content from handbooks they have read, we would expect to see little independent thinking.

And that is exactly what we have received from these gentlemen.

References

[1] It is not within the scope of this post to discuss the matter further. The simple illustration serves the purpose of explaining that there are factors that lessen or remove blame from X for a morally wrong act.

[2] This view also commits the is-ought fallacy i.e. what is (the current law of the land) does not mean that it ought to be. For example, the law could be unjust, and that which ought to be morally good might be called bad in the current legislation.

[3] It is acknowledged that there is much to be discussed concerning God and free will, and/or moral agency. For a Judeo-Christian theist, the belief in P1 = “An agent X is morally blameworthy or culpable for performing an action A only if X is accountable or answerable to God for A-ing” would lead to a theological absurdity in philosophical theology. God the Son as Man is to be understood as a moral agent, and is subjected to P1. If it would have been impossible for Jesus the Son of Man to choose sin or to go against the will of the Father in the obedentia activa and obedentia passiva of Christ, or if Christ did not have free will in His Incarnation i.e. in conjunction with the two components of the obedentia Christi, then this Christ as the Second Adam in Covenant or Federal Theology would be theologically unsound and inconsistent. Therefore, with P1 as defined by Jason Loh, Christ the God-Man is then morally culpable, which is absurd for Christians – a reductio ad absurdum.

[4] These are paradoxically rationalistic, yet lack independent thinking, unlike “Hengstenberg, Tholuck and Neander.” Cf. Wayne A. Detzler, “Inerrancy and Revival in Germany,” Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 28, no. 3 (1985): 327-333.

Lessons in Logic 101

2009-10-15T07:49:00.000-07:00

We can derive precious lessons in informal logic by perusing the illogical statements and “arguments” of the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong.

As the readers would have known, there is a little debate occurring between Chew and Ming Liang at the Credo 500 website.

While the storm brews and darkness befalls the tiny island of Singapore, the titter of a sniggering Chew could be heard resounding through the corridors of a particular residential estate. As Chew sets out to “tear down” poor little Ming Liang, Chew pompously (and superciliously) announced:

Chew: “However, the Bible and its truth stand over and against your reasoning. I will now deconstruct your entire argument.” [thunder and lightning]

Narrator: I never knew Derrida’s method of “deconstruction” is such illogical child’s play. Derrida must be rolling in his grave. Let us enjoy the fun that follows.

In the ongoing debate over at Credo 500, Chew began his attack by making a bare assertion:

Chew asserts: "God however escapes moral culpability because sin and sinful actions are not directly caused by Him, but are caused by secondary agents under His control." [audience gasped in awe]

Narrator: Here, Chew insists that God “escapes moral culpability because sin and sinful actions are not directly caused by Him.” So, as any logical fellow would, Ming Liang asked for an argument for Daniel’s bare assertion. The burden of proof falls upon him who makes the claim.

So Ming Liang asked: “Why is it so that God “escapes moral culpability” just because evil are (allegedly) not directly caused by Him?”

Narrator: It follows that Chew commits a classic logical fallacy - shifting the burden of proof.

Chew snapped: “Why is it that God does not escape moral culpability just because evil is not directly caused by him?” [audience gasped further]

Narrator: It’s like the following (silly) debate between Tom and Jerry:

Tom: God exists.
Jerry: Prove that He does.
Tom: Prove that He doesn’t.

In conjunction with the above bare assertion (a logical fallacy as well) by Chew, Ming Liang asked, “Is evil (all kinds of evil?) not directly caused by God? What is your argument for this?” This is a reasonable question since Chew asserts that evil is not directly caused by God. Instead of arguing for his point, Chew repeats the same fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.

Chew: “What is your argument for the contrary? How do you know either way?” [more lightning and thunder]

Narrator: But Ming Liang does not need to argue for “the contrary,” as Chew is the one arguing for the proposition that P = “God escapes moral culpability because sin and sinful actions [or evil] are not directly caused by Him.”

As an analogy:

Chew: “You are an idiot.”
Jason: “Why is it that I am an idiot?”
Chew: “Why is it that you are not an idiot?”

Narrator: It’s clear here who truly is the idiot – the one who couldn’t even conjure up a single argument for his proposition that P. P is still a bare assertion. There’s no way a sane, logical fellow can argue with dunderheads like Chew. In like manner, he’ll probably claim that a flying omnipotent earthworm Jim exists, and demands that you prove why a flying omnipotent earthworm Jim doesn’t exist (which is called proving the negative and shifting the burden of proof).

Chew claimed: “I was not trying to explain evil, but to give a viable philosophical explanation of how God can be the ultimate cause but not the author of sin.” [in the tune of Massenet’s Meditation from Thais]

Then Ming Liang asks a very simple question to clarify Daniel’s point, “What kind of evil are you referring to in “I was not trying to explain evil …’”?

Chew answered: “Precisely the point that I am not trying to explain why evil exists. I am only trying to explain how it exists given the axioms of Scripture.” [audience gasp in wonder]

Narrator: Chew doesn’t even seem to understand basic English. Poor Ming Liang asked “what kind of evil [was Daniel] referring to.” It’s really a simple question. But Chew ignored the question, and “argued” for something that wasn’t even asked in the first place, thereby committing the fallacy of ignoratio elenchi or an irrelevant conclusion.

It’s like this scenario:

Chew: “I like ice cream.”
Ming Liang: “What kind of ice cream are you referring to?”
Chew: “Precisely the point that I am not trying to explain why ice cream exists. I am only trying to explain how it exists given the axioms of Scripture.”

Narrator: What do you folks call this kind of debater – mentally challenged?

Ming Liang asked, “You referred to moral evil in “sin and sinful actions.” But does God escape moral culpability for metaphysical evil and physical evil? If so, why?”

Chew replied: “First of, upon what basis is evil defined as "evil". Secondly, why must God be culpable for "metaphysical evil and physical evil"?”

Narrator: Chew’s question (in reply to a question) is really amazing. As a Christian who exhorts sinners to do good and to eschew evil, he doesn’t even know what is the “basis” by which evil is defined! I thought he had the Bible, and I thought he would have at least said that the basis for the definition of evil is the Bible. But lo and behold, how can we trust such a “Christian” man to teach good and evil? He would perhaps even confuse good with evil! Chew’s other question, “Why must God be culpable for "metaphysical evil and physical evil," is merely his attempt to push his bare assertion further – without any argument whatsoever – simply by rephrasing that P. This shifts the burden of proof again, and saves his ignorance by rephrasing a question in the negative.

Chew: “God is not culpable for evil (which includes metaphysical evil and physical evil).”

Jason: “Why is God not culpable for evil (which includes metaphysical evil and physical evil)?”

Chew: “Why must God be culpable for "metaphysical evil and physical evil?"

Narrator: That “logic” and “argument” would surely earn him an honors in the BA in philosophy for chowderheads.

Ming Liang asked: “If God is the ultimate cause of all things, and if all things include evil, God is the ultimate cause of evil. Do you agree/disagree with this? If so, why?”

Narrator: It is clear that the arguments are already stated in the above sentence syllogistically:

P1 = God is the ultimate cause of all things.
P2 = All things include evil.
C = So God is the ultimate cause of evil. (Conclusion)

Instead of challenging the major and/or minor premises, and/or the validity of the syllogism, Chew – who is well versed in [the lack of] logic – answered:

Chew: “No, I disagree. Please elucidate the arguments for saying so.”

Narrator: Excuse me, Mr Chew. The arguments are already “elucidated” in the form of a syllogism in Ming Liang’s question. Chew apparently doesn’t even recognize the most basic of all logical arguments – syllogistic reasoning. I think a mutated monkey would disagree with Ming Liang in almost the same manner as Chew.

Monkey: “No, I disagree. But I don’t recognize your arguments or why I even disagree.”

Ming Liang wrote: “I’m sorry, but I believe you’re trying to convince me with circular reasoning i.e. we know that P (e.g. P=God is Good; God is sovereign etc) because the Bible says so; we know that the Bible is true because God inspired it (and God cannot lie); we know that God inspired the Bible (and God cannot lie) because the Bible says so. Hence, a circulus in probando … yeah right. Your direction of reasoning is illogical.”

Chew answered: “Logic, as Jason as said, is the manner of reasoning. It is nonsensical to say that a "direction of reasoning" is illogical.

Narrator: I guess we can all see why Chew’s reasoning is illogical. See all of the above logical fallacies.

Chew continued: “In fact, talking about circular reasoning, yours is also circular. After all, why it is that your axiom of the rightness of your moral sense is to be trusted?”

Narrator: This is truly an amazingly fatuous question from Chew. Ming Liang hasn’t even mentioned a single “axiom” of “the rightness of [his] moral sense,” and Chew somehow purports to know what Ming Liang believes in!

But don’t we all know how Chew utilizes bare assertions all the time to answer questions or to “argue” with those whom he disagrees with?

Chew said: “Since God hold [sic] all responsible for the actions they themselves do, therefore God cannot be the direct author of evil.”

Ming Liang replied: “The Bible claiming that “God [does] hold all responsible for the actions they themselves do” doesn’t mean that this ought to be the case. What if God shouldn’t have held them responsible i.e. **gasp** the Bible is actually incorrect here, or that your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect here, or there’s a mistake in your version, or … etc (e.g. Calvinists even believe that God actually made some humans unto destruction for His glory, depriving reprobates of effectual and particular grace, and these cannot choose otherwise etc)? The Is-Ought distinction must be clearly argued for, not merely asserted (is-ought fallacy plus bare assertion, yeah right).”

Narrator: Ming Liang tried to reason with Chew that he had committed the is-ought fallacy (which is, of course, another logical fallacy). But Chew replied:

Chew: “Sorry, you do not seem to understand what you [sic] talking about. I argue based upon what IS and OUGHT to be based upon the axiom of Scripture. Unlike you, who only argue based upon what IS.”

Narrator: That is again another amazingly fatuous statement! First of all, we haven’t seen a single argument from Chew; at a minimum, “arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion.” What premises, conclusions, and valid logical forms had Chew offered thus far? None. We have only seen bare assertions and logical fallacies all throughout Chew’s replies.

Ming Liang had previously tried to explain that, probably as a non-Christian himself, he didn’t accept Scripture to be divine revelation, and Daniel’s replies thus far had been based upon circular reasoning.

Ming Liang explained: “I’m sorry, but I believe you’re trying to convince me with circular reasoning i.e. we know that P (e.g. P=God is Good; God is sovereign etc) because the Bible says so; we know that the Bible is true because God inspired it (and God cannot lie); we know that God inspired the Bible (and God cannot lie) because the Bible says so. Hence, a circulus in probando.”

Narrator: But Chew here persists in his circular reasoning, and it is viciously circular indeed!

Chew: “I argue based upon what IS and OUGHT to be based upon the axiom of Scripture.”

Narrator: And hence, Chew finds circles coherent within his frame of mind and “logic”. [in the tune of Legrand’s Windmills of the Mind]

Lacking a definite argument for his bare assertion that P (where P = “God escapes moral culpability because sin and sinful actions [or evil] are not directly caused by Him”), Chew repeats the same formula of success – shifting the burden of proof.

Chew wrote: “Since God is sovereign, evil must be under His control. The only way IMO that the two can be put together consistently is that evil is indirectly caused by God.”

Ming Liang replied: “Here you acquiesce that “evil is indirectly caused by God.” GIVEN [emphasis here to emphasize that this is given to you, and not that I agree with you] that God is the indirect cause (and indeed, the ultimate cause) of evil, how would you argue from that fact (?fact) that He is not morally culpable?

Narrator: Here, Ming Liang is simply asking for Daniel Chew to argue his case that P. Notice that Ming Liang thus far is examining Chew’s beliefs via questions; Ming Liang never asserted any proposition.

But Chew predictably replied: “How can you argue that God is morally culpable for sin even if he is the ultimate cause of it? Prove your bare assertion.”

Narrator: Once again, he shifts the burden of proof by rephrasing the question in the negative, and asserts that Ming Liang made a bare assertion. Where is this “bare assertion” by Ming Liang, pray tell?

That would certainly earn Chew a Masters in Philosophy for chowderheads.

A hypocrite in the making

Chew: “As stated earlier, your epistemic direction is wrong. We must start off with the axioms of Scripture, then seek to understand how they logically cohere. We are not to start with our own autonomous human reasoning and question the teachings of Scripture.”

