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!
Tuesday, July 19, 2011
The Death Of A Pope's Blog
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)
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?
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)
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.
"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]
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
[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!
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)
"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.
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:
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.
"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....
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?
- Is the watchman a term for specific Christians or for all Christians?
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?
"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....
Monday, July 18, 2011
Antithesis latest article and some thoughts on modern ordination (Protestant Pope)
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?
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)
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
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)
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?"
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
Thursday, August 12, 2010
ON SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS: Dedicated To Pseudo-Rev Daniel H. Chew
ON SELF-RIGHTEOUSNESS
by Edwin F. Kagin
Attorney at Law
P.O. Box 48
Union, KY 41091
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.
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 DictionaryThe 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.
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 existence of such personalities is not new. Jesus is reported to have said, "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" There are similar references, for self-righteousness is justly and frequently condemned in the bible ... Indeed, we recommend you read [the Bible]. The book is much better than the movie.
Self-righteousness and hypocrisy may be joined, as in the widow’s views on tobacco reported by Huck. But they are quite different concepts. Hypocrites, like the widow, do themselves that which they so freely condemn in others. Most hypocrites are self-righteous, but self-righteous persons are not necessarily hypocrites and may in fact practice what they preach. A priest who rapes little boys, and preaches against homosexuality and violence, is clearly both, while a practicing virgin, who moralistically urges this unhappy fate on others, is not. It’s all in how you study it. Many have rejected religion largely because it is home to lots of goodie-two-shoes type persons of self-righteous or hypocritical persuasion. Sometimes, in their attempt to live justly in an unjust world, the disillusioned seek solace from religion in the perceived rationality of secular humanism. And guess what?
This may come as a shock to some secular humanist readers, but the self-righteous are also to be found among the ranks of the supposedly rational, among those who look for meaning apart from the supernatural, among those who decry the artificial goodness of the godly. Bummer, ain’t it? Thus, instead of holier-than-thou, we have those who feel rationaler-than-thou, or skepticaler-than-thou, and who demean, abjure, reject, and avoid those they feel don’t quite measure up to their standards. Such are no less self-righteous than the widow.
Whether religious or secular, the self-righteous and the con-artist are sisters under the skin. Both become outraged if they don’t get their way. The slightest reasoned refusal to consent to manipulation or control is punished. The uncooperative mark may witness a presumably well meaning, but terminally self-righteous, friend go into an inexplicable rage, answering disobedience with irrational and unpleasant emotions, until the victim seems, as best worded by Shakespeare, "beyond reason hated." To further complicate matters, the person deluded by self-righteousness cannot understand when others are disinclined to share their hostility and fail to concede the justness of their attitudes and actions. The world as one conspires.
The self-righteous are troubled by democracy. Why debate or vote on any matter of behavior or morality when truth is available by decree, and when correct answers may be so readily had from those who know the answers beyond any need for question or discussion? To challenge such persons is, in their view, malum in se--in the vernacular, reprehensible, wicked, and wrong in itself--denoting a defect of character revealed in the very act of rebellion against ultimate authority. Thereafter, every action or motive of the errant sinner will be understood and punished as an indisputably vile thing--another example of evil attacking good. The psychological mechanism of projection, and the transparent narcissism of the self-righteous, is beyond the scope of this digression. The analogies to theology are scary. If afflicted leaders possess small power, they are merely annoying, comical, or pathetic. If they hold real power over nations or ideologies, the graveyards of history harbour their heritage.
The sad part is that they don’t have to be like this. The self-righteous prigs can get over it, or get therapy for it. They don’t have to expose themselves to the misery. Misery is optional, for predator as well as prey, even if one thinks they have no free will. Rational beings don’t have to live with sustained rage, or with the chronic paranoia of waiting for some other imaginary shoe to drop. Those who live to control others could, using the power of reason they mock, come to realize that compromise and resolution of disagreements can be something more than capitulation or appeasement, and that, in some things at least, they just might be--as impossible as it seems--wrong. One is entitled to be smug, arrogant, and self-righteous only if one has figured out how not to die. The outcast may well be the better person. That’s what the bible story of the good Samaritan is all about.
If we can’t avoid the self satisfied--the better option--we can laugh at them. A healthy person loves to see the pompous taken down a peg or two, and delights in mocking their phony goodness and proper ways. This is why the common folk laugh when a stuffed shirt slips on a banana skin. But what about self-righteous secular humanists who, in hardening their hearts and softening their minds, do real harm to those who actually favor free inquiry? Maybe we should create a Secular Humanist Hall of Shame. Here could be enrolled and acknowledged those whose actions have earned them the herein proposed SHAME (Secular Humanist Arrogantly Making Enemies) Award.
