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.

All Infants Go To Hell According To Daniel Chew Huicong

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Daniel continues,

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

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

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

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

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

Do you know your simplicity level?

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

Burn, Baby, Burn

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

There was a very interesting Report on the Festival of Praise written by the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong some time back. My friend Monica pointed it out to me; and could someone please explain to me why wasn’t I the least bit surprised.

The venerable Watchman closed his report with the following statement,

“May God have mercy on us all for this blasphemy conducted in the name of Christ, and may he grant the people involved repentance unto eternal life in our Lord Jesus Christ.”

From his report and the aforementioned statement, the Watchman had accused the churches involved in the Festival of Praise of the following crimes:

1) All churches involved in the Festival of Praise are blaspheming God.

These include several large churches in Singapore namely City Harvest Church, Riverlife Church, Church of Singapore, and Covenant Evangelical Free Church. Pastors and church leaders specifically named by Daniel Chew Huicong include Rev Kong Hee, Canon James Wong, Worship leader Don Moen, and Rev. Ed Silvoso. Therefore, according to the Watchman-Pope-Prophet-Apostle Daniel Chew Huicong, all the above churches, church leaders, and pastors are guilty of blaspheming God Almighty. But that is not all.

Since Watchman Chew insisted that the blasphemy was committed by all those involved, this sin must be committed by the Festival of Praise Committee members as well as other attendees which include Rev. Chia Beng Hock, Pastor Ezekiel Tan, John Suan, Rev Dr Phil Pringles, Bob Fitts, Rev Mark Conner and many others.

2) All churches, pastors, leaders, and church members involved are going to hell unless they repent “unto eternal life.”

A bolder assertion by the Watchman Chew was this: these churches together with their leaders and members ought to repent of their blasphemy and pray to God that He will grant them eternal life. This is a pronouncement-cum-judgment that all churches, pastors, leaders, and members involved are hell-bound blasphemers unless they repent of their alleged blasphemy. And this “blasphemy” – which the Watchman had accused them of – is merely a joint worship of the Christian God within the Singapore Indoor Stadium.

All in all, according to the revelations and prophecies of the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, the entire City Harvest Church, Riverlife Church, Church of Singapore, and Covenant Evangelical Free Church together with Rev Kong Hee, Canon James Wong, Worship leader Don Moen, Rev. Ed Silvoso, Rev. Chia Beng Hock, Pastor Ezekiel Tan, John Suan, Rev Dr Phil Pringles, Bob Fitts, Rev Mark Conner and many others involved in the Festival of Praise are heading straight for hell fire and are summarily condemned for blaspheming God within the Singapore Indoor Stadium.

And thanks to the great Watchman Chew we now know which churches and pastors in Singapore are going to be damned.

Furthermore, according to Rev Mark Conner (the Senior Minister of CityLife Church in Melbourne, Australia), Festival of Praise 2008 was attended by over 142 churches in Singapore. But according to Watchman Chew, all these 142 churches involved in the Festival of Praise are likewise hell-bound and blasphemers of the most holy faith.

Do you know what these 142 churches are? Let's ask the Watchman for more details, shouldn't we?

Be afraid, be very afraid!

If Watchman Chew can condemn more than 142 churches, their pastors and all their members to eternal hell fire, couldn't he pronounce judgment upon your puny soul as well?

Endnote

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

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

Blogging: Never before have so many people with so little to say said so
much to so few.

The venerable Watchman Chew has written a brand new post on Hebrews 13:17. Little did he know that this will indict him further as Pope, God, and Watchman. What do we call this? It’s called backfiring – backfired by his immense hypocrisy and pretention. Let us examine his short post. (This is not a verse by verse commentary of Pope Daniel Chew’s writings.)

Chew: “I am NOT arguing that we should rebel against our leaders nor am I am arguing for forcing our personal preferences down the throats of church leaders and expecting everybody to conform to our idea of orthodoxy and orthopraxy. It is expected that my enemies would slander and libel me as stating any of such errors, but this is totally not the case, and I disavow believing any of these errors.”

Oh yes, oh yes, Watchman Chew reminds us that we shouldn’t rebel against our leaders, and not to force our personal preferences down the throats of church leaders. This he does extremely well via calling down hell fire and brimstone upon those who disagree with him (all of whom are church leaders), anathematizing those who differ from him in theological views (all of whom are church leaders), and by criticizing pastors, elders, churches, church organizations and fellow bloggers for their differing theological views.