Ming Liang replied: “As stated earlier, your epistemic direction is wrong. We mustn’t start off with circular reasoning, and then seek to understand how “circles” logically cohere. We should not be afraid to use reason and logic. Isn’t it hypocritical if we must first use reason and logic to understand or to interpret scripture (how else would you understand scripture or derive these “axioms”?), then turn around and say that we should start from scripture, and not from “autonomous human reasoning”?”

Narrator: Ming Liang here tried to explain that, since Chew had started with “autonomous human reasoning” and logic in order to understand the writings, axioms and propositions of Scripture, it is really hypocritical to alleged that “we are not to start with our own autonomous human reasoning …”.

But apparently, Chew failed to see that fact.

Chew replied: “And of course, your own circular reasoning is off-topic for discussion, I presume. Aren't you doing the same, except instead of Scripture, you substitute your own moral sense?”

Narrator: My point is – what “circular reasoning” had Ming Liang committed thus far? None. But desperate times call for desperate measures. Chew had no choice, but to “save face” by making up allegations against his opponents. Or was he hallucinating or hearing voices in his head?

More importantly, Chew commits a classic tu quoque fallacy. Instead of defending himself from Ming Liang's allegation (of Chew's circular reasoning from Scripture), he accuses Ming Liang of the same. Worse, Ming Liang really did not commit the fallacy of circulus in probando.

Chew closes off the discussion with a classic ad hominem fallacy – poisoning the well.

Chew: “Yea, right. Tell him (or is it you) to make more sense, instead of talking rubbish. And btw, don't expect to go to AT's slanderous and blasphemous site.” [background music: Psycho]

Narrator: Is Antithesis’ blog really slanderous and blasphemous? Please check out the facts for yourselves, dear readers.

The truth hurts, doesn’t it?

When Chew has no arguments for his bare assertions, he commits logical fallacies one after another in order to appear erudite and scholarly.

Well, at least he deserves a Masters in Philosophy.

For chowderheads, that is.

The Art of Christian Necromancy

2009-09-28T07:31:00.000-07:00

We now continue our exciting journey into scholarly Chew’s intensely researched article on Rick Warren. We have previously seen that, in his rebuttal of a fellow Christian blogger named Dave Chong, Chew alleged that Chong confused “Classical Arminianism with Evangelical Arminianism.” In a recent comment in the Credo500 Christian Conference, he changed his mind and accused Chong of refusing “to differentiate Evangelical Arminianism from the semi-Pelagian Finneyist theology [of Rick Warren]…”

So which is it, Watchman Chew? Did your brother-in-Christ Dave Chong fail to differentiate between Evangelical Arminianism and Semi-Pelagianism, or did he fail to distinguish between Evangelical Arminianism and Classical Arminianism? Or is it something else altogether?

Or perhaps it is you who are confused?

It seems that Mr Chew is truly confused concerning what Chong is allegedly confused about.

Error 3 – Theological Confusion

We have previously seen that our Watchman Chew had made serious factual errors concerning Arminianism; for example, while the Remonstrants did affirm total depravity, Mr Chew denied that they did.

This time, he revealed that he is actually quite confused with Rick Warren’s theology (doctrinal beliefs).

In a recent comment on Credo500, Mr Chew snarled at Dave Chong:

“Dave:

As usual, you still do not get it. Warren is NOT in any shape the same as Wesley. In fact, Wesley himself would denounce Warren as teaching error. Your refusal to differentiate Evangelical Arminianism from the semi-Pelagian Finneyist theology that Warren teaches is extremely regrettable.” [emphasis mine]

In this comment, the venerable Watchman Chew made it clear that Warren’s theology (doctrinal beliefs) is that of Semi-Pelagianism, calling Warren a “semi-Pelagian Finneyist” in theology. A budding theologian would surely know that Semi-Pelagianism is distinct from Arminianism.[1] Or so we thought.

In Mr Chew’s paper, Evaluating the Purpose Driven Paradigm: Recapturing the Vision of the Centrality of the Gospel, Chew stated clearly that Warren’s theology or doctrinal stand is that of Arminianism. Chew wrote:

“Lastly, the sufficiency of Scripture and of the Gospel is undermined by practical Pelagianism or the embrace of the Finneyist error of revivalism. That the Purpose Driven paradigm is practically Pelagian in its outworking, though doctrinally Arminian, can be seen in its consistency with Finneyist dogma that revival is a natural event engineered by the correct use of natural means.”[2]

Do note that although Chew accused Warren of “practical Pelagianism” (Warren’s praxis), he is adamant that Warren is “doctrinally Arminian” (Warren’s theology).

Here we get a serious problem. In Chew’s ‘expert’ theological discourses on Credo 500, Chew is confident that Warren’s doctrine is that of “semi-Pelagian Finneyist theology.” In other words, he believed that Warren was a Semi-Pelagian in doctrine/theology (not merely praxis). But in his scholarly paper, Chew alleged that Warren is “doctrinally Arminian.”

Hence, after intensive research, Chew is nonetheless confused concerning Rick Warren’s theological or doctrinal system. In one place, Chew was adamant that Warren’s theology is Semi-Pelagianism; in another, Chew was unrelenting in his allegation that Warren’s theology is Arminianism.

So which is it, Mr Daniel Chew Huicong? Is Rick Warren’s theological/doctrinal system that of Semi-Pelagianism or Arminianism?

Error 4 – Ipse-dixitism

We recall that in a recent comment on Credo 500, the venerable Watchman Chew made the following assertion:

“Warren is NOT in any shape the same as Wesley. In fact, Wesley himself would denounce Warren as teaching error.” [emphasis mine]

Giving Mr Chew the benefit of doubt that it is indeed true that Warren is not “in any shape the same as Wesley” – although we are not sure if Chew was referring to Warren’s physique, body-mass index, hairline or theological beliefs – it is puzzling to read how Chew managed to know (for a fact) what Wesley would do to Warren i.e. “Wesley himself would denounce Warren as teaching error.”

That is an amazing statement, spoken with perhaps equally amazing confidence and gusto.

It is possible that Mr Chew had learned the satanic art of necromancy, summoned Wesley from the grave and demanded from him a conclusive denouncement of Warren’s teaching. But this is quite improbable, given that he is a Christian, and that his genealogy does not include the witch of Endor and/or the likes of her.

It is, however, more probable that Mr Chew is entrenched within the minefield of ipse-dixitism; he has learnt the art of spewing ipse dixits and bare assertions – out of his own free will, of course – in order to accuse a fellow Christian blogger of being “confused,” as well as to relegate Warren to that proverbial heretic’s stake.

Still, we would like to hear from Chew: How did he know, for certain, that Wesley would denounce Warren’s teachings as error?

He is no necromancer, ain’t he?

Reference:

[1] “Both Semi-Pelagianism and Arminianism insist upon a synergistic view of redemption. A person’s salvation is the result of two agencies: (1) God’s grace and (2) human faith and obedience. But here again, there are important dissimilarities. The Semi-Pelagians thought of salvation as beginning with human beings. We must first seek God; and his grace is a response to that seeking. The Arminians of the seventeenth century, however, held that the human will has been so corrupted by sin that a person cannot seek grace without the enablement of grace. They therefore affirmed the necessity and priority of grace in redemption. Grace must go before a person’s response to the gospel. This suggests that Arminianism is closer to Semi-Augustinianism than it is to Semi-Pelagianism or Pelagianism. The word Pelagian as a description of Arminians – or Roman Catholics for that matter – does them an injustice because it associates them with a theological tradition that is truly heretical in that Pelagius trivialized grace, and in so doing trivialized the work of Christ.” Robert A. Peterson and Michael D. Willams, Why I Am Not an Arminian (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), 39-40.

[2] Daniel Chew Huicong, Evaluating the Purpose Driven Paradigm: Recapturing the Vision of the Centrality of the Gospel, 22nd Sep 2009, p.9

Empty vessels make the most noise

2009-09-26T05:29:00.000-07:00

Scholarly Chew had apparently done intensive research on Arminianism (both classical/historic/reformation and Wesleyan) and Calvinism in the process of writing both “his book” and the recent article published in the Credo500 ecumenical Christian conference.

It is hopeful that he had gone through tomes of good books, articles, journals and references in his quest for the truth. We would then expect – at least on widely read, public Christian theological conferences – that our scholarly Daniel Chew Huicong would have got his basic facts correct.

We would expect – at the very least – basic research with Wikipedia and minimal knowledge on key aspects of Arminianism (both classical/historic/reformation and Wesleyan) before proceeding in his critique of, repudiation of, and condemnation of an alleged Arminian i.e. Rick Warren to the esteemed status of “heretic.”

But lo and behold, our scholarly and well read Daniel Chew Huicong has alas failed to grasp a Wikipedia-level of knowledge that perhaps even prepubescents will be able to understand and appreciate.

In his recent rebuke of a fellow Christian blogger (Dave Chong), Daniel snapped,

“You are confusing Classical Arminianism with Evangelical Arminianism. The Arminianism of the Wesleys is different from the Arminianism of the Remonstrants. For example, Wesley affirmed Total Depravity, while the Remonstrants did not.”

Is it true that blogger Dave Chong is confused, or is our scholarly Chew discombobulated?

Error 1

Watchman Chew wrote, “… Wesley affirmed Total Depravity, while the Remonstrants did not.”

Really?

Basic research on Wikipedia would have resolved his bewilderment, but alas, well-researched Chew couldn’t do better than our familiar Wikipedia.

Wikipedia says, “Classical Arminianism (sometimes titled Reformed Arminianism or Reformation Arminianism) is the theological system that was presented by Jacobus Arminius and maintained by the Remonstrants … [In this system of Arminianism] Depravity is total: Arminius states "In this [fallen] state, the free will of man towards the true good is not only wounded, infirm, bent, and weakened; but it is also imprisoned, destroyed, and lost. And its powers are not only debilitated and useless unless they be assisted by grace, but it has no powers whatever except such as are excited by Divine grace.’”

You see, Article 3 of the Remonstrants really affirmed “total depravity” [but with a disclaimer; see below] while explaining away its effects through Arminius' doctrine of prevenient grace. If the Remonstrants denied total depravity outright, they would have little need for a doctrine of prevenient grace [1].

A quick research on the WWW would reveal further relevant material for his rebuke of fellow Christian blogger Dave Chong:

Quote – “The Five Articles of Remonstrance contrast with the Five Points of Calvinism on four points and agree on one point (namely, total depravity).”

Quote – “Article 3 [of Remonstrants]. Deprivation - corresponds to the first of TULIP’s five points, Total Depravity.”

It’s really very easy reading. There’s no need for tomes and journals for such simple, rudimentary knowledge on theology. And a little research into commercially available books would reveal clearly that Arminius and the Remonstrants did teach total depravity.[2]

Error 2

Watchman Chew said, “… Wesley affirmed Total Depravity …”

Theologians would attempt to distinguish between a Calvinist’s “Total Depravity” and a Wesleyan’s “Total Depravity.” After all, theology is also about fine concepts and distinctions. But Scholarly Chew falls victim to a common fallacy, the fallacy of equivocation, albeit unintentionally.

What kind of “total depravity” was he referring to? Wesley’s “total depravity” is different from Calvin’s; for example, Theopedia explains, “As John Wesley stated more forcefully, humans were in fact totally corrupted by original sin, but God's prevenient grace allowed free will to operate. Universal prevenient grace is the "hair's breadth" that separates Wesley from the Calvinist view of total depravity.”[3]

Wesley scholar Kenneth J. Collins correctly contrasts Wesley’s teaching with that of Calvin.

“At least initially, there does appear to be great similarity between Wesley’s doctrine of original sin and that of … Calvin, especially in the emphasis on total depravity. Upon closer examination, however, there are important differences to be noted largely due to different conceptions of grace. For instance, when Wesley uses the vocabulary of total depravity, he is referring to what he calls, “the natural man,” that is, to a person who is utterly without the grace of God. But does such a person actually exist? Not according to Wesley, for in the sermon “On Working Out Our Own Salvation” (1785) he states: “For allowing that all souls of men are dead in sin by nature, this excuses none, seeing that there is no man that is in a state of mere nature; there is no man, unless he has quenched the Spirit, that is wholly void of the grace of God. No man living is entirely destitute of what is vulgarly called ‘natural conscience.’ But this is not natural; it is more properly termed ‘preventing grace.’” [4]

So according to Calvin, inability is the condition of actual human beings, and grace, therefore, must be irresistible if anyone is to be saved.

In conclusion, we would therefore appreciate at least a Wikipedia-level of research prior to subjecting a fellow Christian (i.e. Rick Warren) to the charge of heresy. Furthermore, we would truly appreciate if scholarly Chew would meditate upon a common English idiom, “Empty vessels make the most noise.”