As adolescent fantasies are best left to adolescents, so childish needs to have one’s own way are best left to children, who will hopefully outgrow them. Adults should, to borrow again from the bible, "put away childish things." It would be sad to die without growing up.
For everything there is a season,
For every act there is a reason;
As a garden reflects its seeds,
Deeds of life tell that life’s needs.
Sunday, August 8, 2010
Prophecies for Watchman: Quotes From C S Lewis' Mere Christianity
“If anyone thinks that Christians regard unchastely as the supreme vice, he is quite wrong. The sins of the flesh are bad, but they are the least bad of all sins. All the worst pleasures are purely spiritual: the pleasure of putting other people in the wrong, of bossing and patronizing and spoiling sport, and back-biting, the pleasures of power, of hatred. For there are two things inside me, competing with the human self which I must try to become. They are the Animal self, and the Diabolical self. The Diabolical self is the worse of the two. That is why a cold, self righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to hell than a prostitute. But, of course, it is better to be neither.”
“According to Christian teachers, the essential vice, the utmost evil, is Pride… it was through Pride that the devil became the devil: Pride leads to every other vice: it is the complete anti-God state of mind.”
“As long as you are proud you cannot know God. A proud man is always looking down on things and people: and, of course, as long as you are looking down, you cannot see something that is above you.”
“For Pride is spiritual cancer: it eats up the very possibility of love, or contentment, or even common sense.”
“If you think you are not conceited, it means you are very conceited indeed.”
Wednesday, July 28, 2010
Daniel H. Chew’s Confusion Concerning Baptism: Burn Baby Burn Part II
I have previously noted Daniel H. Chew's rabid hatred for infants and retarded individuals who are unable to give conscious assent to the Gospel of Christ. As analyzed in the previous post, Chew has to logically concede that all infants who die in infancy (prior to their ability to give conscious assent to, or to believe in, the Gospel) are reprobates and destined for hell fire.
In his recent post, Chew reiterates his belief concerning infants and other humans who are unable to have conscious belief:
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:
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.
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. ChewInfants 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 ClarkWithin the context of Chew's statements above, I couldn't imagine a greater tragic irony than that of infant baptism, where the said infant would die prior to acquiring an ability to give conscious assent to the Gospel. According to Chew’s previous statements, and by applying the simple laws of logic, such an infant is reprobate and predestined for hell i.e. “those who do not have conscious faith in Christ in this life do not have eternal life, and do not have any second chance to "gain" eternal life after their earthly life have passed (Chew).” Nevertheless, such a predestined reprobate must, according to Chew’s theology, receive the sign and seal of the Covenant of Grace.
Isn't it true that Chew's theology is suggesting that God is an omnipotent hypocrite? God says, “Hey parents, the promise is to you and your children. Oh yes, your infant ought to receive the sign and seal of My covenant of grace. Yep, he is special! Oh yeah, no kidding! On second thought, this one is actually My predestined reprobate, for I have predestined him to burn in hell for all eternity. But hey, what’s the big deal? Give him the sign and the seal of my gracious covenant. It’s just for show, you know? But do you see how gracious I am? I want him to burn in hell for all eternity, but I mandate that you give him My sign and seal of the gracious covenant.”
If Chew would attempt to draw a false analogy between baptized infants who die in infancy (and/or children who die prior to giving conscious assent to the Gospel) and baptized adult believers who later turned out to be false believers or apostates, then Chew is sadly mistaken. In the case of infants, they are baptized prior to them developing a perceived ability to give any conscious assent to the Gospel (or any propositions besides those involving basic primal needs [1] for that matter), whereas in the case of adult believers, these are able to profess conscious belief to the local church. If we cannot accept such conscious belief and subsequent professions of faith from adult believers when considering their baptism, what should we then consider as a testimony to their mental acceptance of Gospel truths? Should we then replace adult baptism with a “Reformed, Protestant” version of extreme unction? From this side of eternity, even adult “believers” who apparently bear spiritual fruits, and are subsequently baptized, might eventually turn out to be reprobates.
Again, Chew might rebut, “God commands all children of believers to be baptized. So it is not a matter of logical analysis, but obedience to God's commandments and mandate.” Firstly, it shall always be a matter of logical analysis, for Clarkian Chew cannot have it both ways: the peddling of Clarkian logic and the simultaneous denial of the Law of Non-Contradiction.
