Similarities Between A Christian Bigot and Osama Bin Laden

In a yet recent post by the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, he calls those who disagree with him “heretics.” Playing the victimization card – instead of engaging the real arguments and issues – he called those who critiqued his blog as “enemies of the Cross,” and regarded any criticisms of him as “persecution.” Playing the poor victim, he conveniently forgets that it was he who perennially anathematized those who disagreed with him to “damnation” and “eternal fire.”

Since when did anyone EVER anathematize him in the first place?

Since when did anyone EVER call him a heretic in the first place?

Since when did anyone EVER condemn him to eternal hell fire in the first place?

Who is the victim here?

Honest intellectual and doctrinal critiques are expected if your brobdingnagian ego enables you to display your articles and blogs in public blogosphere. If you cannot take any criticism of your flawed logic and arguments, then please do reserve your articles and blogs for your personal sycophants to admire.

While pronouncing judgment and damnation upon those who differed from him in theology and doctrine, he desires to make himself immune to any criticism by accusing his critics of “heresy,” and calling his critics “enemies of the Cross.” It is as if criticizing the Watchman Chew is likened to blasphemy!

Woe is the man who dares to criticize the Watchman! Such “reprobates” and “heretics” are “captives to Satan to do his will,” awaiting the judgment of “God” who judges those who criticize the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong.

These internet bigots have several similarities to fundamentalist terrorists. They think they represent God and Truth. They feel that all oppositions and criticisms are “persecutions.” They believe that God is on their side and will “judge” their critics and cast these into hell. While they conveniently anathematize others to hell, and spout tons of blogs and articles against almost every theologian and pastor on blogosphere, they immediately hold up their victimization card whenever they are exposed or criticized.

Let us peruse the Watchman’s quote from his most recent post:

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “As we as Christians engage the world with the truth of God's Word, we will encounter persecution from the enemies of the Cross …”

Osama Bin Laden, “As we as Muslims engage the world with the truth of God's Word, we will encounter persecution from the enemies of Allah …”

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “By slandering and libeling us, those people are most definitely our enemies in any sense of the term. Since they do so because we proclaim the truth of God, they are to be considered enemies of the cross …”

Osama Bin Laden, “By slandering and libeling us, those people are most definitely our enemies in any sense of the term. Since they do so because we proclaim the truth of Allah, they are to be considered enemies of the Quran …”

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “After all, they are doing such evil acts as captives to Satan to do his will. Being cursed, we bless, and as such show ourselves to be children of God …”

Osama Bin Laden, “After all, they are doing such evil acts as captives to Satan to do his will. Being cursed, we bless, and as such show ourselves to be people of Allah (Holy Quran16:125) …”

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, “I truly do not want to be in their shoes when God will judge them by their words (Mt. 12:37) and actions (Rom. 2:8-9), if in fact they show themselves to be reprobates through unrepentance.”

Osama Bin Laden, “I truly do not want to be in their shoes when Allah will judge them by their words (S. 18:26 Hilali-Khan) and actions (S. 6:114), if in fact they show themselves to be reprobates through unrepentance.”

I’m sure the Watchman Chew is only performing his godly call – Jihad.

The Reformed Insurgence

There is a very interesting post by our Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong of late. In his post, “The Reformed Resurgence,” Watchman Chew wrote:

“I have been busy with various projects recently, and will be busy until March at least. One thing which I have been working on is the starting of a new group of reformed-minded Christians to work towards Reformation and revival in the churches. The few of us have been liaising via email (and phone), and the Monday which has just passed saw our first "official" meeting so to speak [apart from the local church]. There are obviously a lot of things to be sorted out, and we most definitely need much prayer in this regard [apart from the local church].

As part of forming the group, The Reformed Resurgence, I had prepared a paper which was read and feedbacked on by the other members. The paper would thus be helpful in this regard as an introduction to our group, and it with this intention that I submit it here for your edification. May it spawn many such movements of reformation in the churches for the building up of the Church and the glory of Christ. Amen.”

Consistent with his extra-ecclesiastic authority as Watchman over pastors, elders, bishops, archbishops and popes, he has started a Christian group called The Reformed Resurgence with the sole aim of working “towards Reformation and revival in the churches.”

I have a couple of questions for our Watchman Chew. For your information, my friend Markbark had likewise asked similar questions over at Watchman Chew’s blog and post, but of course, those comments were quickly deleted by Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong for fear of those comments exposing Chew’s dark intentions to the general public.

Is the pastor of Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, Pastor Paul Goh, involved in this Reformed Resurgence?

Is Pastor Paul Goh overseeing this “movement” or “group?”