And yes, the venerable Watchman Chew does not rebel against “our leaders.” He only anathematizes them to eternal damnation and hell fire. That’s all.

What Chew Does Not Say

1) Watchman Chew is Pope and Apostle

Chew: “This line of argument is better known by its "sacred" form: "Thou shall not touch the Lord's anointed!" That Heb. 13:17 is not against criticism of churches, church leaders, Christian organizations and entire denominations can be easily deduced from Scripture.”

Oh yes, oh yes, I suppose by careful exegeses of relevant texts, we can deduce that we are called by Scripture to pronounce anathemas upon those we criticize, appoint ourselves as “watchmen” and pretend that we can decree anyone we “like” to eternal damnation and reprobation.

Chew: “The context in Hebrews already gave us one solution to this problem as it talks about Christian leaders who are keeping watch over our souls, and of speaking the Word of God. Therefore, those who are not keeping watch over our souls (in the sense of shepherding it) but are instead lording over the flock, and those who do not speak the Word of God, cannot be considered true Christian leaders (Modus tollens).”

What? Modus tollens of what proposition?

If P, then Q.

If P = Leaders teach the Word,

Then Q = They are true Christian leaders.

Modus tollens is:

If P, then Q.

¬Q
Therefore, ¬P.

Watchman Chew is perhaps saying, “They are NOT true Christian leaders, therefore these leaders do NOT teach the Word.” So, by using modus tollens here, he makes a bare assertion i.e. that these leaders are “NOT true Christian leaders.” That is, not Q, therefore not P.

Another formulation is as follows:

If P = They are true Christian leaders,

Then Q = Leaders teach the Word.

Ah, this looks better, doesn’t it? If P, then Q; modus tollens would be:

"These leaders do NOT teach the Word, therefore they are NOT true Christian leaders."

Again, there would be much difficulty in accepting the Watchman’s formulation without further definitions and discussion.

What do you mean by the clause “teach the Word?” Do you mean an infallible interpretation of the Word, with the assumption that true Christian leaders teach the correct interpretation of the Word? If so, with so many Christian leaders out there within the orthodox and evangelical realm teaching so many different interpretations, all of them couldn’t be TRUE Christian leaders. John F. MacArthur and John Bunyan cannot be both true Christian leaders, because they both differ in some areas of interpretation of the Word, and two differing interpretations cannot be both true. Either MacArthur or Bunyan is a true Christian leader, but not BOTH. Is that what Watchman Chew is teaching here with his “modus tollens” formulation?

Furthermore, if the Watchman judges as to who is the “true Christian leader” according to their (the teachers’) interpretation of God’s Word, doesn’t it then suggest that the Watchman has access to the infallible or “correct” interpretation of the Word of God? This makes the Watchman Chew an evangelical Pope.

Isn’t this what the Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong has insinuated all along in his blogs? That “I am right, and you are wrong?” That “I know the truth, and the other leaders are in error or heretical?”

Chew: “We are exhorted in Scripture to judge and discern false teachers and false "christs" (1 Jn. 4:1; Jude 1:4), and such people will indeed enter the church (Acts 20: 29-30, 1 Jn.2 :18). We can see such episodes in the narrative of the early churches most especially seen in Paul's strong denunciation of the Judaizers in the epistle to the Galatians, and most certainly the Judaizers were calling themselves Christians, and Christian teachers and leaders at that!”

How Chew extrapolates those verses to his practice of pronouncing decrees of reprobation, anathemas, and in fact, calling ME (and my friends) a son of Satan, is most bewildering.

Furthermore, the fact that Chew had expressed the same or similar spiritual authority as the Apostle Paul means that Chew does think that he IS an apostle in the likeness of Paul of Tarsus, especially in the way he reiterates ad nauseam how the Apostle (and hence, Chew) had pronounced anathemas upon the Judaizers of old.

2) Watchman Chew is Prophet and Punisher of God

Chew: “To a certain extent, such has often been the case in the early church and the history of the church. Criticism and charges of heresy etc were often made by leaders within the institutional Church.”

