Thirty attack points from the "Apostle Eric" answered: 21-30

  1. "Eric made an interesting point that the Church does not know the difference between a fallen angel and a holy angel. I agree. When Eric speaks of angelic visitations Matt Slick thinks of one of his 'pet cults' started by Joseph Smith. His mind is not on the bible, but on the work of fallen angels."
    1. This analyst named Colleen goes on to say that I am very confused as to what is sound doctrine. She also makes the mistake of trying to tell us all what it is, I think, and goes on to say that my mind is not on the Bible , but on the work of fallen angels." This is an easy statement to refute since all anyone has to do is read my material on CARM to see that it is biblically centered. It is.
      For no relevant reason that I can determine, Colleen then mentions the children's story of the chicken that kept saying "the sky is falling." She then says "I for one am confident that what Eric imparts is sound doctrine. Why? Because it works." Colleen is apparently unaware that there are many things that "work" in various theological systems but they are not true. Whether or not something works does not mean that it is from God. Like Mormonism, for example, which teaches we can become God's and that God used to be a man on another planet: this works for Mormons, but it is not true. Colleen demonstrates very faulty logic in her analysis. Therefore, can her conclusions be trusted in her defense of the one who teaches her? I do not believe so.
  2. "Matt Slick has said that he has read much of Eric's material."
    1. Rina's response here goes on to say that I am not a student of Eric's and therefore I did not have access to the 80 lessons that students take. But what Rina is unaware of is that I have about half of those lessons and have thoroughly read them all (I have an inside source). As more come in, I will read those as well and probably produce more information exposing the errors of Eric.
      Anyway, Rina goes on to offer more subjective opinions without substance, such as: "As a believer who studies the doctrine of Christ through Eric for almost 2 years now, I KNOW it is IMPOSSIBLE to read through these lessons, without the conviction of Truth, through God's grace." Well, Rina, when I read through the lessons, I was alarmed at many of the dubious statements made in them. Here are a few:
      1. "Having met God's standard of acceptance with Him (which is obedience to grace), having demonstrated our faith by yielding to the revelation of the Spirit which brought the knowledge of Christ to our soul, we have repented of sins and accepted the testimony about Jesus Christ, and have agreed to the terms and conditions of the covenant. We are now accepted of God, our sins are forgiven, we are declared righteous."
        1. So, Eric vonAnderseck can meet the standard of God, obedience to grace, etc.?  Anyone who has truly encountered God does not boast of his abilities before God.
      2. "Sanctification sets the grounds and terms for justification."
        1. This is absolute heresy.  Sanctification is our walk with God.  Justification is God's declaring the sinner righteous.  Justification is in no way based on our ability to walk with God.  If it were, it would be salvation by works.
      3. "Therefore we see that speaking in tongues is an ongoing, daily activity of faith that continues to sanctify us and justify us before God."
      4. "We are saved when we come into agreement with what God has provided by covenant, and we are saved if we love Him by keeping the commandments that are now in Christ Jesus."
    2. She also wonders on which basis that I have based my knowledge of doctrine. The answer is simple. I have studied under many different Christian teachers in college and at the graduate level, studied many Christian books, and compared all of it to the word of God. The Lord has provided for the church through the centuries many great teachers. Through prayer, careful study, reading, discussion, debate with thousands of cultists, and formal education in theological subjects, I have learned a great deal of what Christian doctrine is and am able to defend it. This is why CARM exists and this is why I state that the alleged "apostle Eric" is not from God.
  3. "Matt Slick makes a lot of comments after quoting scripture that really don't make any sense, forgetting that the scripture quotes clearly "there is no private interpretation of scripture." We can only be enlightened by the grace of God to understand the scripture. This is why we need a living apostle to reveal the mysteries of Christ, through knowledge. I have studied with Eric for almost 2 years now and all the lessons confirm and glorifies the name of Jesus Christ. Through truth and regeneration the Spirit of God has removed the shackles which bound me. God has over and over again confirmed Jesus Christ through the witness of the Spirit. I find no witness of the Spirit of God in what Matt Slick writes. He has changed the Record to fit his aspirations and principles. This is the same thing all cults do."
    1. This analyst named Maryna provides no example of the things she accuses me of doing. She makes statements and does not back them up. Is this how the analysts work under the apostle Eric? Apparently so, since it is his web site and he has posted this material as a "defense" of his position. If this is the kind of cross-examination the analysts of the apostle Eric's provide, then it is a demonstration that his ability to rightly divide the word of God is suspect, as is reflected by his analysts.
    2. Furthermore, it is not Eric vonAnderseck the apostle who reveals the mysteries of Christ. That was done by Paul, Peter, James, John, Mark, Matthew, etc. For Maryna to appeal to a "witness of the Spirit" is nothing more than a means of subjecting God's word to her feelings. I cannot tell you how many times I have heard those who are lost in cults tell me that the "Spirit doesn't bear witness" to what I tell them. No wonder. Their spirit is different from the Spirit that I know through Jesus, God in flesh, risen Lord and Savior. It is the word of God that determines truth, not an Apostle named Eric, and not feelings.
  4. "Over and over again Matt Slick points to himself and that his interpretation of scripture is the only correct one."
    1. Joanne C. makes this comment and provides no documentation to back it up. First of all, I do not point to myself and state that my interpretation of Scripture is the only correct one. If anything, I would oppose such a statement. But, in order for the supporters of the "apostle Eric" to do their job, they must resort to ad hominem attacks -- without documentation. This is a very poor way to defend their apostle and those claims of his that they are following. A quick reading of my material on the apostle Eric quickly reveals that I have read his material and have quoted him numerous types. In fact, I had cited many references on his web pages where this material was stated, but he has changed the location of those references since I wrote the initial paper.
    2. Nevertheless, JoAnne goes on to say that I am enslaved to Mystery Babylon and that I have been indoctrinated through man-made institutions, etc. This is simply more empty rhetoric and "Eric-speak" coming through.