Obviously not – and will Pastor Paul Goh correct me if I’m mistaken (you may clarify this with Pastor Paul Goh at handphone number +65 97831037; this number is found on the church's website).

Consistent with Chew’s believe that a Watchman does indeed have spiritual oversight even over his own pastor, “The Reformed Resurgence” is a parachurch organization aimed at working “towards Reformation and revival in the churches.” This “working towards reformation and revival in the churches,” of course, includes Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong’s own church, Covenant Evangelical Reformed Church. If you carefully check the ministries of CERC, you will find no ministry by the name of "The Reformed Resurgence." This is clearly not a local church's ministry. This is a parachurch "ministry" started by and led by the venerable Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong.

In short, the Reformed Resurgence oversees and seeks to reform all Reformed churches in Singapore apart from their pastors’ supervision and assistance. What a great and grievous spiritual authority and responsibility, Watchman Chew!

So what is the big deal?

As the saying goes, action speaks louder than words.

Daniel Chew had, in a previous rant on my blog, denied all charges of disrespecting the ecclesiastical authority of his own Pastor Paul Goh. But in Chew’s recent attempt at setting up a parachurch organization i.e. “the Reformed Resurgence” apart from the direct spiritual supervision of his church’s session, Chew had publicly announced his intention to disregard his church’s supervision and spiritual oversight. This is Chew’s belief. He has always felt that he is able to “reform” Reformed churches in Singapore. And this he does apart from the spiritual oversight of his own pastor and church leaders.

Besides, the FACT that he feels Reformed churches in Singapore NEED reformation speaks A LOT about how the Watchman Chew regard Reformed churches in Singapore.

Despite his insistence that he “respects” and “submits” to his church leaders, his actions speak otherwise. He claimed to believe in the competency and capabilities of his church’s elders. But in his own actions, he has to resort to the organization of “The Reformed Resurgence” to reform his own church – apart from his church leaders supervision – with his self-appointed spiritual authority and self-recognized “gifts” of reformation.

This is a true saying: Truth will out!

What the Watchman Chew does in real life reveals his true convictions despite his rabid denial of the previous charges against him. A Mr Lee (apparently from Chew’s church) had accused Chew of the following, “[Chew] thinks that his pastor is a lousy preacher, unlike him … He thinks the church elders are un-gifted, unlike him.”

If Chew really believed that his church elders are adequately gifted for leadership and at least capable of reformation as reformed elders, will he have started a parachurch organization - apart from his church’s supervision and elders’ assistance – to reform the churches (including the reformation of his own church)?

Will he have enlisted the help of lay members of the blogosphere, instead of his own church’s pastor and elders, to do whatever he had planned to do i.e. to reform the churches (and his own church)?

Will Chew have started this parachurch organization at all if he truly believed that his own pastor (and other churches’ pastors for that matter) is capable of leading the reformed churches on the right track?

All you have to do is to read Watchman Daniel Chew’s blog, and you will see his self-deluded, self-appointed spiritual “authority” which he truly believes will lead the Reformed Resurgence to reform the Reformed churches in Singapore – including his very own church.

This is what he truly believes: he thinks he can do a better job than his church’s pastor and elders.

Let me ask you readers: is this a Reformed Resurgence or a Reformed Insurgence?

I would place my bet on the latter option. Wouldn’t you?

So what if I use a pseudonym, Phil Naessens?

A fellow named Phil Naessens defended Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong over at his website. I commented on his post; instead of publishing my comment in full, he mutilated my post, and now simply refuses to allow any comments by me (update - but after I wrote this post, he decided to change his mind and posted the comment; well, I'm impressed with his tactic. Sure knows how to "rebut" my arguments). And I had ONLY posted ONCE on his blog. Period.

I'm beginning to realize that this is the way intelligent Christian men respond to critics (just like what Watchman Daniel Chew does) – by deleting posts they couldn’t answer, refusing comments on their posts, or by banning your moniker or handle on their website.

I commented here (Phil “the Flash” Naessens took liberty to amend my comments, probably to create a straw man for his inept “rebuttal”).

I am now prevented from replying to his comments, so here is the short reply to Phil:

“Phil, your lack of any logic in thinking is really disturbing:

Phil: Yes, I believe they are….

>Bare assertion; irrational.

Phil: The fact you need to hide behind a fake name is all the proof I need….someone that isn’t a coward would have the courage to reveal his true identity…

> Non sequitur.

Phil: Just calling it like I see it…in your case that was a gimme….

>Bare assertion – now THIS is a gimme …

Phil: What “facts”? I think you should learn the definition of what slander is….and I didn’t slander you…..and we aren’t friends…..