Most of our readers would agree that Reformed Theologians are still debating the issue of infant baptism, and perhaps none has ever claimed to conclusively prove the doctrine from Scripture. Now given that Chew can prove from Scripture that God has indeed commanded baptism for “you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call (Acts 2:39),” how would Chew argue that “children” refers only to infants, and not to older children who can indeed give conscious assent to gospel truths?
How would Chew draw the line of definition between an “infant” and a “non-infant”? How would Chew show from Scripture that a particular “age” defines an infant as opposed to that of a non-infant? How would he then demonstrate that the household baptisms in the New Testament were those involving these infants i.e. children before they arrive at the non-infant age?
Lastly, why are only infants baptized in pedobaptism? Isn't it true that all children of believers are within the Covenant of Grace, and not just infants (whatever “infant” means)? Since Chew concede that children are in the covenant, why aren’t paedobaptists baptizing all children of believing parents irrespective of age? Again, how should Chew draw the line between an infant, child, the non-infant and the non-child?
[1] Arguably, infants are able to communicate to their carers needs in the lowest of Abraham Maslow's hierarchy, e.g. physiological needs, and perhaps even safety and love needs.
Thursday, July 22, 2010
Daniel H. Chew and his Superego
"There are different kinds of voices calling you to all different kinds of work, and the problem is to find out which is the voice of God rather than society, say, or the super-ego, or self-interest." - Frederick Buechner, Wishful Thinking: A Theological ABC
In the beginning, Daniel H. Chew (also known as Daniel Chew Huicong) self-appointed himself as apologist, author, watchman.
He was without fame and void, and darkness was upon his reputation. So, Daniel H. Chew self-published himself a book.
And Daniel H. Chew said: let there be a string of degrees behind my name, and so Chew gave himself the external call to the Christian ministry – apart from any involvement within a local church in Singapore. It was a "ministry" to study in seminary, and that's it.
Even a little of positive affirmation from his pastor (if any) would be good. But alas, does he even have a local church? Is he even an active member of any church in Singapore?
In the future, we keenly anticipate his self-ordination.
Do peruse this excellent post by the Protestant Pope.
Let us also peruse some interesting comments by my readers (Note: I do not stand by these comments):
Anonymous said:
'A Friend' wrote:
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:
Another Anonymous wrote: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?
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.Barry wrote:
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!
He [Daniel H. Chew] is THE Chee Soon Juan of Reformed Scholarship! I like him!John wrote:
Although Daniel does not have a church to go to, he serves God with his heart and mind like true prophets within apostate Israel. Churches in Singapore are so degenerate that even pastors are not saved. I see Daniel tells the truth bravely, and churches need to listen to him. How can such pastors lord over Daniel by telling him when he is prepared to go to seminary?'Would be Pope' wrote:
Daniel needs to test HIMSELF (confirming his 'internal' call) and also prove to his CHURCH (confirming his 'external' call), BEFORE he should even embark on seminary studies.
Writing blogs about the apostate so-and-so, drumming up support from his friends, going to other churches to rub shoulders with the renowned Reformed men DO NOT constitute a call to the ministry.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
A Watchman or A Fool?
The words of a wise man's mouth are gracious; but the lips of a fool will swallow up himself. - Ecclesiastes 10:12
Dedicated to those who devote their time to endless disputes and debates in Blogosphere; please make yourselves useful for God's glory.
A word of advice from Matthew Henry to the Fool:
"Fools talk a great deal to no purpose, and they show their folly as much by the multitude, impertinence, and mischievousness of their words, as by any thing; whereas the words of a wise man's mouth are gracious, are grace, manifest grace in his heart and minister grace to the hearers, are good, and such as become him, and do good to all about him, the lips of a fool not only expose him to reproach and make him ridiculous, but will swallow up himself and bring him to ruin, by provoking the government to take cognizance of his seditious talk and call him to an account for it. ...
A fool also is full of words, a passionate fool especially, that runs on endlessly and never knows when to leave off. He will have the last word, though it be but the same with that which was the first. What is wanting in the weight and strength of his words he endeavours in vain to make up in the number of them; and they must be repeated, because otherwise there is nothing in them to make them regarded. Note, Many who are empty of sense are full of words; and the least solid are the most noisy [in blogosphere]. ...
[A fool] is full of words, for if he do but speak the most trite and common thing, a man cannot tell what shall be, because he loves to hear himself talk [or blog/write], he will say it again, what shall be after him who can tell him?"