Basic Reference:

[1] “Prevenient Grace” is a term that was used in the Remonstrance, a seventeenth-century document formulated by Jacobus Arminius and others, to protest the Calvinistic soteriology of the Reformers. The term itself simply means “grace that comes before”; but the Remonstrance cast it in terms of the grace of God given to all mankind without exception, which enables all men to respond to God's invitation and believe in the gospel. (see http://www.monergism.com/thethreshold/articles/onsite/qna/prevenient.html)

[2]“[Arminius] declared that “nothing can be spoken more truly concerning man in this state, than that he is altogether dead in sin.” Later Arminians, including John Wesley and the main Methodist Arminian theologians of the nineteeth century, agreed completely with Arminius [on total depravity].” Roger E. Olson, Arminian Theology: Myths and Realities (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2006), 56-57, quoting Arminius, “Public Disputations,” Works, 2:194. Olsen continued, “Arminians together with Calvinists affirm total depravity because of the fall of humanity in Adam and its inherited consequence of a corrupted nature in bondage to sin. … Arminius’s own account of human fallenness could hardly be stronger if he had been a full-blown Calvinist!” Olson, Arminian Theology, 55-56.

[3]It was also Wesley who “claimed that his own theology was “within a hair’s breadth” of Calvin’s teachings.” Olson, Arminian Theology, 55.

[4] Kenneth J. Collins, Scripture Way of Salvation, pp. 38-39, quoting Wesley, “On Working Out Our Own Salvation,” in The Works of John Wesley, ed. Albert C. Outler (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975-1983), 3:207.

See My BOOK!

2009-09-25T20:55:00.000-07:00

Before we study and meditate upon the Watchman Chew’s scholarly paper in the Credo500 conference, we should take heed to Chew’s dogged insistence [in his paper] for his readers to “see [his] book.” Even as you peruse his paper on Rick Warren’s “heresy” and “false gospel,” you would observe a reiterating phrase, “see my book.”

Therefore, as instructed by our venerable Watchman, we decided to “see [his] book.” Of course, we are not furnished with a copy of “his book” – the book – so we could only peruse “the book” as reviewed by Amazon.com for now. If we are convinced to purchase a copy of “the book,” then we might just invest our hard-earned money into a copy of “his book”.

This book – the book – is Driven Away by Purpose: An Analysis of The Purpose Driven Life and Related Issues, 2 Ed. (Xulon Press, 2006) by Daniel HC Chew.

On Xulon Press’ website, which is the publisher’s website, we would find a brief description of “his book.”

DANIEL CHEW is an informed Christian layman who has experienced first hand the consequences that came with the advent of compromise which culminated in the Purpose Driven Movement. As a watchman called by the Lord, he endeavors to warn the Church against the compromise and wrong teaching that infiltrates and threatens to engulf her. Daniel is currently finishing his undergraduate studies in the National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore for a BSc. (Honors) degree. He lives with his parents and one younger brother in their home country of Singapore.

There are a couple of things we can glean from the above information.

Firstly, Xulon Press is a POD or Print-On-Demand publisher. In the past, an author would have to submit his book to a publisher, who would then review the book and subsequently decide if the book is fit for publishing. Not with a POD author. With most POD companies, an author who has the funds can have his book published anytime, irrespective of quality of writing, editing, or information content. His book does not need to be reviewed for quality, editing, scholarship, or information content.

Deborah Ng observes that, “Because there's no major risk, as there is with traditional publishers who have to order large print runs, almost anyone can be a published author [with POD]. … If you've always dreamed of being published and you're unable to go the traditional route, you might consider a print on demand publisher. … In the past, if an author was rejected by a publishing company, she wouldn't be published. Now she can be – with print on demand.”

In other words, like the Watchman Chew (whose name card says “author”), all my children, nephews, nieces, and perhaps a monkey who can type would all qualify to be authors. Besides, they can all have name cards that say “author.”

Secondly, even in his book description, the Watchman Chew affirms that he is “a watchman called by the Lord.” He really does think that he is a “watchman” called by the Lord (and of course, the word “watchman” appears on his name card as well).

Thirdly, how would a BSc. (Honors) qualify him to write a theological critique of Rick Warren? This is possibly the reason why his book wasn’t submitted to a commercial publisher or reviewed by a theological committee.

Fourthly, why should we “see [his] book” if his academic and/or theological qualifications are as good as any BSc (Honors) graduates we find on the streets? That is in itself an argumentum ad verecundiam – an appeal to false authority. Is “his book” an appropriate authority in theology and/or Rick Warren’s teachings?

Finally, we would peruse a review from a Dan Proctor or Pastor Dan. We don’t know who pastor Dan is. Neither do we think that he is an authority in theology and/or Rick Warren, not unless he proves it for us. Nevertheless, we are presenting his review of Watchman Chew’s book as an interesting interlude in this post.

Pastor Dan wrote,

I ordered this book believing it would be an analysis of the purpose driven life movement, which I also oppose. What a disappointment to learn right away that the author is a Calvinist and like many, he is absolutely consumed with its false theology and warped concept of God. The book becomes nothing more than a forum to lecture us on the rightness of Calvinism as opposed to Arminianism.

The author makes a statement that demonstrates the piousness of many Calvinist authors. He says that "you are either a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a confused person." How insulting! In other words, you have to either bow down to the allegorical mysticism of Calvinism or the deluded system of Arminianism or you are a confused person. I'm not confused at all! I am a Bible belieiving dispensationalist who understands how to rightly divide God's Word in light of Paul's distinct apostleship and message.

The book is overpriced for what you get. The author tends to repeat himself over and over again as if we didn't get his point the first time. It is quite obnoxious. It seems that his main purpose is not to expose the false doctrine and philosophy of Rick Warren. It is to prove that Rick Warren is an Arminian. Like anybody besides another Calvinist cares!

The author looks like he is about 16 years old on the back cover and is definitely not an accomplished writer. There are typos and the book comes across as very amateur.

If you want a thorough analysis of PDL movement and Rick Warren, forget this book and get “Who's Driving the Purpose Driven Church?”

We can’t blame Dan for thinking that the Watchman is 16 years old.

Some other comments follow:

N8 writes,

I have been blogging with Him for the last few weeks on http://astronova.multiply.com/video/item/16/Joseph_Prince_the_heretic

He is doing the same thing to Joseph Prince.

When people react his warped theology he says they "need to use scripture". When people use the scriptures, he says they "have bad Theology"! And when people use Logic he deletes their comments.

I have not read the book and have no intention to do so.

Thanks for the review.

M. Aubrey (Linguist) writes,

No offense, but that's what you get from buying a book from a guy whose only 26 and already thinks he's got the whole world figured out.

So should we “see [his] book?”

I don’t know, but we’re still trying to get our hands on a copy of it, perhaps for free from our contacts. A photocopy would be very fine for our purpose though.

Do not use your senses, boy! It's logically fallacious according to the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong

2009-09-15T22:50:00.000-07:00

As always, there would be loads of fun when we get to peruse the honorable writings of the scholarly Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong. This post would be the first of a series of posts relating to the Credo500 Blog Conference which is hosted by our venerable Watchman Chew.

I was surfing the Credo500 blog for a little while when suddenly, I spotted something so very amusing I almost died from intractable hiccups secondary to choking on my coffee while reading it. It can usually be depended upon that such embarrassments come from a man who lives on a tiny, sunny island in Asia; a man whose mind is most certainly narrower than the island's oligarchy - and that is an empirical fact.

Mr Chew wrote:

IMO, the principle error of NPP is the negligence it pays to the biblical historical context. Instead of using the infallible and inerrant historical context as narrated in the Bible, it uses the fallible and errant empirically-derived (and thus logically fallacious) "findings" of contemporary historical research to re-interpret the message of Scripture. After all, why do you think that there is so much narrative found in the Scriptures?

It is a pity that Dave did not pick up on this vital point in his evaluation of NPP. Attack the entire fallacious enterprise of empiricism (which is a form of unbelief), and the whole enterprise of NPP will come crashing down.

I take issue with the above sweeping statement/dicto simpliciter/allegation concerning "empirically-derived findings" i.e. that these are "logically fallacious." Chew wrote, "[NPP] uses the fallible and errant empirically-derived (and thus logically fallacious) "findings" of contemporary historical research to re-interpret the message of Scripture. ... Attack the entire fallacious enterprise of empiricism (which is a form of unbelief), and the whole enterprise of NPP will come crashing down."

Here Mr Chew proposed that P:

Where P = Empirically-derived findings are [thus] logically fallacious.

That statement is in itself self-defeating, and therefore, fallacious. Are "empirically-derived findings" logically fallacious/incoherent by default? Isn't this a mere bare assertion on your part, Mr Chew? (Disambiguation: Or are you confused between scientifically "empirical," positivistic "empirical," or the empiricist's "empirical" per se? Surely you believe you aren't because you used the technical term "empiricism" in your last paragraph.)

Don't you, the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, rely on "empirically-derived findings" e.g. findings of your senses (cf. empiricism's "empirical"; see the last statement of your comment) to write this comment? Don't you rely on "empirically-derived findings" to decide what other bloggers have discussed? Don't you rely on "empirically-derived findings" to read the papers offered in this website? Don't you rely on "empirically-derived findings" to discern what propositions and arguments are being made in these discussions/papers?

If so, even as you utilize your "empirically-derived findings" to type out your response to all the comments found here, or use the keyboard which likewise relies upon your "empirically-derived findings" to construct phrases/clauses/sentences/paragraphs/propositions/arguments on the display screen of your computer unit/blogosphere, isn't it a self-defeating proposal that all such endeavors (of yours) are logically fallacious/incoherent?

If your statement is true, then I must probably [thusly?] conclude that all that you are (including your epistemology, but probably not all of your intellect on second thought, or whatever is left of it) - since you rely on "empirically-derived findings" to even live out your life - is a sad, sorry, and/or "logically fallacious" affair.

Question: How did you come to the knowledge of the Gospel? Via "empirically-derived findings" which are, according to you, logically fallacious (e.g. findings of activities such as reading, listening etc)?

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

2009-03-14T06:30:00.000-07:00

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?"

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

2009-03-06T07:02:00.000-08:00

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?

Endnote

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

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

2009-03-03T20:34:00.000-08:00

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.

¬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?

Conclusion

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.

Sad and shameful side of so-called Christian blogs ...

2009-02-28T00:46:00.000-08:00

The owner of Tartanarmy came over here and posted his anti-christian, sinophobic sentiments about fellow Christian believers who were racially Chinese, so I had to acknowledge his talent in making subtle, pejorative racist comments. Not surprisingly, this man is a Watchman Chew rank-and-file follower who resides comfortably within the Watchman's dominion and rule.

Really, there are some very strange professing Christians out there who ought to be doing something else, other than being a Watchman Chew toady.

I do empathize with pastors, elders, churches, Christian organizations and bloggers who seem to be targets of Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong's and his toadies' blogs. Shame on them.

Trilemma: A Liar, A Lunatic Or A Loser?

2009-02-25T23:14:00.000-08:00

The venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong has earlier on declared himself to be a Clarkian Presuppositionalist,

“Before I start, let me first state that I am defending the Christian faith. I am not interested even if you can prove the falsehood of all other faiths; they fend for themselves. In fact, if Christianity is true, all others are false (Jn. 14:6), so I am not interested in defending them. As such, my apologetic method has and always will be presuppositional (Clarkan [sic] as opposed to Van Tillian), and upon this basis I will proceed.”

In other words, he is not supposed to be an empiricist. I will show in this post that the Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong is really a closet empiricist in thinking.

Even those who have no knowledge of epistemology would read from Wikipedia that, “empiricism is a theory of knowledge which asserts that knowledge arises from experience.” “Empiricism emphasizes the role of experience and evidence, especially sensory perception, in the formation of ideas,” and surely in Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong’s latest post, we would find his empiricist leanings leaping out into the open like a zombie out of the closet. This is despite his repeated claims to being a “Clarkian Presuppositionalist.”

Empiricism: Reliance on experience as the source of ideas and knowledge. More specifically, empiricism is the epistemological theory that genuine information about the world must be acquired by a posteriori means, so that nothing can be thought without first being sensed. Prominent modern empiricists include Bacon, Locke, Berkeley, Hume, and Mill. In the twentieth century, empiricism principles were extended and applied by the pragmatists and the logical positivists.

So What's The Crime?

