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.

See My BOOK!

Before we study and meditate upon the Watchman Chew’s scholarly paper in the Credo500 conference, we should take heed to Chew’s dogged insistence [in his paper] for his readers to “see [his] book.” Even as you peruse his paper on Rick Warren’s “heresy” and “false gospel,” you would observe a reiterating phrase, “see my book.”

Therefore, as instructed by our venerable Watchman, we decided to “see [his] book.” Of course, we are not furnished with a copy of “his book” – the book – so we could only peruse “the book” as reviewed by Amazon.com for now. If we are convinced to purchase a copy of “the book,” then we might just invest our hard-earned money into a copy of “his book”.

This book – the book – is Driven Away by Purpose: An Analysis of The Purpose Driven Life and Related Issues, 2 Ed. (Xulon Press, 2006) by Daniel HC Chew.

On Xulon Press’ website, which is the publisher’s website, we would find a brief description of “his book.”

DANIEL CHEW is an informed Christian layman who has experienced first hand the consequences that came with the advent of compromise which culminated in the Purpose Driven Movement. As a watchman called by the Lord, he endeavors to warn the Church against the compromise and wrong teaching that infiltrates and threatens to engulf her. Daniel is currently finishing his undergraduate studies in the National University of Singapore (NUS), Singapore for a BSc. (Honors) degree. He lives with his parents and one younger brother in their home country of Singapore.

There are a couple of things we can glean from the above information.

Firstly, Xulon Press is a POD or Print-On-Demand publisher. In the past, an author would have to submit his book to a publisher, who would then review the book and subsequently decide if the book is fit for publishing. Not with a POD author. With most POD companies, an author who has the funds can have his book published anytime, irrespective of quality of writing, editing, or information content. His book does not need to be reviewed for quality, editing, scholarship, or information content.

Deborah Ng observes that, “Because there's no major risk, as there is with traditional publishers who have to order large print runs, almost anyone can be a published author [with POD]. … If you've always dreamed of being published and you're unable to go the traditional route, you might consider a print on demand publisher. … In the past, if an author was rejected by a publishing company, she wouldn't be published. Now she can be – with print on demand.”

In other words, like the Watchman Chew (whose name card says “author”), all my children, nephews, nieces, and perhaps a monkey who can type would all qualify to be authors. Besides, they can all have name cards that say “author.”

Secondly, even in his book description, the Watchman Chew affirms that he is “a watchman called by the Lord.” He really does think that he is a “watchman” called by the Lord (and of course, the word “watchman” appears on his name card as well).

Thirdly, how would a BSc. (Honors) qualify him to write a theological critique of Rick Warren? This is possibly the reason why his book wasn’t submitted to a commercial publisher or reviewed by a theological committee.

Fourthly, why should we “see [his] book” if his academic and/or theological qualifications are as good as any BSc (Honors) graduates we find on the streets? That is in itself an argumentum ad verecundiam – an appeal to false authority. Is “his book” an appropriate authority in theology and/or Rick Warren’s teachings?

Finally, we would peruse a review from a Dan Proctor or Pastor Dan. We don’t know who pastor Dan is. Neither do we think that he is an authority in theology and/or Rick Warren, not unless he proves it for us. Nevertheless, we are presenting his review of Watchman Chew’s book as an interesting interlude in this post.

Pastor Dan wrote,

I ordered this book believing it would be an analysis of the purpose driven life movement, which I also oppose. What a disappointment to learn right away that the author is a Calvinist and like many, he is absolutely consumed with its false theology and warped concept of God. The book becomes nothing more than a forum to lecture us on the rightness of Calvinism as opposed to Arminianism.

The author makes a statement that demonstrates the piousness of many Calvinist authors. He says that "you are either a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a confused person." How insulting! In other words, you have to either bow down to the allegorical mysticism of Calvinism or the deluded system of Arminianism or you are a confused person. I'm not confused at all! I am a Bible belieiving dispensationalist who understands how to rightly divide God's Word in light of Paul's distinct apostleship and message.

The book is overpriced for what you get. The author tends to repeat himself over and over again as if we didn't get his point the first time. It is quite obnoxious. It seems that his main purpose is not to expose the false doctrine and philosophy of Rick Warren. It is to prove that Rick Warren is an Arminian. Like anybody besides another Calvinist cares!

The author looks like he is about 16 years old on the back cover and is definitely not an accomplished writer. There are typos and the book comes across as very amateur.

If you want a thorough analysis of PDL movement and Rick Warren, forget this book and get “Who's Driving the Purpose Driven Church?”

We can’t blame Dan for thinking that the Watchman is 16 years old.

Some other comments follow:

N8 writes,

I have been blogging with Him for the last few weeks on http://astronova.multiply.com/video/item/16/Joseph_Prince_the_heretic

He is doing the same thing to Joseph Prince.

