Thirty attack points from the "Apostle Eric" answered: 11-20

  1. "Matt Slick is busy defending John Calvin and Luther. He wrote, "Eric sets himself above Martin Luther and John Calvin and others who in centuries past were gifted by God to accomplish great things for the Christian church. The reformation, sparked by Luther and continued by Calvin, carries down to this day, the biblical doctrine of justification by faith. They restored to the light, the truth of God's word that had been hidden by the legalism and tradition of the Catholic church."
    1. In the 85 word response following this comment, "Charlie A" simply says that he notes that I do not mention the name of Jesus in the paragraph that he quotes from me. It is unfortunate that this "analyst" does not see the failure in his logic. Though the word "Jesus" is not in this paragraph, it is certainly in others. All anyone needs to do is go to CARM and read to find Jesus mentioned in countless places. But, Charlie ignores that and takes a single paragraph, ignores the issue it raises, and then tries to imply my theology isn't Christ centered because I didn't use the word "Jesus" in the particular paragraph he extracted. That, quite simply, is not very good reasoning. It is a further demonstration of the kind of logic used by these analysts -- not to mention, Eric himself. Remember, Eric approved of this comment, yet fails to see its weakness.
  2. "Matt Slick tries his hand at theology when he writes, "Grace is unmerited, unearned favor from God."
    1. I do not know if I am simply "trying my hand at theology." But, at the risk of being accused of boasting, I do have a Masters of Divinity from Westminster theological seminary in Escondido, CA. This does not mean that whenever I say is right, but it does mean that I have at least studied theology on a graduate-level, not to mention my many years of study before I got to seminary. Therefore, when speaking of our salvation and I say that grace is unmerited, unearned favor from God, I'm not saying anything new. "Grace" is used in many different ways in the Bible. But in the context of Christian salvation, "grace connotes God’s favor shown sinners through Jesus Christ....Gentiles gain entrance to the messianic community through the ‘gift’ (Rom. 3:24) or ‘free gift’ (Rom. 5:15) of grace (Gal. 2:17-21; Rom. 4:16)."1 In other words, grace is the free gift of God. We did not earn grace; otherwise, it would not a grace. It would be a reward. It seems that this analyst named Florance does not understand basic biblical theology regarding grace.
  3. "Matt Slick says of Eric, "He talks about how denominations contradict each other (even though he fails to understand what unites them in common theology of the essentials)."
    1. Here, "Thelma" says that Eric does teach that the churches do understand who Jesus is, but fails to understand the true nature of salvation. Well, that is a pretty serious difference, wouldn't you say?
    2. Eric vonAnderseck repeatedly attempts to set one denomination against another, attempting to demonstrate that they cannot have the truth since they contradict each other. This means that he can step in and tell people what the "real" truth is. This is typical of cult practices that undermine existing churches in order to justify a "new revelation" or a "restoration" of the lost gospel. This is what the founders of Mormonism (Joseph Smith), Jehovah's Witnesses (Charles Taze Russell), Christian Science (Mary Baker Eddy), etc., did in order to help validate their aberrant teachings.
    3. This analyst named Thelma says "Matt's own hypocrisy can be easily seen when he admitted on Paltalk to changing his "position" and having "weaknesses" that needed to be determined and defined, yet confesses he is "still learning after 20 years."
      Paltalk (paltalk.com) is a voice chat room system. I often go there to have theological discussions. Of course I do not know the context of what this person is referring to so I cannot analyze it contextually. Nevertheless, I do study the Scriptures and occasionally various positions that I have (not on the essential doctrines) sometimes change. After more than 20 years of study, I would not be so arrogant as to say that I understand it all. I am, indeed, still learning. Is this bad?
    4. Thelma goes on to say "Matt Slick is slick at throwing off the light from his own idolatry by calling it 'orthodox.' This is the spirit of antichrist at work, confusing him and his flock." Noticed the ad hominem attack again and the pun on my last name. I'm surprised it took this long for me to be called an antichrist. Often, those who reject truth will attack those presenting the truth and label them of the spirit of antichrist. Such was done by the founders of Mormonism and Jehovah's Witnesses in regards to those who are speaking historic biblical theology.
    5. Thelma offers nothing of substance in her "rebuttal."