>What “facts?” You don’t know and you want to “pretend” you do by defending the indefensible. I think you should learn the definition of what “logic” is … and I did expose your irrationality … and I take you as a friend contrary to your hostile unchristian attitude towards me.”

Epilogue

I have an issue with the fallacious logic of these “Watchman Chew” apologists (just as Watchman Chew regarded Richard Abanes as Rick Warren’s "apologist", I regard Phil “the Flash” Naessens as his apologist).

Somehow, Phil thinks that, if you use a pseudonym, you are being anonymous and cowardly; but if I give a name, that qualifies a blogger as an intrepid and honest critic (and a watchman?).

This begs the question, “What if I put a name on my blog. Would this guarantee my non-anonymity?”

Of course not!

I can put a graduation photo, an email address, and a name (say “Daniel Chew”) on my blog. And this means I’m being honest and open? What silly logic!

My name could be Mary Chew, but I put “Daniel Chew” on my blog; and I stick a photo of any Daniel Chews on my blog. So that proves that the blogger is “Daniel Chew?”

I can start a blog calling myself Chew Bah Kah, put a photo of a monkey-like-man with a graduation dress, and give you an email address. So now I am “qualified” to give my theological insights and critiques on blogosphere? I can now call myself the Watchman Chew. I now officially watch over pastors (including mine), elders, bishops, archbishops and popes in the full "honesty" of my real nick - Chew Bah Kah. Looks like my monkey can think better than such "watchmen" and "apologists."

This also explains why such “Daniel Chew” apologists i.e. Phil "the flash" Naessens can only rant on their blogs, and can never conjure up good, well-measured, intelligent arguments for their faith and idols (i.e. Daniel Chew).

So what if I use a pseudonym?

This is a red herring at best.

If you can’t answer the questions or criticisms, give a red herring and change the topic (like, “My gosh, you used a pseudonym! You must be a heretic and pagan! What’s your real name? Don't hide behind a nick; I call you out! Come out into the open, you devil!”).

You see, after all those “intelligent” rants, Phil has never addressed the real issue.

What about all my expose of Watchman Chew? He never addressed the real arguments; he has only spouted red herrings, ignoratio elenchis, ad hominems, and non sequiturs.

How intelligent of him.

Update: Another "Debating" Strategy From Our Watchman Chew Apologist: Threatening A Lawsuit.

Do read Phil's recent comment on this post. After a series of inane statements with so much sound and fury - but signifying nothing (i.e. no arguments made but only logical fallacies) - he made his move to "repudiate" my arguments. I must say I'm really impressed. This is what Phil "the flash" Naessen wrote:

BTW: Nice picture eh [referring to my usage of his nice photograph]? Are you aware that particular picture is trademark material and is owned by PhillyFlash Enterprises [translates to "are you aware that legally I owned it?"]...that means you need my permission before you use it [translates to "I'm not happy; I'll get my lawyer if you did not ask my permission] ... not very intelligent Mr. Antithesis [translates to "I have no clue how to refute you, but I can always sue you"]... please remove it within 24 hours [translates to "Haha! I can shut your mouth with my argumentum ad baculum i.e. appeal to the cudgel"].

Oh well, I'll just remove the nice photograph of the Watchman Chew Apologist and avoid the threat of getting sued by our wonderfully loving and discerning "Christian" man who happens to learn this debating strategy from the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 6:1-11). How godly and impressive.

Good job, Phil.

Sincerely,

Chew Bah Kah

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!

Daniel Chew Confesses That He Does Not Have Even “A Bit Of Knowledge” On Textual Issues

In a recent post, self-appointed Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong lamented:

“As it can be seen from this book, anyone with even a bit of knowledge on textual issues can see that there is a difference between the textual critical methodology as utilized by Westcort, Hort, Metzger, Aland etc, and the text-types (Byzantine, Alexandrian, Western etc) contributing to the variant readings of the texts.”

But as I have exposed quite a while back, Watchman Daniel Chew HuiCong does not even know what a “critical text” is. He confused critical texts (which are eclectic texts collated by committees that examine a large number of manuscripts in order to weigh which reading is thought closest to the lost original) with extant manuscripts such as Aleph and B. And he actually dared to debate me ferociously on textual issues, thereby exposing himself to be a dunce (no offense).

Anyone who doesn’t know what a critical text really is shouldn’t even attempt debating textual issues. And I suppose Clark’s book “Logical Criticism of Textual Criticism” is perhaps the very first baby book he touched concerning the issue. But again, who would study textual criticism from a non-textual critic i.e. Gordon Clark – except a dunce?

The truth hurts, doesn’t it? There is apparently a prideful dunce who persists in his errors in Singapore.

Anyone with even a bit of knowledge on textual issues would know what a critical text is.

Period.

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?”

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!