Sunday, May 23, 2010
Truth and Degeneration
In a recent post, the most correct and logical Watchman-cum-Clarkian Daniel Chew Huicong once again proved himself to be deprived of not only logical mental faculties, but also good ol’ common sense – which is apparently not so common in his case.
Our most venerable Watchman Chew made the following inane proposition that P.
Proposition P: Unregenerate "biblical" scholars produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.
Chew’s context for P: “In the world,” presumably this possible world.
So let us examine this proposition for sanity’s sake.
If P = “Unregenerate "biblical" scholars”;
Then Q = “Produce "scholarly" academic theological articles and books.”
Allow us to first examine the acceptable logical forms, modus ponens and modus tollens.
1) Modus ponens
If P, then Q.
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.
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?
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Free Lifetime Membership For Watchman Chew!
In view of the exceedingly impressive statements made by the Watchman Chew in his previous posts, I would offer an absolutely free, no-strings-attached, lifetime membership for Daniel Chew Huicong in the aforementioned club (i.e. see above).
There is also an exciting giveaway of an absolutely free template – only for the first 100 members – to print a name card with. The template outlines the following extraordinary credentials: apologist, author, watchman.
Please print your very own Member's Certificate here.
Tuesday, May 18, 2010
Watchman Chew's Best of Friends are Hell-Bound False Teachers - According to Chew of Course!
Consistent with the spirit of an authoritative, self-appointed Watchman, Daniel Chew Huicong has proclaimed the following in a previous post concerning false teachers:“We can judge a person's teachings and his/her salvation through whether they teach false doctrines and whether they preach another gospel. This shows definitely that the act of teaching and preaching is a very serious affair, since the teaching of false doctrines would damn us. Note first of all that this teaching of false doctrines is something that happens consistently, that is when the people involved truly do believe in them and thus teach them. However, how are we to find out whether a person who teaches something truly believes in what he teaches, and does not do so honestly out of ignorance? We can discern what a person believes through exposing him/her to the truth, and then noticing the reaction of the person teaching serious errors. If the person is honestly ignorant, that person would immediately repent. If, however, that person remains defiant, and that happens for quite some time, we can know for sure that the person is truly a false teacher and is not saved at all.”
In the event that his readers might have missed his point, he emphasized for us that, one of “the fruits by which we can discern heretics and even judge the salvation of others” is the “teaching of false doctrines.”
Well, by putting two and two together, we can derive the following from the infallible teachings of the most venerable, most correct Watchman Chew:
1. One of “the fruits by which we can discern heretics and even judge the salvation of others” is the fruit of “teaching of false doctrines.”
2. “The teaching of false doctrines would damn us.”
3. A genuine false teacher is one who “truly … believe[s] in [the false teachings] and thus teach them.”
4. If the false teacher is ignorant, he would “immediately repent” when exposed “to the truth.”
5. “If, however, that person remains defiant, and that happens for quite some time, we can know for sure that the person is truly a false teacher and is not saved at all.”
Using the aforementioned propositions as proposed and consolidated by the most venerable, most qualified Watchman Chew, we can derive the following fact – many of Chew’s own friends would qualify as a false teacher and are likewise damned to hell.
Why so?
Exhibit One – Joel Tay the Baptist
Chew: I believe pedobaptism is the truth. According to the Law of Non-Contradiction, credobaptism and pedobaptism cannot be both true. Hence, credobaptism is a false teaching. As I have shown from the Scriptures, you are now exposed for who you truly are. Do you immediately repent of the false teaching of credobaptism?
Joel: I truly believe in credobaptism and I teach it. So what’s your problem?
Chew: You have remained defiant, and that had happened for quite some time – at least for the last 5 minutes – so now we can know for sure that you are truly a false teacher and is not saved at all. Remember, the teaching of false doctrines would damn us.
Implication: All Baptists are false teachers and are damned to hell according to Watchman Chew.
Exhibit Two – Pastor Paul Goh the Non-Concentric Cessationist
Chew: Dear Pastor Paul Goh, I believe Concentric Cessationism is the truth. According to the Law of Non-Contradiction, Concentric Cessationism and Non-Concentric Cessationism cannot be both true. Hence, Non-Concentric Cessationism is a false teaching. As I have shown from the Scriptures, you are now exposed for who you truly are. Do you immediately repent of the false teaching of Classical Cessationism?
Paul Goh: I truly believe in Classical Cessationism and I teach it. Don’t you yourself follow the 6 forms of unity? Aren’t you more reformed than me?
Chew: You have remained defiant, and that had happened for quite some time – at least for the last 5 minutes – so now we can know for sure that you are truly a false teacher and is not saved at all. Remember, the teaching of false doctrines would damn us.