When people react his warped theology he says they "need to use scripture". When people use the scriptures, he says they "have bad Theology"! And when people use Logic he deletes their comments.

I have not read the book and have no intention to do so.

Thanks for the review.

M. Aubrey (Linguist) writes,

No offense, but that's what you get from buying a book from a guy whose only 26 and already thinks he's got the whole world figured out.

So should we “see [his] book?”

I don’t know, but we’re still trying to get our hands on a copy of it, perhaps for free from our contacts. A photocopy would be very fine for our purpose though.

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)?

Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Watchman Daniel Chew Says God Appointed Him!

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong’s effort to discredit, slander, and destroy Pastor Joseph Prince’s reputation and ministry has resulted in almost one thousand comments on Chew’s personal blog.

I will not dwell further on his asinine post, but I would like to focus upon his most recent reply to a poster called Staub1212.(comment dated 14 March 2009 12:44AM)

The following is an abstract of the conversation:

Staub1212: Daniel, your proclamation of who is going to hell and who is condemned is frightening.

Watchman Chew: Really? Do you believe that non-Christians are going to hell if they continue to reject Christ? If so, then I think you should have a good look in the mirror. Your proclamation of who is going to hell (non-believers) and who is condemned (non-believers) is frightening.

Watchman Chew here makes a deliberate logical fallacy – a false analogy.

Staub1212 commented on Chew's perennial efforts in calling down fire and brimstone upon PROFESSING CHRISTIANS. Chew appointed himself as watchman, and then goes around judging who is saved and who is unsaved.

Here Chew attempted to retort Staub1212 by making a “judgment” analogy with PROFESSING UNBELIEVERS.

If someone claims that one is a Christian, WHO ARE YOU DANIEL CHEW HUICONG TO CALL THEM REPROBATES OR UNSAVED? You may suspect a person to be a false believer, but how dare you pronounce judgment upon a fellow brother or sister in Christ, calling down eternal damnation and reprobation upon this person?

Are you thinking that you are God?

On the other hand, unbelievers do profess themselves as non-Christians, and it is rational and reasonable to judge that these unbelievers are – unbelievers. At least for now, these are unbelievers, and that is what they claim to be.

But the most exciting comment from Daniel has yet to be displayed.

Perusing the conversation between Staub1212 and Watchman Chew a little further:

Staub1212: Be careful Daniel about how you "appoint yourself" as one to watch the watchmen

Watchman Chew: I do not appoint myself. God is the only one who appoints a person. If you have a problem with that, find God.

This is it! Do we need anymore evidence that Chew is probably mentally ill? Chew, plainly and clearly, makes the following proposition:

“I do not appoint myself. God is the only one who appoints a person. If you have a problem with that, find God.”

Chew claims the following:

1.He did not appoint himself as Watchman;

2. God did; and

3. “If you have a problem with that, find God,” which can be interpreted as, “If you do not believe that, then look for God and ask Him.”

Chew appointed himself as Watchman Chew. Then he turns around and claims that God had appointed him!

Logically speaking, this is called a bare assertion (which is a logical fallacy. Period.). Anyone in the mortuary or the mental hospital can claim that God “appointed” him as whatever (e.g. Pope, Watchman, Archangel Michael etc).

However, according to shrinks, this is clinically called visual and/or auditory hallucinations which occur in patients with mental problems like schizophrenia or paranoid delusion. It seldom occurs in patients with Asperger syndrome, but it is not considered very rare, especially if one is on medications.

Questions for Watchman Chew-The-Appointed-One

Watchman Daniel Chew Huicong, for Pete's sake, if God appointed you, was your Pastor Paul Goh there to witness your ordination as Watchman?

Were photographs taken with, say, a graduation gown-like thingy and a fatuous smile?

Did God appear on those photographs?

Most importantly, is Pastor Paul Goh and the elders from CERC under your spiritual "watching" as well?

Hear ye, hear ye, Watchman-Apostle-Pope Daniel Chew Huicong claims that God came down to earth, and anointed him as grand master Watchman!

“This is my beloved Watchman; with him I am well pleased. Listen to him.”

- Memoirs of Watchman Chew

PS: Dear Daniel, this is my last question for today, "What medicine are you on?"

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

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

The venerable Watchman closed his report with the following statement,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Be afraid, be very afraid!

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

Endnote

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

What Chew Does Not Say

1) Watchman Chew is Pope and Apostle

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

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

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

What? Modus tollens of what proposition?

If P, then Q.

If P = Leaders teach the Word,

Then Q = They are true Christian leaders.

Modus tollens is:

If P, then Q.

¬Q
Therefore, ¬P.

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

Another formulation is as follows:

If P = They are true Christian leaders,

Then Q = Leaders teach the Word.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2) Watchman Chew is Prophet and Punisher of God

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion

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