Watchman Chew wrote:

The promise of forgiveness of sin in this Gospel age (and even in the Old Testament era) was never to be taken to mean sins being forgiven through the instrumentality of prayer. Rather, it must be interpreted in the same way as the principle of forgiveness of sins in 1 Jn. 1:9, which is to say an experience of an established reality proving the genuineness of that same reality. In simpler terms, what this means is that true born-again Christians who have their sins forgiven will by nature confess their sins and pray to God in so doing. Such activities confirm that the ones practicing them have their sins forgiven, and the Holy Spirit uses such activities to bring peace and the sense of forgiveness within their hearts.

I would like to pounce upon the clause, “which is to say an experience of an established reality proving the genuineness of that same reality.”

If you were to read this convoluted, albeit self-indicting and jejune, rendition of the following sentence, “In simpler terms, what this means is that true born-again Christians who have their sins forgiven will by nature confess their sins and pray to God in so doing,” you will notice the following proposition by Watchman Chew:

P = An experience of X proves the genuineness of X.

In other words, whether X is true or not, genuine or not, factual or not, real or not, will be proven by an experience of the X.

An experience of X would inevitably involve perceptual experience, or rather, an experience or experiences of sensory perception. This experience (derived from the human senses) then serves as the “proof” for the genuineness of X.

Despite his rabid denial of the need for empirical evidence for the existence of God and related apologetic issues, he doesn’t seem to have coherent rationality when it comes to other areas of thought in theology. For example, in the aforementioned example, he insists that, “an experience of X proves the genuineness of X.” In other words, Watchman Chew does demand empirical evidence – experiential evidence. This he denies when he proclaimed himself to be a Clarkian Presuppositionalist.

Isn’t it fair, then, for the unbeliever to say, “An experience of God proves the genuineness of God,” therefore show me this experiential evidence for God? Be it visual, auditory, olfactory, gustatory, tactile, proprioceptive, equilibrioceptive, nociceptive, or thermoceptive, show me thine evidence. This is exactly what Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong is demanding in his theology. Show me the experiential evidence, or your profession of faith is false.

So apparently, Watchman Chew has a different set of epistemology when he deals with apologetics and theology. He claims that his “Clarkian” epistemology is derived from the Scripture. But when you ask him questions concerning Scripture exegesis and theology, he turns around and presents another set of epistemological beliefs which purportedly are not derived from Scripture. By the way, how can two opposing epistemological systems be both scriptural?

I have no choice but to conclude that Watchman Chew is either a liar, a lunatic or a loser. Herein lies the trilemma. Which is he?

Furthermore, which epistemology is the great Watchman convicted of? Both?

Similarities Between A Christian Bigot and Osama Bin Laden

2009-01-27T17:53:00.000-08:00

In a yet recent post by the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, he calls those who disagree with him “heretics.” Playing the victimization card – instead of engaging the real arguments and issues – he called those who critiqued his blog as “enemies of the Cross,” and regarded any criticisms of him as “persecution.” Playing the poor victim, he conveniently forgets that it was he who perennially anathematized those who disagreed with him to “damnation” and “eternal fire.”

Since when did anyone EVER anathematize him in the first place?

Since when did anyone EVER call him a heretic in the first place?

Since when did anyone EVER condemn him to eternal hell fire in the first place?

Who is the victim here?

Honest intellectual and doctrinal critiques are expected if your brobdingnagian ego enables you to display your articles and blogs in public blogosphere. If you cannot take any criticism of your flawed logic and arguments, then please do reserve your articles and blogs for your personal sycophants to admire.

While pronouncing judgment and damnation upon those who differed from him in theology and doctrine, he desires to make himself immune to any criticism by accusing his critics of “heresy,” and calling his critics “enemies of the Cross.” It is as if criticizing the Watchman Chew is likened to blasphemy!

Woe is the man who dares to criticize the Watchman! Such “reprobates” and “heretics” are “captives to Satan to do his will,” awaiting the judgment of “God” who judges those who criticize the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong.

These internet bigots have several similarities to fundamentalist terrorists. They think they represent God and Truth. They feel that all oppositions and criticisms are “persecutions.” They believe that God is on their side and will “judge” their critics and cast these into hell. While they conveniently anathematize others to hell, and spout tons of blogs and articles against almost every theologian and pastor on blogosphere, they immediately hold up their victimization card whenever they are exposed or criticized.

Let us peruse the Watchman’s quote from his most recent post:

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “As we as Christians engage the world with the truth of God's Word, we will encounter persecution from the enemies of the Cross …”

Osama Bin Laden, “As we as Muslims engage the world with the truth of God's Word, we will encounter persecution from the enemies of Allah …”

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “By slandering and libeling us, those people are most definitely our enemies in any sense of the term. Since they do so because we proclaim the truth of God, they are to be considered enemies of the cross …”

Osama Bin Laden, “By slandering and libeling us, those people are most definitely our enemies in any sense of the term. Since they do so because we proclaim the truth of Allah, they are to be considered enemies of the Quran …”

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “After all, they are doing such evil acts as captives to Satan to do his will. Being cursed, we bless, and as such show ourselves to be children of God …”

Osama Bin Laden, “After all, they are doing such evil acts as captives to Satan to do his will. Being cursed, we bless, and as such show ourselves to be people of Allah (Holy Quran16:125) …”

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “I truly do not want to be in their shoes when God will judge them by their words (Mt. 12:37) and actions (Rom. 2:8-9), if in fact they show themselves to be reprobates through unrepentance.”

Osama Bin Laden, “I truly do not want to be in their shoes when Allah will judge them by their words (S. 18:26 Hilali-Khan) and actions (S. 6:114), if in fact they show themselves to be reprobates through unrepentance.”

I’m sure the Watchman Chew is only performing his godly call – Jihad.

The Reformed Insurgence

2009-01-24T07:56:00.000-08:00

There is a very interesting post by our Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong of late. In his post, “The Reformed Resurgence,” Watchman Chew wrote:

“I have been busy with various projects recently, and will be busy until March at least. One thing which I have been working on is the starting of a new group of reformed-minded Christians to work towards Reformation and revival in the churches. The few of us have been liaising via email (and phone), and the Monday which has just passed saw our first "official" meeting so to speak [apart from the local church]. There are obviously a lot of things to be sorted out, and we most definitely need much prayer in this regard [apart from the local church].

As part of forming the group, The Reformed Resurgence, I had prepared a paper which was read and feedbacked on by the other members. The paper would thus be helpful in this regard as an introduction to our group, and it with this intention that I submit it here for your edification. May it spawn many such movements of reformation in the churches for the building up of the Church and the glory of Christ. Amen.”

Consistent with his extra-ecclesiastic authority as Watchman over pastors, elders, bishops, archbishops and popes, he has started a Christian group called The Reformed Resurgence with the sole aim of working “towards Reformation and revival in the churches.”

I have a couple of questions for our Watchman Chew. For your information, my friend Markbark had likewise asked similar questions over at Watchman Chew’s blog and post, but of course, those comments were quickly deleted by Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong for fear of those comments exposing Chew’s dark intentions to the general public.

Is the pastor of Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, Pastor Paul Goh, involved in this Reformed Resurgence?

Is Pastor Paul Goh overseeing this “movement” or “group?”

Obviously not – and will Pastor Paul Goh correct me if I’m mistaken (you may clarify this with Pastor Paul Goh at handphone number +65 97831037; this number is found on the church's website).

Consistent with Chew’s believe that a Watchman does indeed have spiritual oversight even over his own pastor, “The Reformed Resurgence” is a parachurch organization aimed at working “towards Reformation and revival in the churches.” This “working towards reformation and revival in the churches,” of course, includes Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong’s own church, Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church. If you carefully check the ministries of CERC, you will find no ministry by the name of "The Reformed Resurgence." This is clearly not a local church's ministry. This is a parachurch "ministry" started by and led by the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong.

In short, the Reformed Resurgence oversees and seeks to reform all Reformed churches in Singapore apart from their pastors’ supervision and assistance. What a great and grievous spiritual authority and responsibility, Watchman Chew!

So what is the big deal?

As the saying goes, action speaks louder than words.

Daniel Chew had, in a previous rant on my blog, denied all charges of disrespecting the ecclesiastical authority of his own Pastor Paul Goh. But in Chew’s recent attempt at setting up a parachurch organization i.e. “the Reformed Resurgence” apart from the direct spiritual supervision of his church’s session, Chew had publicly announced his intention to disregard his church’s supervision and spiritual oversight. This is Chew’s belief. He has always felt that he is able to “reform” Reformed churches in Singapore. And this he does apart from the spiritual oversight of his own pastor and church leaders.

Besides, the FACT that he feels Reformed churches in Singapore NEED reformation speaks A LOT about how the Watchman Chew regard Reformed churches in Singapore.

Despite his insistence that he “respects” and “submits” to his church leaders, his actions speak otherwise. He claimed to believe in the competency and capabilities of his church’s elders. But in his own actions, he has to resort to the organization of “The Reformed Resurgence” to reform his own church – apart from his church leaders supervision – with his self-appointed spiritual authority and self-recognized “gifts” of reformation.

This is a true saying: Truth will out!

What the Watchman Chew does in real life reveals his true convictions despite his rabid denial of the previous charges against him. A Mr Lee (apparently from Chew’s church) had accused Chew of the following, “[Chew] thinks that his pastor is a lousy preacher, unlike him … He thinks the church elders are un-gifted, unlike him.”

If Chew really believed that his church elders are adequately gifted for leadership and at least capable of reformation as reformed elders, will he have started a parachurch organization - apart from his church’s supervision and elders’ assistance – to reform the churches (including the reformation of his own church)?

Will he have enlisted the help of lay members of the blogosphere, instead of his own church’s pastor and elders, to do whatever he had planned to do i.e. to reform the churches (and his own church)?

Will Chew have started this parachurch organization at all if he truly believed that his own pastor (and other churches’ pastors for that matter) is capable of leading the reformed churches on the right track?

All you have to do is to read Watchman Daniel Chew’s blog, and you will see his self-deluded, self-appointed spiritual “authority” which he truly believes will lead the Reformed Resurgence to reform the Reformed churches in Singapore – including his very own church.

This is what he truly believes: he thinks he can do a better job than his church’s pastor and elders.

Let me ask you readers: is this a Reformed Resurgence or a Reformed Insurgence?

I would place my bet on the latter option. Wouldn’t you?

So what if I use a pseudonym, Phil Naessens?

2008-12-18T22:05:00.000-08:00

A fellow named Phil Naessens defended Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong over at his website. I commented on his post; instead of publishing my comment in full, he mutilated my post, and now simply refuses to allow any comments by me (update - but after I wrote this post, he decided to change his mind and posted the comment; well, I'm impressed with his tactic. Sure knows how to "rebut" my arguments). And I had ONLY posted ONCE on his blog. Period.

I'm beginning to realize that this is the way intelligent Christian men respond to critics (just like what Watchman Daniel Chew does) – by deleting posts they couldn’t answer, refusing comments on their posts, or by banning your moniker or handle on their website.

I commented here (Phil “the Flash” Naessens took liberty to amend my comments, probably to create a straw man for his inept “rebuttal”).

I am now prevented from replying to his comments, so here is the short reply to Phil:

“Phil, your lack of any logic in thinking is really disturbing:

Phil: Yes, I believe they are….

>Bare assertion; irrational.

Phil: The fact you need to hide behind a fake name is all the proof I need….someone that isn’t a coward would have the courage to reveal his true identity…

> Non sequitur.

Phil: Just calling it like I see it…in your case that was a gimme….

>Bare assertion – now THIS is a gimme …

Phil: What “facts”? I think you should learn the definition of what slander is….and I didn’t slander you…..and we aren’t friends…..

>What “facts?” You don’t know and you want to “pretend” you do by defending the indefensible. I think you should learn the definition of what “logic” is … and I did expose your irrationality … and I take you as a friend contrary to your hostile unchristian attitude towards me.”

Epilogue

I have an issue with the fallacious logic of these “Watchman Chew” apologists (just as Watchman Chew regarded Richard Abanes as Rick Warren’s "apologist", I regard Phil “the Flash” Naessens as his apologist).

Somehow, Phil thinks that, if you use a pseudonym, you are being anonymous and cowardly; but if I give a name, that qualifies a blogger as an intrepid and honest critic (and a watchman?).

This begs the question, “What if I put a name on my blog. Would this guarantee my non-anonymity?”

Of course not!

I can put a graduation photo, an email address, and a name (say “Daniel Chew”) on my blog. And this means I’m being honest and open? What silly logic!

My name could be Mary Chew, but I put “Daniel Chew” on my blog; and I stick a photo of any Daniel Chews on my blog. So that proves that the blogger is “Daniel Chew?”

