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!

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

In a comment, Daniel Chew the Watchman wrote:

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

It seems that the joke is on him.

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

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

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

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

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

Well done, Chew!

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

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

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

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

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

Quoting Stewart:

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

Though Calvin (wrongly) held that Adam could have attained to heaven, he (rightly) rejects all notion of Adam meriting with God. Peter Lillback writes, “Calvin’s theology permits no merit in the prelapsarian context.” He explains,

Calvin’s rejection of merit in the pre-fall context is partly motivated by a desire to refute the Roman Catholic theologians’ connection of merit and the justification of the sinner. But his antipathy to merit is deeper than this. For Calvin, no creature of God [including pre-fall Adam and the elect angels], even though perfect, could merit anything from God the Creator.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.