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.

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?

The Art of Christian Necromancy

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

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

Or perhaps it is you who are confused?

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

Error 3 – Theological Confusion

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

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

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

“Dave:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Error 4 – Ipse-dixitism

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

He is no necromancer, ain’t he?

Reference:

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

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

Empty vessels make the most noise

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Error 1

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

Really?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Error 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Basic Reference:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr Chew wrote:

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

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

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

Here Mr Chew proposed that P:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trilemma: A Liar, A Lunatic Or A Loser?

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

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

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

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

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

So What's The Crime?

Watchman Chew wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarkian Daniel Chew Denies The Aristotelian Law of Non-contradiction

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

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

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

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

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

Supposed he said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Law: It can theoretically save.

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

He concluded:

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

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

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

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

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

We can derive the following with simple syllogistic reasoning:

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

Which is theologically equivalent to:

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

But if A1, then B1.

Where:

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

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

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

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

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

Joel exclaimed, “Excellent! Amen to that.”

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

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

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

References:

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

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

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

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

PR commented on his blog:

Antithesis,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PR:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clarkians Lie Just To Look Good

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

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

PuritanReformed claims,

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

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

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

Let’s examine the premises.

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

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

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

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

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

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

But there's more!

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

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

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

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

How circular in his thinking can one gets?

Further Points of Note

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I replied,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PR seems to understand this when he wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geddit?

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

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

How Clarkians “Debate” With Me

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's Like Talking To Beavis And Butthead

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

PuritanReformed wrote:

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

Is this really beyond him?

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

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

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

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

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

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

Geddit?

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