I can start a blog calling myself Chew Bah Kah, put a photo of a monkey-like-man with a graduation dress, and give you an email address. So now I am “qualified” to give my theological insights and critiques on blogosphere? I can now call myself the Watchman Chew. I now officially watch over pastors (including mine), elders, bishops, archbishops and popes in the full "honesty" of my real nick - Chew Bah Kah. Looks like my monkey can think better than such "watchmen" and "apologists."

This also explains why such “Daniel Chew” apologists i.e. Phil "the flash" Naessens can only rant on their blogs, and can never conjure up good, well-measured, intelligent arguments for their faith and idols (i.e. Daniel Chew).

So what if I use a pseudonym?

This is a red herring at best.

If you can’t answer the questions or criticisms, give a red herring and change the topic (like, “My gosh, you used a pseudonym! You must be a heretic and pagan! What’s your real name? Don't hide behind a nick; I call you out! Come out into the open, you devil!”).

You see, after all those “intelligent” rants, Phil has never addressed the real issue.

What about all my expose of Watchman Chew? He never addressed the real arguments; he has only spouted red herrings, ignoratio elenchis, ad hominems, and non sequiturs.

How intelligent of him.

Update: Another "Debating" Strategy From Our Watchman Chew Apologist: Threatening A Lawsuit.

Do read Phil's recent comment on this post. After a series of inane statements with so much sound and fury - but signifying nothing (i.e. no arguments made but only logical fallacies) - he made his move to "repudiate" my arguments. I must say I'm really impressed. This is what Phil "the flash" Naessen wrote:

BTW: Nice picture eh [referring to my usage of his nice photograph]? Are you aware that particular picture is trademark material and is owned by PhillyFlash Enterprises [translates to "are you aware that legally I owned it?"]...that means you need my permission before you use it [translates to "I'm not happy; I'll get my lawyer if you did not ask my permission] ... not very intelligent Mr. Antithesis [translates to "I have no clue how to refute you, but I can always sue you"]... please remove it within 24 hours [translates to "Haha! I can shut your mouth with my argumentum ad baculum i.e. appeal to the cudgel"].

Oh well, I'll just remove the nice photograph of the Watchman Chew Apologist and avoid the threat of getting sued by our wonderfully loving and discerning "Christian" man who happens to learn this debating strategy from the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 6:1-11). How godly and impressive.

Good job, Phil.

Sincerely,

Chew Bah Kah

Little “God” Daniel Chew Pronounces Anathema and Damnation Upon Many Souls

2008-11-12T19:33:00.000-08:00

I had been having a field day elsewhere, but here I am again. I was browsing Watchman Daniel Chew’s blog, and did a search for the word, “anathema.” Wow. I’m amazed, but I’m not surprised. There are obviously numerous incidents where our Watchman Chew spoke like a god – or more appropriately, a little god – and pronounced damnation upon his critics, opponents, and fellow Christian pastors and teachers. I learned in Sunday School as a pre-school toddler that only God has the right to decide the eternal destiny of any soul. Apparently, Watchman Chew learned otherwise – as a university graduate.

It would be too lengthy and verbose to spell out every incident whereby he pronounces an anathema or curse upon his foes. You can always do a blog search for his blog. But I’ve learned that he is pretty fond of a phrase, namely, “Anathema Sit!” I did a search for this phrase, and found the following occurrences (see below).

I tried understanding what he meant by “anathema sit,” and finally concluded that he has a kind of delusional self-perception whereby his Alter Ego projects the authority of an apostle, while his Id is still trapped in an anal retentive stage. Probably he felt that, by his horrific, albeit detailed, pronouncements of “anathema,” his opponents might be intimidated to a “sitting” position – almost like a hunted animal. Hence, “anathema sit!”

Another theory is that, during his childhood, he didn’t have the opportunity to practice his closet-sadist inclinations with little pets and rodents, such as plucking out the legs of ants or pouring hot water upon hamsters. Thus, when he had his puberty, he finds great joy and stimulation while pronouncing curses, and calling down brimstone and fire from heaven, upon his frightened foes.

Be afraid, be very afraid!

Quotations from Apostle-cum-Watchmen Chew:

Watchman Chew prophesizes anathema against other prophets:

Since these false prophets like to prophesy lies, here is my prophesy against them: Repent of your heresies and your proclamation of your false 'gospel', or you will most defintiely face the wrath of the Lamb! You are hereby cut off from Christ and if you persist in your sins, anathema sit!

Watchman Chew declares all feminists unsaved and anathematizes all of them to eternal damnation:

To these feminists: Anathema Sit! Truly, Feminism is a heresy that is to be excised from bible-believing churches, in whatever form it may take.

Watchman Chew, in the place of God, condemns Rev Yap Kim Hao to eternal hell fire:

Enough said about this liberal heretic and unbeliever! 'Reverend' Yap, repent or face the wrath of God and the fires of hell in eternal damnation! Anathema sit!

So beware, my friends. Do not, I repeat, do not offend our Apostle-cum-Watchman Chew; he may just pronounce anathema upon your soul, and condemn you to eternal hell fire!

Daniel Chew Confesses That He Does Not Have Even “A Bit Of Knowledge” On Textual Issues

2008-10-28T19:08:00.000-07:00

In a recent post, self-appointed Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong lamented:

“As it can be seen from this book, anyone with even a bit of knowledge on textual issues can see that there is a difference between the textual critical methodology as utilized by Westcort, Hort, Metzger, Aland etc, and the text-types (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western etc) contributing to the variant readings of the texts.”

But as I have exposed quite a while back, Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong does not even know what a “critical text” is. He confused critical texts (which are eclectic texts collated by committees that examine a large number of manuscripts in order to weigh which reading is thought closest to the lost original) with extant manuscripts such as Aleph and B. And he actually dared to debate me ferociously on textual issues, thereby exposing himself to be a dunce (no offense).

Anyone who doesn’t know what a critical text really is shouldn’t even attempt debating textual issues. And I suppose Clark’s book “Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism” is perhaps the very first baby book he touched concerning the issue. But again, who would study textual criticism from a non-textual critic i.e. Gordon Clark – except a dunce?

The truth hurts, doesn’t it? There is apparently a prideful dunce who persists in his errors in Singapore.

Anyone with even a bit of knowledge on textual issues would know what a critical text is.

Period.

Clarkian Daniel Chew Denies The Aristotelian Law of Non-contradiction

2008-10-21T22:04:00.000-07:00

After indicting the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA) and Herman Hoeksema - the theologian associated with Chew’s own church (Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church) – of heresy, the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew goes further and calls this a “recent assault on the idea of the Covenant of Works.” Various critiques of the “covenant of works” e.g. by Hoeksema and Murray are deemed as an “assault.” And whether his pastor, Rev Paul Goh, would be happy with Daniel Chew’s rabid insistence that Hoeksema is a heretic (as he denies the covenant of works) is a question for Chew to ask his pastor.

This post would focus on Daniel Chew’s typical self-contradictory, double-talk rhetoric.

Chew wrote, “[It is a] biblical idea that the Law has the innate potentiality to save (not that it can save or was meant to save).” Here, we would take the “Law” to mean the Law as taught by Prophet Moses, Jesus Christ, and Saint Paul.

I suspect no one but Daniel Chew would be able to cough out ridiculously inane and illogical statements such as, “the Law has the innate potentiality to save, [but] not that it can save or was meant to save.”

Let us play with his (silly) language a little further.

Supposed he said:

“The woman has the innate potentiality to give birth, [but] not that she can give birth or she was meant to give birth.”

By substituting “law” with “woman,” and “save” with “give birth,” we can immediately see the self-contradictory nature of his fatuous logic. (And he proudly claims to be a Clarkian, and believes that the Bible is logical in its statements).

If it is not the case that she can give birth, then how can we say that “the woman has the innate potentiality to give birth?” Doesn’t “innate potentiality” simply mean the potential to or the ability to? That is, if certain conditions are met, the woman can certainly give birth, because she has the potential to. The woman having the potential to give birth doesn’t mean that she will, but she definitely can (if certain conditions are met). Notice that Watchman Chew uses the word “can,” not “will.”

In like manner, if the “Law has the innate potentiality to save,” and if the required conditions are met, the Law can save. So there is (according to Chew) a possibility that the Law can save. But Daniel Chew contradicted the first part of his statement (the antecedent) with the following, “not that it can save or was meant to save.”

Surely we should take “not that it can save” to mean “it cannot save.” Furthermore, not-P and P are contradictories. If P = “It can save”, then, not-P = “not that it can save,” which is logically equivalent to not-P = “it cannot save”.

P and not-P cannot be both true. Either P = “The Law can save”, or, not-P = “The Law cannot save”.

What do we have here? The venerable Watchman Daniel Chew insists on following Gordon Clark when it comes to logic, but denies the very same Aristotelian Law of Non-contradiction (which he worships) when it comes to the exegesis of Scripture.

So on one hand, Daniel Chew insisted that the Law can save, and within the same breath he exclaimed that the Law cannot save and hereby contradicted the antecedent of his statement.

Remember James 4:8 saying something about being “double-minded?”

According To Daniel Chew, His Church Is Associated With Heretics!

2008-10-20T20:07:00.000-07:00

In a comment, Daniel Chew the Watchman wrote:

Antithesis, thanks for showing us your ignorance of doctrine once again. Question: Have you ever read any good theological book like Dr. Robert Reymond's A New Systematic Theology of the Christian Faith? Better question: Are you even seminary trained? Denial of the Covenant of Works (which you are doing) is in fact hetero-orthodox at best and heretical at worst. Of couse, not to mntion you don't even know what the Covenant of Works actually is? [Sarcasm] Is it something you can eat? Or maybe it actually teaches synergism - a Covenant relationship whereby God tells Man to work for his salvation "with fear and trembling"? Ha! /Sarcasm

It seems that the joke is on him.

Watchman Chew has no idea what the covenant of works is, at least within the Dutch Reformed theological framework his church is associated with.

Watchman Chew wrote, "Are you even seminary trained? Denial of the Covenant of Works (which you are doing) is in fact hetero-orthodox at best and heretical at worst."

But according to many Reformed theologians, the “covenant” of works is not really a covenant, but a bond or contract. Shane Lems wrote:

"Those within the Dutch tradition who have reformulated or denied the covenant of works have had little influence outside of their respective circles. The most notable are Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965), Simon de Graaf (1889-1955), Klaas Schilder (1890-1952), Anthony Hoekema (1913-1988),and G.C. Berkouwer (1903-1996). These five, we must add, are quite recent theologians in Dutch Reformed history." - The Covenant of Works in Dutch Reformed Orthodoxy, Shane Lems

So according to Watchman Chew, all the above theologians i.e. Herman Hoeksema (1886-1965), Simon de Graaf (1889-1955), Klaas Schilder (1890-1952), Anthony Hoekema (1913-1988),and G.C. Berkouwer (1903-1996) are HERETICS because they deny the “covenant of works.”

Well done, Chew!

With his abysmal knowledge of "Reformed Christianity," he is a shame even to his own denomination. According to the links from his church's website, his church is associated with the Protestant Reformed Churches of America (PRCA).

But doesn’t he know that the PRCA e.g. Herman Hoeksema DENIES THE COVENANT OF WORKS?

And according to Watchman Chew, his church is associated with HERETICS (because the PRCA denies the covenant of works), and “denial of the Covenant of Works … is in fact hetero-orthodox at best and heretical at worst.”

Watchman Chew, shouldn’t you be honest and simply tell your pastor Paul Goh that the PRCA are considered heretical according to your doctrinal standards?

Let us peruse something more edifying from Rev. Angus Stewart in The Covenant with Adam—A Brief Historical Analysis. This brief article – unlike the insane ramblings of the self-appointed Watchman Chew – would explain why it is unscriptural to believe in the Covenant of Works, and worse, that salvation via works is even a possibility in pre-fall Adam.

Quoting Stewart:

But why did [Herman] Hoeksema (correctly) reject the concept of the covenant of works and the possibility of “salvation” through this “covenant” even in pre-fall Adam?

Though Calvin (wrongly) held that Adam could have attained to heaven, he (rightly) rejects all notion of Adam meriting with God. Peter Lillback writes, “Calvin’s theology permits no merit in the prelapsarian context.” He explains,
Calvin’s rejection of merit in the pre-fall context is partly motivated by a desire to refute the Roman Catholic theologians’ connection of merit and the justification of the sinner. But his antipathy to merit is deeper than this. For Calvin, no creature of God [including pre-fall Adam and the elect angels], even though perfect, could merit anything from God the Creator.