  5. "Matt Slick suggests that I set aside the doctrine of Christ that God has given through Eric."
    1. Connie says here that she received a doctrine of Christ through Eric vonAnderseck and that she has been set free. She also mentioned how the various churches she had visited in the past had all contradicted each other. Of course, no churches are cited and no issues are named. Again, more opinion without facts.
  6. "Matt Slick thinks that I should throw out Eric's lessons and just find Jesus in the Bible."
    1. An analyst named John states in his follow-up to this comment that I did not find Jesus on the printed page. Instead I found theology and religion. He then says the Pharisees made the same mistake and then he continues to equate me with them in his defense of Eric. Nothing is offered as far as documentation or reason. All that is stated is that I am basically like a scribe and Pharisee. Again, there is nothing here of substance. Instead of logic, quotes, and analysis, we are forced to read ad hominem attacks; there is no serious analysis offered.
    2. John also tries to inform us about what I am thinking. Since he cannot read my mind, this again is a very poor way to make a position seem credible. Nevertheless, I do believe that Eric's teachings lead to bondage.
  7. "Matt Slick wrote that Eric is only teaching to gain a following after himself. Is this true?"
    1. There is no citation in the two paragraphs that follow this comment of where I supposedly said this. I do not know if I did say it in the past and if I did what the context is. This is simply ascribed to me by these so-called analysts. Nevertheless, this analyst named Leoni says, "Matt Slick is afraid of true spiritual government." Again, these analysts make uninformed statements that border on attempted mind reading. Why do they do this? Can they not simply address the issues at hand instead of attacking the person?
    2. Leoni states in her short 127 word response on Eric's website that I am obviously not living the doctrine of Christ. Again, no documentation is presented to verify this claim. There is no comparison of what I write with Scripture. All we get is another empty assertion.
  8. "Matt Slick says: "truth is that which conforms to reality." (text quote from Paltalk room Christian Doctrine Christian Fellowship)"
    1. I have been known to say exactly what is quoted by this analyst called Maria. Of course, the context is vitally important and it has been omitted. Typically, I make this statement when debating atheists who do not recognize biblical theology and who reject biblical statements that I make to them and others about Jesus being the way, the truth, and the life (John 14:6). It is during these discussions with atheists that the nature of truth and reality is often the topic. Therefore, in an attempt to reach them I often say, "Truth is that which conforms to reality." From there I build a case for God's existence, sometimes using the Transcendental Argument that deals with the nature of logical absolutes as a proof for God's existence. This is why the context is so important and the two small paragraphs that Maria gives contain no context. Instead, my comment is then compared to a statement where the the "apostle Eric" says that truth is manifested through Jesus. This is an unfortunate mistake on Maria's part that she would ignore the context of the statement uttered and try and use it against me.
    2. Maria goes on to take things out of context and misapply them. She says, "Not only do we see that this would be researcher admits to weak doctrine, but he used the word 'my' three times in that one sentence. This shows clearly that he is the center of his own reality and not Jesus Christ. The apostle Eric puts the reality of truth in God."
    3. Obviously, she has selected a comment out of context that does not represent my position. God is the center of my reality, my biblical, Judeo-Christian presuppositional reality." This is another improper use of a quote on her part and a further demonstration of the poor methods of analysis used by these "researchers." With such methodology can we honestly believe that they know how to rightly divide God's word? I think not. And it is apparent that since they have not demonstrated a very good method of cross-examination, their conclusions are not to be trusted.
  9. "I believe in reformed theology. But I am absolutely convinced I could be wrong. I am just too stupid to believe anything else." Matt Slick, 9:10 pm, on 30 August 2002, Paltalk Room: Christian Doctrine Christian Fellowship
    1. Again, we see something taken out of context. This analyst called JoAnne goes on to say that because of this quote I am double minded, have false humility, am ignorant, carnal minded, weary, spiritually impoverished, and confused. She goes on to say that Christ does not produce these fruits that we see in me. She then says, "If he is wrong (and he is) he is leading thousands to their spiritual death," and accuses me of guile and hypocrisy. Again we see more ad hominem attacks and out of context statements.
      Let me set the record straight. I am a believer in reformed theology. Many times on the paltalk discussion forums we Christians have debates about certain aspects of reformed theology. Instead of trying to appear like some authoritian Doctrine Czar, I say "I am absolutely convinced I'm right. I'm also absolutely convinced that could be wrong." In other words, I'm simply trying to be gracious to others and say that I believe what I believe, but it is certainly possible that I could be wrong about some of it. (Notice that the first half of the quote is omitted.) I suspect that if I had stated that I knew for a fact I was right about everything I believe, I would have been accused of arrogance.
    2. As far as me saying "I am just too stupid to believe anything else," that is just another way of trying to be gracious to others and show humility (am I not humble for saying that?) So, sometimes I say "I am just too stupid to believe anything else." It is not, however, a qualification to say that I am double minded, or ignorant, or confused, etc. On the contrary, neither accusation holds since I know what it is I believe and why.
    3. It is apparent that the followers of the apostle Eric like to lurk in chat rooms listening to me, waiting for me to say anything that they can use out of context in order to defame my character. These tactics are most used by those lost in cults who also display the exact same kind of response to their errors being exposed.
  10. "Matt says that says Eric is not 'with it' intellectually" (recorded quote from Matt in his Paltalk room, Sep 1, 2002).
    1. Again, things taken out of context rarely prove anything. Maria is the author of the comments made following this statement where she again attacks my character, accusing me of a desire for intellectual superiority and that I am being fed by Satan. We see here more grandiose claims without proof. It is a shame that poor logic, bad research, and statements taken out of context are used to bolster their "apostle" and his teaching. I am sure there will be more to come.