  4. "Matt Slick says of Eric, "He casts a disparaging light upon those who have been "institutionalized" in denominational doctrine. This is a straw man approach. In other words, he mistakenly sets the denominations against each other, attempting to invalidate their Christian doctrine. Is this true? Is Eric that powerful that he set the denominations against each other?"
    1. An analyst named AnneMarie commits the logical fallacy known as "equivocation." In other words, AnneMarie changes the meaning of the words in question as she uses them. This is how: I stated that Eric "mistakenly sets denominations against each other attempting to invalidate their Christian doctrine." She then goes on to say, "is Eric that powerful at least to set the denominations against each other?" The logical fallacy is that I was not stating Eric had the power to set one denomination against another. I was stating that Eric in his writings sets the denominations against each other. Would anyone dare say they have the power to set denominations against each other? I think not. Nevertheless, AnneMarie commits a logic error in demonstrating she did not understand the context or the meaning of what was said...yet she is is an "analyst" for the apostle Eric.
  5. "Matt Slick writes that if Eric is teaching 'modalism' that he has a false Christ."
    1. It may well be that Eric acknowledges the true doctrine of the Trinity. But I have not been able to determine that through reading his Bible lessons or his statement of faith (which would be a perfect place to clarify it). If he did acknowledge the Trinity doctrine, I would be willing to change my information about his teachings accordingly.
    2. If he could simply write his doctoral position on the Trinity and place it on his web site, then I would be able to review it. But, my original statement about the modalism was generated from the statement from him that I quote here, "There is only ONE God (Eph.4:6), and that ONE God chose to manifest Himself in 3 different ways: The Father, The Son, and The Holy Spirit (Mt.28:19)." [Caps in original]  I then gave a reference to his web site where the quote is located -- which he has since moved. In fact, if you click on the original link I provided you'll discover that he has changed the original page so that shows an "expose" of myself. This is a nice trick, yet it is unfortunate that he would move the documentation.
    3. Nevertheless, I continued on in my original paper to state that "Eric seems to teach modalism, a denial of the Trinity doctrine." Note that I said "seems" to teach modalism. I was not entirely sure what Eric is teaching because his descriptions of God are often inconsistent and vague. Again, if Eric would care to define as doctrine the Trinity I would be glad to rewrite my paper accordingly.
      This person named Jackie states "Eric does believe that Jesus is God in the flesh, who is separate from the Father and the Holy Ghost, who all exist at the same time...His teachings are the original blueprint of God."
  6. "Matt Slick is looking to expose the apostle Eric because Matt does not agree with the supernatural abilities of God. He has a hard time with God speaking to anyone with an audible voice, or that God would reveal Himself through signs in the sky. I think Matt Slick would also have a problem with the biblical record of Noah and the ark, and God speaking to Moses from a burning bush, or the Red Sea opening. In his mind, these miraculous events must all be symbolic. I accept Eric's experiences as true because we see this pattern in the bible. I don't think that God needs Matt Slick's permission to manifest Himself as He chooses."
    1. "Mellisa" offers the above comment. Unfortunately, it is inaccurate. Notice that she says that I am trying to expose Eric because I do not agree with God's supernatural abilities. This is an attempt to set me against God without qualification or documentation. Personally, I have no problem with God's supernatural abilities. However, I do have a problem with Eric and his false teachings that contradict scripture. And just to set a record straight, I do not have any problem with God's speaking to anyone in an audible voice. God is certainly capable of doing that. I would simply compare any alleged revelation to scripture. Furthermore, I have no problem with the biblical record of Noah, the Ark, God speaking to Moses, or the parting of the Red Sea. In fact, I believe all of it.
    2. Unfortunately Melissa has attempted to read my mind by asserting that I believe these things are symbolic. They are not symbolic at all.
    3. Again, this kind of logic and an unsubstantiated attack is a very poor example of the "analysis" that goes on with the apostle Eric and his followers.
  7. "Is the apostle Eric saying that he is the only resource for truth?"
    1. In the very short response to this comment on Eric's web page, JoAnne C. does not answer the question in the quote. I do not know if Eric is saying that he is or is not the only resource of truth. Remember, he claims that he received in his mind the following statement from a voice. Eric states, "What was clearly said to me was, "I have called you to the office of apostle and prophet over the North American continent. Great grace and great power shall be upon you." [He has since moved this reference]. Since he does assert that he is the apostle and prophet to the North American continent and that he is the one sent to reveal the true gospel, the foundation is laid for him to be the "only resource for truth."