Lillback cites Calvin’s commentary on Romans 11:35:

Paul not only concludes that God owes us nothing, on account of our corrupt and sinful nature; but he denies, that if man were perfect, he could bring anything before God, by which he could gain his favour; for as soon as he begins to exist, he is already by the right of creation so much indebted to his Maker, that he has nothing of his own.

Luther’s deadly hatred of creaturely merit in all its forms is well-known. Other Reformed theologians, such as Thomas Goodwin and the Swiss Daniel Wyttenbach (1706-1779), also rejected the idea of Adam meriting with God, even if it was ex pacto (out of the covenant). …

Peter Mastricht (1630-1706) speaks for many Reformed and Presbyterian theologians: “all the essentials of the covenant of works are contained in the first publication of it [in Genesis 2:17].”[11] This covenant of works includes a “condition” (not eating of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil), a “penalty” for eating (death) and a “promise” (eternal and heavenly life). In his commentary on Genesis 2:16-17 and in his Institutes (2.1.4), Calvin uses words such as “test,” “threat” and “promise,” though he does not present the schematised theology of many later theologians.

However, not only is there no promise of eternal life in Genesis 2:17, this system also presents the pre-fall covenant as merely a means to an end. But the Bible teaches that the covenant is eternal and the end of God’s dealings with His people (Rev. 21:3), not merely a means. Moreover, if “all the essentials of the covenant of works” are contained in Genesis 2:17, then there was a time, after Adam’s creation and before God issued the prohibitory command, in which he was not in covenant with God! A “covenantless” existence for pre-fall Adam, even for a short time, is unthinkable!

The covenant with Adam was a bond of fellowship between the Almighty, Triune God and Adam His covenant friend-servant whom He created in His own image. Thus, as
Calvin notes, “In the very order of the creation the eternal solicitude of God for man is conspicuous, because he furnished the world with all things needful” for man (Comm. on Gen. 1:26). God gave Adam a “home” in “Paradise,” which Calvin further describes as “a place which he had especially embellished with every variety of delights, with abounding fruits, and with all other most excellent gifts … from the enjoyment of which he might infer the paternal benevolence of God” (Comm. on Gen. 2:8). Thus Adam was “in every respect, happy” for He lived as a recipient of the divine “liberality” (Comm. on Gen. 2:16). In His goodness, God gave Adam a wife with whom he lived in “sweetest harmony” and with whom he enjoyed “a holy, as well as friendly and peaceful, intercourse” as “the inseparable associate of his life” (Comm. on Gen. 2:18).

Another excellent essay is the one by Ralph Smith, "The Covenant of Works: A Litmus Test for Reformed Theology?" He wrote:

More respected among conservative Reformed people, though less well-known, is the theologian mentioned in the quotation above, S. G. DeGraaf, who altogether repudiated the notion of a Covenant of Works because he believed it created more problems than it could solve.[6] If Berkouwer is less than thoroughly Reformed in the eyes of some, the same cannot be said of DeGraaf. His eminence as a Reformed theologian is only reduced by the fact that so much of what he wrote is only available in Dutch. ...

The most famous example of a Reformed theologian denying the covenant of works is that of John Murray. Here we have a theologian whose credentials as a guardian of Reformed orthodoxy are unquestioned. Also, in distinction from the groups and men mentioned above, John Murray was a Presbyterian, holding to the Westminster Confession of Faith. He did not consider taking exception to the doctrine of a Covenant of Works a denial of theology of the Westminster Confession, though in general his approach to the Confession is strict.

So according to Daniel Chew, even John Murray is a heretic!

Watchman Chew Is Watching You!

2008-10-20T07:22:00.000-07:00

I came across this hilarious post when I was enjoying the Puritan-Reformed fellow’s antics on his blog. (Update: Watchman Chew has since deleted his previous post, but he seems to have forgotten that the post is replicated in his personal blog diary here. Enjoy it before he deletes the evidence AGAIN!)

It seems that he has an official name-card.

He is not a pastor, elder, deacon, bishop, archbishop, or the pope (I think you would have guessed).

But he has an important office in the Church of our Lord Jesus Christ.

This office puts him above all other offices. And his responsibilities are great and grievous.

No, he is not just a pastor.

No, he is not just the pope.

He watches over all pastors, elders, deacons, bishops, archbishops, and the pope himself.

Daniel Chew is the Watchman. More specifically, Watchman Chew.

A commentator on the post of his (by the handle of “MarkBark”) wrote:

Dear Watchman Chew (author AND apologist as well),

Your humble commentator here acknowledges your spiritual authority in pronouncing oracles against those whom you deem as heretics and deviants-in-Christ.

Watchman Chew (can I call you WC for short?), yours is a position of great responsibilities. As the uncle of Spiderman (in Spiderman fame) has said, "with great talents come great responsibilities."

So, WC, may you be encouraged as a Watchman to watch over and guard the universal church of God against deviant pastors, elders, bishops, and archbishops from every denomination, church and diocese on this planet.

What an awesome responsibility, WC!

yours-in-agreement,
Watchman of Watchmen,
Mark B.

In response, Watchman Chew (the most reverend, most high) pronounced a warning (ex-cathedra) to our friend MarkBark:

“I exhort you to repent of your pride and turn to God in humility for forgiveness of sins, otherwise I can tell you that you will face the wrath of God when Christ comes again, and contrary to what some may believe, it is NOT a pleasant thing. While you still have time, and while it is today, repent of your prideful attitude, name-calling and rebellion against God (Heb. 3:7-11), and do not spurn the kindness of God towards you.”

Oh, hide us from the wrath of Watchman Chew!

Oh, thou art most holy, Watchman Chew!

Oh, thou wouldst grant us mercy, thou most reverend Watchman Chew!

On retrospection, I have realized something concerning watchmen.

Watchmen like to watch over everybody else, but they abhor anyone watching them.

Watchmen watch over even the writings and pronouncements of the Pope, but he himself is above all such “watching.”

In other words, these watchmen put themselves above the Pope in terms of spiritual authority and office.

They watch over the pastors, elders, deacons, bishops, archbishops, and the pope himself, but nobody is supposed to watch over the watchmen.

Best of all, watchmen are self-appointed.

They are appointed by their conceited, narcissistic, vainglorious pride. And who are we to disagree?

But I have given myself a dreadful responsibility.

I would be watching over these watchmen, including the most reverend Watchman Chew.

Hear Ye, Hear Ye! Daniel Chew Declares That There Is Possibility Of Salvation Apart From Christ!

2008-10-18T21:23:00.000-07:00

οὐ ἀθετέω ὁ χάρις ὁ θεός εἰ γάρ διά νόμος δικαιοσύνη ἄρα Χριστός δωρεάν ἀποθνήσκω (Gal. 2:21, Tischendorf 8th Ed.)

In his most recent post on the topic of the “Law and Gospel”, Daniel Chew – with his self-acclaimed Puritan and Reformed orthodoxy – makes the most heretical statement I have ever read in the blogosphere for a long time.

Let us peruse his very words with theological perspicacity. He wrote:

The Law: It can theoretically save.

Gal. 3:10 allows for the possibility of salvation by the Law if one obeys all of them perfectly … Verse 21 however informs us that the failure of the Law was that it could not give life, otherwise the Law could otherwise suffice for righteousness and salvation, thus showing forth the theoretical potential of the Law to save.

He concluded:

Thus, it can be seen that the Scriptures do teach that the Law have the potentiality for meriting salvation.

Exclusive Evangelicals (and unhappily for Daniel Chew, most if not all neo-orthodox theologians) have always agreed that there is no possibility of salvation or justification apart from Christ, who is the [only] way, the truth, and the life (Jn 14:6).

All Puritans and Reformers of Christendom have always declared that justification is only in Christ Jesus, and that there is no possibility of salvation (or justification) apart from Christ.

But Daniel Chew – with his self-acclaimed Puritan and Reformed orthodoxy – believes otherwise.

Daniel Chew asserts, “that the Scriptures do teach that the Law have the potentiality for meriting salvation,” that “Gal. 3:10 allows for the possibility of salvation by the Law,” and that “[Gal. 3:21 shows] forth the theoretical potential of the Law to save.”

We can derive the following with simple syllogistic reasoning:

A = There is the possibility of salvation by the Law alone.

Which is theologically equivalent to:

A1 = There is the possibility of justification before God by the Law alone.

But if A1, then B1.

Where:

B1 = There is the possibility of justification before God by the Law apart from Christ.

B1 is another way of saying, “There is the possibility of salvation apart from Jesus Christ.”

So in essence, Daniel Chew is declaring that, “There is the possibility of salvation apart from Jesus Christ.”

Daniel Chew, who delights in declaring various theologians as heretics e.g. Karl Barth, has now committed one of the most grievous heresies of all time – by deviating from the exclusivist’s doctrine of justification by grace alone through faith alone in Christ alone (Eph. 2:8-9).

PuritanReformed’s heresy is joyfully embraced by his newfound bulldog – Joel Tay – when he reaffirms Daniel Chew’s heresy in his comment to Daniel’s post.

Joel exclaimed, “Excellent! Amen to that.”

And Joel Tay had the guts to call Trinity Theological College – where he is a student – liberal.

But I, Antithesis, together with the real Reformers, Puritans, Evangelicals, and the more “liberal” theologians (according to Daniel Chew and Joel Tay) like Bultmann (1), Hubner (2), and Sanders (3) declare that there is no possibility of salvation apart from Christ. Amen?

I do not make void the grace of God: for if righteousness is through the law, then Christ died for nought. (ASV, Gal. 2:21)

References:

1. Rudolf Bultmann, Theology of the New Testament, 2 Vols (New York: Scribner’s. 1952) 1:264.

2. Hans Hubner, Law in Paul’s Thought (Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1984), 119.

3. E. P. Sanders, Paul and Palestinian Judaism: A Comparison of Patterns of Religion (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1977), 442-447, 474-511; idem, Paul, the Law, and the Jewish People (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1983), 17-91.

I Want To Be A Real [Boy] Scholar, But I Can’t Stop Lying!

2008-10-16T08:12:00.000-07:00

Some Christians Need To Learn Basic Honesty In Debates

The latest comment from Joel at the Puritan-Reformed fellow’s blog reeks of lies and deceit. That is one reason why I could not be bothered to engage him. If he could not brush-up his honesty and integrity when confronting his opponents, I doubt he would be prepared for any serious research.

He wrote:

Antithesis was not arguing from a Van Tillian view but from a Neo-orthodox position. Secondly, the language used is not consistent with Christian behaviour. Third, he is not very familiar with some of the modern Van Tillian writers when he said that modern apologists in the Van Tillian school do not use the argument from "impossibility of the contrary". (TAG argument)

I take issue with his second and third point.

He made the bare assertion that my language is not consistent with Christian behavior. What slander. Readers can read all that transpired between the both of us. It appears that anybody who is not a Clarkian would be labeled as either a heretic by Daniel Chew, or be slandered by his bulldog – Joel – as being unchristian.

He also asserted that, “[I am] not very familiar with some of the modern Van Tillian writers when he said that modern apologists in the Van Tillian school do not use the argument from "impossibility of the contrary". (TAG argument)”

Again, this young man is simply ignorant. I had already answered him in this post.

I wrote,

“The conceptualist’s argument for the existence of God (as described by atheist Quentin Smith) has much potential in the realm of dealing with atheologians; unfortunately, the tag (pun intended) of “transcendental argument for God” has been following this valid argument. By the way, Gordon Clark used the ontology of truth to develop an interesting “transcendental argument” in “A Christian View of Men and Things.” The late Ron Nash, a Christian philosopher heavily influenced by Clark, defends it in his lectures on Christian apologetics. Again, I’m certain you would have known this.”

[Joel] wrote, “I’m referring to Van Til’s argument which "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”. This is a basic mistake in Logic, as the video link in my earlier comments indicate. We should be arguing from the impossibility of the contradictory – not contrary.”

I further replied, "Er … the conceptualist’s argument is similar to the TAG you are reiterating here. Try googling for “conceptualist’s argument Quentin Smith?” But I’m sure you would have done this."

He obviously didn't do this.

My point is, both Van Til and Clark used the TAG. By the way, if you would research into this a little more, the TAG is logically valid (which points us back to my previous question – what qualifies as a “proof” for you?). There’s more to Aristotelian logic than this; Google is a useful tool.

I finally added:

Oh yes, before I forget – no contemporary philosopher who uses the TAG or the conceptualist argument "argues from the impossibility of the contrary”. Copi’s text (shown in that “enlightening” Youtube video) is for first year students; the folks I know don’t make that mistake. And surely if you would pick up a paper on this, you would find more than the square of opposition.

