A Very Short Reply To Daniel Chew Huicong

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

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

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

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

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!

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

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)?