Paul Goh: But your good friend and fellow blogger Pastor Jonah Tang is also a Classical Cessationist!
Chew: Good. So likewise, he falls under the same condemnation as you! Repent of your false teaching immediately!
Implication: All Non-Concentric Cessationists are false teachers and are damned to hell according to Watchman Chew.
Since Joel Tay, Pastor Paul Goh and Pastor Jonah Tang had all remained “defiant, and that [happened] for quite some time, we can know for sure that [they are] truly … false teachers and [are] not saved at all.”
Of course, this is not my own conclusion. But what else should we logically conclude if we are to accept the venerable Watchman’s most correct and infallible teachings as shown above?
Surely Chew would agree with our conclusion, as he must accept the laws of logic as a Clarkian himself.
Thursday, May 13, 2010
Watchman Chew Is Serious ...
Yeah, we all know that Watchman Chew is serious about his claims.And we also remember that he claimed that it was none other than God who had appointed him … as foretold.
Monday, May 10, 2010
Good Old Charlie Brown Should Emulate Watchman Chew
Charlie Brown “just can’t get people to believe in” him. That’s because Charlie Brown haven’t read all about Watchman-P.A.P.A. Daniel Chew Huicong.
If good ole Charlie had simply:
1) Started a “Christian” blog on controversial and/or popular issues e.g. the latest theological quibbles, panegyrics of eminent theological personalities and idols, exposés of some megachurches and famous pastors etc;
If good ole Charlie had simply:
1) Started a “Christian” blog on controversial and/or popular issues e.g. the latest theological quibbles, panegyrics of eminent theological personalities and idols, exposés of some megachurches and famous pastors etc;
2) Self-published a book (without peer review, of course) using some self-publishing tool like Xulon Publisher;
3) Acquired an obsequious, unthinking following by writing or speaking like an end-time “prophet” (“ believe this or be damned as a heretic!”) or “apostle” (“I proclaim unto thee Anathema Sit!”) … … all in Jesus name, of course;
4) Raised his own apparent social/academic standing within the theological and/or pastoral community by simply name-dropping as many times as he could;
5) Worn a BSc (Hons) graduation gown and post a picture of it on his blog – so as to appear erudite in theology; and
6) Self-proclaimed himself as the Patron Saint for the 6 forms of unity, all the while surreptitiously supporting/attending a neo-apostolic church while pretending to be against the neo-apostolic movement;
… … he would have been more successful in his cry for people to “believe in me.”
Poor old Charlie Brown.
Wednesday, May 5, 2010
Watchman Chew Is Right, Yeah ...
As usual, whenever the most-revered, most qualified, venerable Watchman-Pope-Apostle-Prophet-Author (Watchman-P.A.P.A.) Daniel Chew Huicong (a.k.a. the pseudo-evangelical Pope) declares any statement “ex-cathedral,” his cronies would accept it as “biblical” fact or truth. Such statements are frequently replete with logical fallacies and factual inconsistencies – which is actually the inbred mark of the self-glorifying ODMer’s “papers” and “posts.”In a recent post, he wrote, “For those who have seen the disgusting anti-Christian spirit behind the AODMers, this is nothing new. Truth is not much more treasured by those in the New Evangelical and New Evangelical Calvinism camp anymore than in non-Evangelical and Emergent circles. Slightly more, but not by much.”
A simple analysis of the aforementioned propositions (which can be done by a primary school leaver) will expose the lack of logic (and intelligence) within the twisted mind of the self-acclaimed Watchman P.A.P.A.
Chew squealed, “For those who have seen the disgusting anti-Christian spirit behind the AODMers, this is nothing new.”
Fallacies: Ad hominem, bare assertion, dicto simpliciter. Where’s the proof? Where’s the data and research on all the AODMers existing on this side of eternity?
“Truth is not much more treasured by those in the New Evangelical and New Evangelical Calvinism camp anymore than in non-Evangelical and Emergent circles.”
Fallacies: Ditto.
I can also yelp, “Truth is not more treasured by Daniel Chew Huicong than by the Beatles.” You see, when you are Watchman P.A.P.A., you can say whatever you want, whenever you want and appear to be well-researched and scholarly, or so he thinks.
“Slightly more, but not by much.”
Fallacies: Ditto. How much more? “Slightly” as compared to what? Based upon what kind of scale or measurement is this conclusion derived? Ah ... ...
Enough said.
Chew is getting more self-deluded. Indeed.
“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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