See my exact wording? I was referring to contemporary philosophers, not “modern apologists in the Van Tillian school.” Apparently Joel couldn’t conjure up sufficient honesty when he is out of rational arguments against me. And it is clear that he has no clue which philosopher(s) I’m referring to. (I hope he worked out what the "square of opposition" is.)

What is so amazingly ignorant of this chap is this: in philosophical journals, philosophers of religion use the conceptualist argument, which is a development of the TAG. The conceptualist argument does NOT argue from "impossibility of the contrary." And that is what I was pointing out to him in good spirit (read my original comment).

What's more, his idol – Gordon Clark – uses the TAG as well! So what is his problem? Why doesn’t he criticize Clark's TAG? Anyone smell the stench of hypocrisy here?

Lastly, my “neo-orthodox” label was given to me by the Puritan-Reformed fellow. So why can’t I use that label?

Another Debating Strategy From the Puritan-Reformed Daniel Chew: Censorship

2008-10-11T04:56:00.000-07:00

PR commented on his blog:

Antithesis,

I do not need to "run from anything". Anyone who know even a bit of logic will know you are just blowing smoke. Besides strawman, ad-hominem, non-sequitur etc, what else can you come up with?

With regards to the Critical Text, you obviously do not know what I was talking about. Even THE Critical Text published by WH and later by UBS etc do give the varient readings among the manuscripts, so your point is moot.

If you continue to misrepresent my position clearly even after being constantly refuted, there is nothing more to add to this conversation. May God have mercy upon you and save you from the gutter of irrationality you are in.

Just btw, if anyone really wants to know, I can do a sentence by sentence deconstruction of Antithesis' posts which shows the many logical fallacies he has committed in them.

I replied with the following comment. Instead of replying to my rebuttal, Daniel Chew the Puritan-Reformed fellow from Singapore simply DELETED my reply, claiming that, “you are in violation of rule number 1. Your nonsensical comment would be hereby deleted.”

What a GREAT debating tactic it is! When you can’t answer the arguments, delete them.

Let's see what "nonsensical" comment I wrote. Daniel Chew has no integrity when it comes to debating.

This is what I wrote. (My comments follow the arrows)

PR:

I do not need to "run from anything". Anyone who know even a bit of logic will know you are just blowing smoke.

>Look who's "blowing" smoke? Anyone reading the posts you made will know you are simply self-deluded in believing that I'm "blowing smoke".

Besides strawman, ad-hominem, non-sequitur etc, what else can you come up with?
>Simple. Read my replies to you on my blog.

With regards to the Critical Text, you obviously do not know what I was talking about.
>Wow. You are a good liar. Well, the readers of your blog CAN read YOUR words on my blog where I expose your inanity. I'm sure they have brains to think with.

Even THE Critical Text published by WH and later by UBS etc do give the varient readings among the manuscripts, so your point is moot.
>Really? You sure you know what I'm talking about? YOU (yes, you) confused "critical text" with the minority family of texts e.g. A, B etc, and you are still insisting that you are right? See my expose of your confusion:

http://god-antithesis.blogspot.com/2008/10/someone-who-claims-to-understand.html

If you continue to misrepresent my position clearly even after being constantly refuted, there is nothing more to add to this conversation.

>I DID NOT "misrepresent" your position; I merely REFUTED your position (see my replies on my blog). Since when did you "refute" my position? Were you dreaming in Lalaland? Unless all the readers of your blog are like you, I'm sure they can think for themselves and see the kind of deluded liar you are.

May God have mercy upon you and save you from the gutter of irrationality you are in.
>Like you called Barth a heretic, now you want to pronounce judgment on me? How prideful can one gets?

Just btw, if anyone really wants to know, I can do a sentence by sentence deconstruction of Antithesis' posts which shows the many logical fallacies he has committed in them.
>Try it then; I'll ensure you'll make a fool of yourself. You need a little shakin' up, you know, kiddo? Too much pride and self-confidence in yourself, mate. Want to see how silly your "logic" is when you tried to "deconstruct" my position?

Read this:

http://god-antithesis.blogspot.com/2008/10/clarkians-lie-just-to-look-good.html

Hope your readers are willing to read my replies instead of parroting your points. And BTW, your subject-verb agreement needs brushing up.

And since Daniel Chew couldn’t deal with the arguments I presented, he now hides behind his fellow bloggers.

Daniel Chew wrote, “Oh, FYI, I have taken the liberty to post this on an online Christian ministry blog of which I am a contributor to. You can be rest assured that the heresy you are advocating will be exposed before the wider Christian community and they will not be misled by false teachers like you.”

He calls my position heresy. Suddenly, various Evangelicals in Christendom who disagree with him, and who do not believe that language can convey propositions PERFECTLY are condemned as heretics.

Daniel Chew, do you want to burn me to death?

Clarkians Lie Just To Look Good

2008-10-10T19:08:00.000-07:00

This is a roundup of the discussion with PuritanReformed and his bulldog.

The PuritanReformed guy had just written a post to distort and lie about the discussion we had. If you want the exact words used in this debate, read the original comments at my blog. I had saved every word he wrote on his blog.

PuritanReformed claims,

"If p refers to the ability of language to communicate perfectly, and q refers to the actual empirical fact of language being largely able to communicate truth perfectly, then the propositions "If p, then q" is most definitely true."

Considering one who claims to know basic logic, it is embarrassing to even expose such a self-deluded fellow such as he.

“If P, then Q” is sound only if the premises are true. Know the difference between “valid” and “sound?” An argument may be valid, BUT UNSOUND.

Let’s examine the premises.

PR claims, “If p refers to the ability of language to communicate perfectly,” then it follows that q = “the actual empirical fact of language being largely able to communicate truth perfectly.”

Q is a bare assertion; and if P then Q is a non-sequitur.

Since when do we observe that language is “largely able to communicate truth perfectly?” Where is that “empirical” or scientific proof or evidence? PR must be sitting in his room totally unaware of what is going on in linguistics, philosophy or even real life. P is overtly false.

Notice he used the term, “true” in his own words, "If p, then q" is most definitely true.” Syllogistic reasoning can only be valid/invalid and/or sound/unsound. He doesn’t even know this basic fact.

His claim that we commit the mistake of "If ~p, therefore ~q" or also known as denying the antecedent is therefore a straw man. His conditional, "If P then Q," is not even sound in the first place, and he doesn't even know that.

We insist therefore, "~q, therefore ~p," which is definitely valid.

But there's more!

His reasoning is actually fatally flawed, and he has no clue why. Let me explain.

Not only “if P then Q” is unsound, it is also circular when we consider the primary premises P and Q.

PuritanReformed claims, “If p refers to the ability of language to communicate perfectly,” then it follows that q = “the actual empirical fact of language being largely able to communicate truth perfectly.”

But Q (the consequent) already assumes as a matter of fact that language is “largely able to communicate truth perfectly,” which is exactly what we are investigating (i.e. the ability of language to communicate perfectly), thereby begging the question and making his conditional statement circular in reasoning. “Largely able to” refers to “ability to,” and this is rephrased as "ability of" and inserted into P as the antecedent.

How circular in his thinking can one gets?

Further Points of Note

1) PR asked the question, “Question: In your opinion, is there ONE meaning for any particular sentence made by anyone?”

He then concluded, “Antithesis totally misunderstand the question that I was asking, which was about a particular statement; a single statement, NOT two similar statements used in two different contexts.”

See how he twists the original question into another one – the fallacy of redefinition? (which only serves to emphasize the ambiguity of language)

He asked if there is only ONE meaning to a particular sentence.

I gave him one sentence – which is made up of only one word, “Great!” – and put that sentence in two different context.

Instead of honestly saying that the two sentences were the SAME – with EXACTLY the SAME word – he used the word “similar.” Now “same” and “similar” are used very differently in theology and philosophy.

You may have similar eyes to your dad’s, but they are not the same as your dad’s eyes.

Secondly, I didn’t misunderstand his silly reasoning. The example I gave is as follows:

Let’s consider the sentence, “Great!” in different contexts.

A boy got his exam results, and it is an A. He said, “Great!”

A boy got his trousers torn by his school bullies. He said, “Great!”

Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing? But according to you, they both mean the same thing. One meaning, right?

My example must be understood in the context of PR’s previous statement. PuritanReformed said,

“Language is used by individuals. If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words. That is all I mean by that.”

Since he made the fatuous statement that words have “official meaning[s],” I did a reductio ad absurdum on him:

I asked, “Ah, for the word “Church,” what is the “official” meaning? Most dictionaries would furnish more than 10 different meanings. So which is “official?’”

2) So in the context of our previous discussion on the “official” meaning of words – which PR had no reply thus far – I gave him the example of two sentences having exactly the same word used in two different contexts.

I had asked him the “official” meaning of the word “Church.”

PR said, “So? The meaning of a word as used in CONTEXT is only one, not the meaning of a word divorced from any context.”

I replied,

“But you haven’t answered my question. You claim that there is an OFFICIAL meaning for every word. Which is it for the word “church?”

Furthermore, even if you claim that context helps to interpret the meaning of each word, CONTEXT NEEDS INTERPRETATION AS WELL. So how do you interpret the context IN WHICH A PARTICULAR WORD APPEARS? Remember that “context” in language is ALSO MADE UP OF WORDS.

So which is the “official” meaning of a particular context? Infinite regress here?”

PR doesn’t seem to realize that, besides committing logical fallacies, he doesn’t even understand what these fallacies are all about. It is evident that he has no clue because he doesn’t address them AT ALL in his subsequent replies.

a) Firstly, PR claims that there is an official meaning for every word in language (see his words above), but is unable to give me THE OFFICIAL meaning for the word “Church.”

b) Secondly, he claims that context – which is likewise made up of words in the form of subject/predicate/complex predicate – decides what “official” meaning to use. But isn’t this infinite regress? So which “official” meaning of the context (which is made up of words) should we use to interpret the “official” meaning of the word “church?”

c) Thirdly, he begs the question when he wrote, “If individuals do not use the words with their official meaning(s), then that sentence made would be unable to express truth perfectly because that person misuses words.”

He claims that there is an official meaning for every word used.

But which “official meaning” of the word “official” should we use when we define his terminology of “official meaning of a word?” Obviously, he takes “the official meaning” to be numerous meanings, depending upon the context in which the word appears. So, is the "official meaning" of a word ALL the dictionary/lexical definitions for a particular word? And yet PR insists that language communicates truths perfectly and is unambiguous.

This just reinforced my point that language is ambiguous at times, which PR vehemently denied. I am not denying that language does communicate truths; it just doesn't do so perfectly at times. That is why we have so many different interpretations of Scripture.

3) PR claimed, “This failure to distinguish between sentences/phrases and propositions is a very fundamental error in logical argumentation — one which is covered in basic logic class within the first few weeks, and therefore it should not be made by those who have studied logic in any degree whatsoever.”

Going back to my example of the two sentences with exactly the SAME word.

Let’s consider the sentence, “Great!” in two different contexts.

A boy got his exam results, and it is an A. He said, “Great!”

A boy got his trousers torn by his school bullies. He said, “Great!”

PR just proved my point. Two SAME sentence with EXACTLY the SAME words, but conveying two different PROPOSITIONS.

PR seems to understand this when he wrote:

1st boy: Great = I am happy to have accomplish this feat (of scoring an A)

2nd boy: Great = A terrible thing has happened to me (trousers torn by school bullies) (and I am being sarcastic about it)

SAME word in two SAME sentences, two different propositions expressed by the SAME word. What more do we need?

He has just (fatuously) proved my point that language cannot convey meaning perfectly, and is sometimes open to misinterpretation and ambiguity. But he STILL denies that language is ambiguous.

4) PR also claimed (to save his dignity?) that I had missed his reductio ad absurdum. But he didn’t seem to get that I was using a reductio on his reductio, a play on rhetoric.

5) We talked about textual criticism where I showed him that he didn’t have the words of the original autographs. He put on an air of knowledge concerning “critical texts,” but to our amazement, he doesn’t even KNOW what is a “critical text!”

6) Lastly, in my previous post, I asked him numerous questions which he cannot answer. He thinks that simple ad hominem and ignoratio elenchi can redirect the argument somewhere. I said:

You – PuritanReformed – claimed that language communicates the propositions of Scripture perfectly, but try and think a little. It's really not too difficult.

You don't even know which are the original words of "Scripture" as found in the autographs. So what you have is at best bits and pieces of the original Scripture.