 

Conclusion and a challenge to Eric and/or his followers

In conclusion, I would simply like to say that after reading through these 30 responses by the "analysts" of the Apostle Eric's website, nothing of any consequence or substance has been offered. Comments were taken out of context, mind reading attempts were made, my character was attacked, and they used faulty logic repeatedly.

In my opinion, these so-called analysts for the apostle Eric could not argue their way out of a wet paper heresy. But their comments and reasoning are sufficient to satisfy Eric --which is why their material is placed on his web site.

A challenge: 1 Peter 3:15 is a command to Christians to give a defense, a reason for the faith that lies within you. Therefore, I take this opportunity to publicly challenge the "apostle Eric," and any of his representatives, to a debate on the the issues concerning Christ, the substitutionary atonement, the nature and requirement of tongues, the nature of God, and/or the nature of salvation.

I would be happy to fly out to his location and met him under standard debate conditions. If that is not possible, I propose a recorded verbal debate Paltalk (www.paltalk.com) where he can then defend his position.

I do not believe that the "apostle Eric vonAnderseck" will accept my challenge. I suspect that he will probably dismiss it with an insult or two and say that it is a waste of time to debate with someone who is lost or someone who is a servant of the devil or something like that. Nevertheless, I offer the challenge to let the Word of God be the test of truth.

(Points 1-10 and 11-20.)

 

 

 

 
 
CARM ison