In the early Church, charges of heresy were not made by self-appointed Watchmen acting independently, apart from the supervision of church bishops, elders, leaders or pastors. Heresy charges and trials were never made and decided upon in the early Church by lay individuals. There were events called church councils. There were proper administrative procedures guided by Scripture, orderly manners whereby charges of heresy were brought up to the appropriate church leadership, studied intensely by spiritual leaders and scholars, and then decided upon – not by self-appointed individuals with large egos – but by godly ordained men and spiritual leaders recognized by the Church.

Chew: “When one looks through the Scriptures and the historical record of the Church, one finds quite a few people who are not church leaders in the proper sense of the term. Old testament prophets like Amos were not of the priestly order for example, Amos being a herdsman and a dresser of sycamore figs (Amos 7:14). In church history, Peter Waldo was certainly not a church leader, while during the Reformation era, besides Luther, Zwngli and Calvin and maybe a few others, almost none of the non-Anglican reformers were ever Christian leaders until they started preaching and planting churches. An extreme example of such would be the Baptist preacher John Bunyan, who became a pastor simply by preaching and planting a church as people turned to Christ through his preaching. Yet he was never seminary trained or ordained in his entire life. This view is therefore not biblical and in error.”

The examples given by Watchman Chew are fraught with difficulties. Amos was an Old Testament prophet communicating the word of God to His people. Is Chew insinuating that he, likewise, hears God directly and communicates His infallible Word to His people? Are the Watchman’s words infallible like Prophet Amos’? Should the Watchman Chew act like he’s some Old Testament prophet pronouncing curses and damnations upon others?

Peter Waldo was accused of heresy and excommunicated, but as far as history goes, he did not pronounce curses, anathemas or damnations upon others. So what’s the Watchman’s point? That Peter Waldo’s charge of heresy justifies the Watchman Daniel Chew’s pronouncement of curses and damnations upon others (non sequitur)?

Chew says, “ … almost none of the non-Anglican reformers were ever Christian leaders until they started preaching and planting churches.”

This is again a non sequitur. Which “Christian leader” – be it Bunyan, Calvin, or Zwingli – was born a Pope, Bishop, Pastor, Elder or Deacon? All were “laity” prior to ordination or entry to “clergy-hood.” So what’s the Watchman’s point? That the fact that clergy was laity before becoming clergy justifies the Watchman Daniel Chew’s pronouncement of curses and damnations upon others?

Furthermore, John Calvin was involved in the indictment and burning of Michael Servetus, so in the tradition of “Calvin,” Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong is justified in his pronouncement of curses and damnations upon others? Should we then be grateful that he didn’t burn his enemies and “heretics” to death? Oh, how great thou art! How great is thine compassion, that thou wouldest spare us from thy wrath on the stake!

3) Watchman Chew Signs Church Membership Agreement So As To Disagree With The Leaders?

Chew: “To follow God's Word even in defiance of the dictates of any Christian leader is never a violation of Heb. 13:17, if we are indeed following God's Word and the leader is not. If however, both are within the bounds of Christian liberty, then we should of course obey our leaders in that respect.”

When Christians join a church as members, they sign a membership agreement stating that they will agree with the church’s teachings, obey their spiritual leaders, and at least acquiesce to their teachings. When Chew signs such a membership agreement, he is stating that he will do the aforementioned. If for any reasons you feel that the leaders are in error, and you cannot acquiesce to their doctrine, why then did you sign the membership agreement?

Is that a lack of integrity or willful prevarication? Is the membership agreement written in a tongue you do not understand? Did the leaders deliberately hide their convictions from you?

If you disagree and if you cannot acquiesce to the leader’s teachings, then simply refuse to join as member. Who is coercing you to join?

Conclusion

We have seen in some detail the teachings and the possible abuses of Heb. 13:17. May we therefore learn to properly apply this verse and have a heart to avoid pronouncing anathemas, eternal damnations and curses upon those we deem as being doctrinally in error. Most of all, let us acquire a spirit of humility, knowing that our interpretation of Scripture is not infallible like the Pope-cum-Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong. Let us refrain from pejorative comments and judgments like “Anathema Sit!” Amen.

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

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

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

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

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

Be afraid, be very afraid!

Quotations from Apostle-cum-Watchmen Chew:

Watchman Chew prophesizes anathema against other prophets:

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

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

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

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

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

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