What “perfect” propositions are you talking about? You don’t even have the original words of the “Bible.”

The language which you claim is able to communicate truths “perfectly” is indeed communicating whatever you claim is “perfect” from these eclectic texts which are not the original words of Scripture.

Geddit?

Finally, as I have asked you before and I’ll ask you again, why are there so many different interpretations of the same Scripture by regenerate men if language communicates truths so very perfectly?

Puritanreformed, at least practice basic integrity and try to REMEMBER what you had written? Fortunately, I saved all your comments, so there is no way you can run from what you had written.

How Clarkians “Debate” With Me

2008-10-10T18:13:00.000-07:00

PuritanReformed newfound bulldog, Joel, has discovered an extremely effective and logical strategy to win the “debate” we had on his blog here and here.

It’s called censorship and double standards. He simply deleted all my posts, and left one single comment as “evidence.” When you have deleted the other relevant posts exposing your weaknesses, you can do whatever you want to conjure up such “evidence.”

Joel allowed his chum to rain unreasonable ad hominems on my posts, but only points out one single post where I responded with the slightest hint of getting “personal.” And I really meant it sincerely for his own good.

What’s more, disagreeing with them is called the “greatest” case of bigotry according to Joel. How bigoted can one gets?

This PuritanReformed fellow goes around (I got to glean this from reading some of his older posts, or you can try searching for the word “heretic” on his blog) calling various Christian pastors and teachers “apostates” and “heretics,” and he seems to get a kick by all this name-calling. Do you really think your position in Christ will be more secure, or that your reputation for “ministry” would improve, if you were to continue maligning Christian pastors and teachers?

And now he gets to own his new pet bulldog called Joel who parrots his every word.

That is how Clarkians debate when cornered – with ad hominems, censorship, and by deleting every post you had painstakingly written to discuss the issues.

They can’t handle anything except what they had read from Clark. Talk about being close-minded.

It's Like Talking To Beavis And Butthead

2008-10-10T05:30:00.000-07:00

Discussing theology with Puritan-Reformed is like having a conversation with Beavis and Butthead.

PuritanReformed wrote:

"Antithesis seems to have so much time in his hands to attempt to communicate his "truths". Of course, since language cannot perfectly convey truth, who exactly knows what he is actually saying? Maybe when he says "it does speak a lot concerning your reasoning ability", we should interpret it 'literally' as a compliment instead, as in "your reasoning ability" = subject, "it does speak" = verb, "a lot" = quantity, therefore we should interpret this phrase as Antithesis praising Joel's great intellectual ability! Of course, since this whole thing is a silly discussion anyway, perhaps the adjective "silly" is meant to describe his tirades on my blog in wasting my time responding to his silly questions?"

Is this really beyond him?

PR whined, “therefore we should interpret this phrase as Antithesis praising Joel's great intellectual ability!”

You just proved my point again: language didn’t communicate whatever I want to say to you perfectly. This is not what I meant.

You – PuritanReformed – claimed that language communicates the propositions of Scripture perfectly, but try and think a little. It's really not too difficult.

You don't even know which are the original words of "Scripture" as found in the autographs. So what you have is at best bits and pieces of the original Scripture.

What “perfect” propositions are you talking about? You don’t even have the original words of the “Bible.”

The language which you claim is able to communicate truths “perfectly” is indeed communicating whatever you claim is “perfect” from these eclectic texts which are not the original words of Scripture.

Geddit?

Finally, as I have asked you before and I’ll ask you again, why are there so many different interpretations of the same Scripture by regenerate men if language communicates truths so very perfectly?

Someone who claims to understand textual criticism, and yet does not know what is a “critical text.”

2008-10-07T21:04:00.000-07:00

This is my reply to the fatuous response by PuritanReformed:

Original discussion here. Words by Puritanreformed Daniel Chew in red.

1) LOL. How did you pass your reading comprehension in English language in the first place? I was talking about the irrationality of the creature which has nothing to do with the ability of language (an impersonal tool) to convey truths/thoughts perfectly. Talk about faulting the tool for the ineptness of the person yielding it.

>PR doesn’t seem to get it: the end result is – language CANNOT convey propositions PERFECTLY to man (be it the irrationality of the person, the inadequacy of the language etc). And he had previously (and confidently) claimed that regenerate man has a noetic structure that can enable him to understand the Bible perfectly well.

2) I gave him a valid example and asked, "Do those two sentences - “Great!” - mean the same thing?"

PR wrote: “No, becuase they are two different sentences! Go brush up your logic!”

How can two sentences with exactly the same words – “great!”- be TWO DIFFERENT SENTENCES? (see my comments above)

HOW DESPERATE CAN ONE GETS? Who needs to “brush up [his] logic?”

3) Like the heretic Karl Barth, and all the postmodern deconstructionists? Why am I NOT convinced they are the right authority to appeal to?

>See how he jumps from one irrelevant authority to another (red herring)? I asked him to check with a logician; he claims that I asked him to check with Karl Barth.

Desperate fellow. And he resorts to ad hominem - Karl Barth is now classified as a heretic.

4) So what makes you so sure that that 1% or around there of imperfectness does not cause your message to be somehow lost or distorted? You may NOT argue from the fact that I understand you because that can be used to support my case.

>The existence of communication does not presuppose the existence of PERFECT communication. See how illogical a Clarkian gets when he is cornered?

He claims that he doesn’t understand me; but he insists on getting his feet wet with mud by posting such irrelevant and illogical replies. Seems that he is proving my point: language simply cannot perfectly convey my message to him.

5) I asked, "Oh, please enlighten me. What is “fully” preserved? How is that different from “perfectly” preserved?"

PR answered, “Fully preserved means that the very words of Scripture is preserved for us (which could include being preserved in the plurality of manuscripts). Perfectly preserved refers to any varient of the perfect bible theory which states that God has preserved the very words of Scripture in any single manuscript or tradition.”

>So you believe in perfect preservation of the autographs in the extant apographs. But how do you know which word – presuming that you are correct with the preservation theory you propound – is the “correct” word from the autograph from the thousands of extant apographs we have today?

So when you exegete “scripture,” how do you know whether you are exegeting genuine scripture or erroreous scripture (or even exegeting nonsense)?

Wishful thinking perhaps?

6) So now you know how to read my own words better than me? I think not!

>Proves my point: language cannot communicate proposition/information perfectly to Man.

7) I asked him the “official” meaning of the word “Church.”

PR said, “So? The meaning of a word as used in CONTEXT is only one, not the meaning of a word divorced from any context.”

>But you haven’t answered my question. You claim that there is an OFFICIAL meaning for every word. Which is it for the word “church?”

Secondly, even if you claim that context helps to interpret the meaning of each word, CONTEXT NEEDS INTERPRETATION AS WELL. So how do you interpret the context IN WHICH A PARTICULAR WORD APPEARS? Remember that “context” in language is ALSO MADE UP OF WORDS.

So which is the “official” meaning of a particular context? Infinite regress here?

8a) I asked, "So is preservation of Scripture perfect OR imperfect?"

PR says: Preservation of Scripture is 'perfect' in the sense that it is fully preserved.

>Wishful thinking. You claim that it is fully preserved in extant manuscripts (bare assertion), but where is the proof?

Even if you claim that the Bible says so, isn’t this circular reasoning? How can you say that the “bible” says so if you do not have the original words of the Bible in the first place?

Circular reasoning:

a) The imperfect bible (which imperfect bible are you talking about?) says that the Words are perfectly preserved.

b) The words are perfectly preserved because I have faith in my imperfect bible (not the autographs) that it contains the words of the autographs, and since it says so.

c) And where does it say so? In the imperfect bible – which is believed to be the same as the autographs, but we don’t have the autographs, and we don’t really know which are the words of the autographs.

d) My ESV is not exactly the same as the autographs, but I use it for my imperfect “bible” studies, and of course, it may not be the same as the autographs, although I believe it to be the “words” of God – knowing that we do not really have the words of God which is in the mass of extant manuscripts. And I know that the words are in the mass of extant manuscripts because my imperfect bible – which is not really the exact words of God – says so.

8b) PR says: It is not perfect however in the sense that it is preserved in any ONE single manuscript or scribal tradition.

>So we don’t really have IN OUR HANDS/USAGE any perfect “bible.” So your “perfect” preservation is only theoretical. In reality, there is no such “bible” for us to exegete from.

So how do you know if you are not exegeting nonsense?

9) I said, "No, that’s not a straw man; I was ASKING a question. How can a question be a straw man? It’s not even a proposition. Know the difference between a proposition and a question?"

PR said, “Oh, so that wasn't a rhetorical question? Perhaps you may care to phrase your questions as questions and not insinuations.”

>Proves my point AGAIN: language cannot communicate proposition/information perfectly to Man. He now blames my “phrasing,” but I really feel the phrasing was perfect.

Circular reasoning again:

1) Since language is perfect as a tool for communication, it must be the phrasing that was bad.

2) Since it was the phrasing that was bad, it still remains that language is perfect as a tool for communication.

10) I asked, "Let me clarify: Is regenerate Man always perfect in his intellect/noetic structure when understanding Scripture, with no negative noetic effects whatsoever from the Fall after his regeneration?"

PR said, “Irrelevant. The topic is on the instrument of language, NOT on the person, as I have mentioned already earlier. The ability of language is the one YOU are attacking, not the capability of the person using the instrument of language.”

>Ah, it seems that according to PR, language can communicate APART from the person.

Propositions are understood with minds; language is able to communicate anything solely because of the existence of minds (humans in this case). So how is that irrelevant? You don’t seem to even understand the very basics of the philosophy of language.

11) I asked, "My question: So are all KJV/NKJV/TNIV users using those versions because they had studied the issues and come to a conclusion?"

PR said - Irrelevant.

>Bare assertion, isn’t it?

12) I asked, "And you haven’t answered, “What are the underlying Greek texts used to translate the ESV? What critical theory are these texts based on?”
And you CLAIMED that you do not support the WH theory of textual criticism"

PR insists, “Absolute non-sequitur. There is absolutely no logical correspondence between the WH theory of textual criticism and the usage of the critical texts. The critical texts were present even if Westcort [sic] and Hort did not examine them.”

>The ESV is translated from the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament 4th ed. and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece. Both are eclectic texts.

PR, you mean that these eclectic texts were already collated before Westcott and Hort?

PR, please do your homework before making a fool of yourself.

Furthermore, both the UBSGNT 4th edition and the NTG were all derived solely via WH theory. Have you studied this issue before? Seems like you use the ESV out of ignorance, my friend!

13) I said, "But the critical text is based upon the WH theory"

PR insists, “Nonsense! Is the Majority text based upon the textual theory of Desiderius Erasmus, or of Theodore Beza or Stephanus? One is a theory; the other is a physical text.”

PR doesn’t even know what a “critical text” is. In the case of the ESV, the critical texts used in translation were eclectic texts derived using the WH theory. They contain more than 1 family of Greek texts.

Wikipedia says, “The critical text is an eclectic text compiled by a committee that examines a large number of manuscripts in order to weigh which reading is thought closest to the lost original.”

For example, I purchase my critical texts online from Logos.

Quoting Logos, “What about the NA26 and UBS3? The NA27/UBS4 is only the latest "critical" edition of the Greek text. Prior to the release of this text, the critical text was the NA26/UBS3 text. Thus, the old Logos Library System had the NA26 text (NA26.lsf/NA26.lix). The NA26 is to the UBS3 as the NA27 is to the UBS4 text. So what changed between NA26 and 27 or between UBS 3 and 4? Not the main Greek text. The body of NA26 is the same as that of NA27. Likewise for UBS3 and UBS4. The difference between NA26 and NA27 is in the apparatus (see below). The difference between UBS3 and UBS4 is similar. That is, the changes are all in the apparatus, not the main body of Greek text. The apparatus changes in both editions are significant.”

Know what is a “critical text” now?

14) I said, "It’s almost like saying, “I trust the works of Jacques Derrida on language, but that doesn’t mean that I trust his theory of deconstruction.”"

PR again insists, “False analogy! Unless you are saying that WH created the Critical Text ex nihilo? Anybody who is willing to take the time and effort and expenditure can look up the original texts ie Sinaticus and copies of Vaticanus, Aleph etc and bypass WH altogether.”

>PR, I don’t know what to say to you! I’m talking about YOUR ESV here!

Your ESV is based upon the critical texts, which are derived using the WH theory. You are not reading A, B etc per se! As a reminder, your ESV is based upon eclectic texts - the critical editions of UBSGNT and the NTG.

Now I know you are really ignorant.