    2. JoAnne says, "Since Eric has not represented himself to me, but rather has represented Christ, and my faith has flourished from his oversight, I am sure that God uses true APOSTLES to teach doctrine that is 100% correct." Please notice that it is experience that JoAnne refers to in establishing a doctrinal position. She did not appeal to Scripture here. Instead, her experience with Eric is a determining factor on whether not God uses apostles to teach new doctrine in these last days. Such logic leads to error.
  8. "Does the apostle Eric confuse believers?"
    1. Nena, says, "As a student I can say that I came out of confusion because God provided a door for my faith through Jesus Christ which was not polluted with man's doctrines." This is a meaningless statement because it is universally true that followers of false teachers will invariably state that their new teacher helps to make things clear unlike "man's doctrines." Notice the comment, "not polluted with man's doctrines." Of course it is the apostle Eric who is making the assertions that present Christianity is full of "man's polluted doctrines." She is simply repeating what Eric is telling her.
  9. "Matt Slick is confused as to how Jesus imparts to His apostles the understanding of the doctrine of Christ. He says, "Eric states that he has had angelic visitations but that they do not instruct him on doctrine. Alright, then from where does he receive his doctrine? God? Himself? How can we tell?"
    1. Maria says that Eric does follow biblical pattern for receiving understanding from God. The pattern is not described and only Scripture references are given without any exegetical analysis proposed. Additionally, she begs the question by assuming that Eric is actually an apostle -- which he is not since he denies many Christian doctrines, the nature of grace, salvation as a process, etc., and he affirms a pre-existent spirit state in contradiction to scripture which states that the spiritual is not first, but the natural, meaning the physical (1 Cor. 15:46). For verification of this, see my first examination of Eric teachings How to have perfect faith from the Apostle Eric.
    2. Again, the analysis given is no analysis at all. Nothing has been offered other than opinions and occasional Scriptures references without any analysis or application to the situation at hand. Maria has failed to establish her case. The apostle Eric is still a false apostle.
  10. "Matt Slick says that Eric cannot prove that the Church has fallen."
    1. Rita is the analyst who commented by saying "Matt slick is not ready to accept reality. He is still clinging to his own principles. Confusion has crept in through the doctrine of man and the people perish for a lack of knowledge. There is no unity in the church, and people are caught in the crossfire of doctrinal wars. Only by taking on the doctrine of Christ, can the church be restored to the original principles of Christ."
      Perhaps you might have noticed the repeated phrase "doctrine(s) of man" from these "analysts." It is a sign that they are buying into an "us and them" mentality. Whatever is not of the Apostle Eric's teaching is the doctrines of men.
    2. Also, please notice that Rita also begs the question. In other words, she simply assumes an apostasy has occurred when she says that the church needs to be restored to the original principles of Christ. Yet, she gives no proof of her 108 word response.
    3. Most every cult says things like "there is no unity in the church" which isn't true, or "the doctrines of men", etc. Nevertheless, my comment was about Eric proving the fallen state of the Christian Church. She does not prove her point and neither has Eric. Instead, she simply affirms that the church indeed has fallen (otherwise it doesn't need to be restored).
      Furthermore, notice the use of the phrase "crossfire of doctrinal wars." She is verifying what I stated earlier about Eric setting one denomination against another in order to undermined their authority so that he might then try to establish his "new" revelation. This is typical of every cult leader that I have examined in more than 20 years of study.

So far, and these "analysts" have not demonstrated a logical case nor have they proven their points. They repeatedly offer empty statements of opinion. This is not how proper analysis is done and these various people, who obviously are supporting Eric at every turn, are making numerous comments without substance, without documentation, and without depth.

(Points 1-10 and 21-30.)

  • 1. Achtemeier, Paul J., Harper’s Bible Dictionary, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1985.

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison